the LSAT writers are really awful. I can't be the only person who noticed this was question number 11. Coming across this difficult and confusing of a question would have been so demoralizing and distracting early on. If the parallel question is lower in number, is that an indicator that we ought to expect to be able to abstract the flaw without mapping it out? #help
Have been doing amazing in all other sections - Can't at all wrap my head around how it's an "obvious" hypothesis that the owner stole the diamonds. We've been taught the entire curriculum not to supply outside assumptions into the argument, and that seems to be what we did to the stimulus in-order to draw similarities to answer choice A. I can't see why it isn't D other than for the fact that the hypothesis in answer choice D is "plausible" - yet the hypothesis in D seems anything but plausible to me when there can be hundreds of other reasons why her cavities formed that way, and similarly, why it isn't plausible that the thief did in-fact just wear gloves.
Is it true that in Parallel/Analogy Qs, the correct AC will match the strength of the stimulus? For example if the conclusion in the stimulus says "must" like it does here, any answer choice that says "probably" or "likely" can be confidently eliminated on shallow dip because an argument that results in a "must" claim cannot be similar in form to an argument that results in a probabilistic claim?
Was I the only one who did not consider that Tannisch could've taken it? My thought was that the thief simply only touched the diamond, which still led to the right answer because only A matched in form at all.
Anybody else misread D completely? I thought it was saying that because she had cavities she has to chew on the side with cavities and I was like "huh? If you have cavities wouldn't you want to use the other side to avoid it hurting?" I wouldn've still marked it as wrong even if it said right because I would have thought it was prescriptively saying to use the other side of your mouth to avoid it hurting.
I Idont think I have ever been as shocked that D wasn't the right answer but my dyslexic ass mixed up right and left in the conclusion so naturally D isn't the right answer.
I was able to get rid of D for having a comparative claim in the conclusion. But you said if D had said the "right side", than it would have been correct. So, the conlcusion type isn't necc. a good way to eliminate? Does the flaw in the reasoning hold more weight than the structure of the argument?
Many Thanks!!
7
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
41 comments
I've done this question before too!!! HELP
Can someone please share their strategy for these questions? I can't find anything that works for the life of me. #help
Missed the "not" in answer choice A) and was thrown for a loop
we are soooo backkkk
Yes, let's keep this up!
if an AC has "not", and stimulus doesnt, does it matter?
Guys i thinkkkkkk im getting it ARE WE BACK?
ngl iv been crushing these.... but just in 5x the amount of time i need to do it in lol... i get so caught up
This question was not it.....
Is it valid to see that only A had the word "MUST" which was in the stimulus? So the must was matching making it most similar?
the LSAT writers are really awful. I can't be the only person who noticed this was question number 11. Coming across this difficult and confusing of a question would have been so demoralizing and distracting early on. If the parallel question is lower in number, is that an indicator that we ought to expect to be able to abstract the flaw without mapping it out? #help
I was doing great on this section until this question. Just happened to be the one you can't discern the answer from using the shape of the argument.
Have been doing amazing in all other sections - Can't at all wrap my head around how it's an "obvious" hypothesis that the owner stole the diamonds. We've been taught the entire curriculum not to supply outside assumptions into the argument, and that seems to be what we did to the stimulus in-order to draw similarities to answer choice A. I can't see why it isn't D other than for the fact that the hypothesis in answer choice D is "plausible" - yet the hypothesis in D seems anything but plausible to me when there can be hundreds of other reasons why her cavities formed that way, and similarly, why it isn't plausible that the thief did in-fact just wear gloves.
lol i was thinking if Mr. T is the owner he wouldn't have been the thief of something from his own property
Is it true that in Parallel/Analogy Qs, the correct AC will match the strength of the stimulus? For example if the conclusion in the stimulus says "must" like it does here, any answer choice that says "probably" or "likely" can be confidently eliminated on shallow dip because an argument that results in a "must" claim cannot be similar in form to an argument that results in a probabilistic claim?
#help
What really helped me for this one was looking out for the "must have" / "must not have"
Stimulus and correct AC both discount a possible cause of their respective incidents without evidence.
Stimulus: that Mr. T stole.
AC: That cafeteria food was responsible for the illness.
Got it right, but at what cost
Was I the only one who did not consider that Tannisch could've taken it? My thought was that the thief simply only touched the diamond, which still led to the right answer because only A matched in form at all.
I am finally getting used to reading the patterns quickly, I feel like Neo seeing into the Matrix!
Anybody else misread D completely? I thought it was saying that because she had cavities she has to chew on the side with cavities and I was like "huh? If you have cavities wouldn't you want to use the other side to avoid it hurting?" I wouldn've still marked it as wrong even if it said right because I would have thought it was prescriptively saying to use the other side of your mouth to avoid it hurting.
First time I had it right originally then switched to the trap answer in BR lol
I like the questions with less words
I Idont think I have ever been as shocked that D wasn't the right answer but my dyslexic ass mixed up right and left in the conclusion so naturally D isn't the right answer.
I was able to get rid of D for having a comparative claim in the conclusion. But you said if D had said the "right side", than it would have been correct. So, the conlcusion type isn't necc. a good way to eliminate? Does the flaw in the reasoning hold more weight than the structure of the argument?
Many Thanks!!