Down = be insanely skeptical of the answer choices; answer choices should have low burden of proof based on stimulus & should be able to match it to specific parts of the stimulus
Up = be insanely skeptical of the stimulus; answer choice should have huge effect on the strength of the stimulus's argument
main problem with this kind of typology that I have is that I don't really think NAs belong to the latter group, the choice reflects less an impact on the stimulus than a kind of MBT equivalent.
That's a fair view; NA is arguably more of a hybrid. You can think of it as a MBT. You can also think of it as similar to weaken in that the negation of the correct answer will weaken the argument. So in that sense, the impact of the answer is strong (the impact of the negation of an NA affects the argument significantly by showing that the premise doesn't prove the conclusion).
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!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
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.
3 comments
so, what I gathered:
Down = be insanely skeptical of the answer choices; answer choices should have low burden of proof based on stimulus & should be able to match it to specific parts of the stimulus
Up = be insanely skeptical of the stimulus; answer choice should have huge effect on the strength of the stimulus's argument
main problem with this kind of typology that I have is that I don't really think NAs belong to the latter group, the choice reflects less an impact on the stimulus than a kind of MBT equivalent.
I was thinking the same thing about NA, shouldnt they must be true so 'down' then? #help
That's a fair view; NA is arguably more of a hybrid. You can think of it as a MBT. You can also think of it as similar to weaken in that the negation of the correct answer will weaken the argument. So in that sense, the impact of the answer is strong (the impact of the negation of an NA affects the argument significantly by showing that the premise doesn't prove the conclusion).