Question 37 doesn't make any sense to try and guess without context. How are we supposed to know that "Which one of the following situations violates the food labeling regulation?" means it is a Must Be False stem?
I really like these types of exercises. They're very useful because how can you expect to get a question right if you don't know what you're looking for? For those looking for further practice, open a practice test and just read the question stems (not the stimulus) and decide what type of questions they are.
"Which one of the following situations violates the food labeling regulation?".
First, what's our goal? To find the answer choice that violates the reasoning, that I am assuming is in the stimulus. Okay, brain, so we think it is either must be True/false, weakens, or Principle. Weakens we can get rid of because it's not asking us to invalidate the food labeling regulation's logic, but its asking for us to find an example. Finally, principle is looking for a generalized explanation that is being violated, but we want a specific situation. Therefore, it has to be Must Be False. All of the other types of reasoning don't accomplish these goals, so it can't be anything else.
I missed this one too, at first, but I think it boils down to the word violates.
Which one of the following situations violates the food labeling regulation?
If the answer choice violates a stated regulation above, then it doesn't weaken it or call it into question, it completely defies the argument. So if the stimulus is taken as truth, then the correct answer choice cannot be possible in the same world that we're given. In other words, it must be false.
@MGonz6 There is also a Mixed 2 version of this if you haven’t done it. Go to the top of the screen -> click study -> click lesson library. Then it should be after the first version of this drill
@DisneyFour based on the stimulus about the food labeling regulation it will offer 4/5 choices that could comply with the regulation.One choice will describe a situation that breaks the rule. If a situation violates the regulation, then it must be false that the regulation was followed properly in this instance.
SA and PSA differ in how close to valid they make the conclusion. A PSA AC just needs to get close. A SA AC needs to get to 100% validity. So a SA question stem, will essentially ask "which of the following ACs justifies the conclusion". In contrast a PSA question stem will appear as "which of the following most justifies the conclusion" Notice how the PSA gives you a bit of wiggle room whilst the SA gives you none?
Strengthen and MSS questions are fundamentally different in what they are asking you to do. In a MSS question, you are asked to assume that all the premises given in the stimulus are true. From this assumption, which AC can be concluded. In a strengthen question, the stimulus contains a full argument. The question is asking for an AC that if added as a premise would make the argument's conclusion closer to being valid. In other words, in a MSS question, you are asked to find a conclusion for the stimulus. In a strengthening question, you are asked to find a premise for the stimulus.
If you keep in mind what each question stem is asking you to do, it becomes much easier to distinguish between them.
I got them all right except for Q37 - I thought it was Principle, turns out to be MBF. Just the question stem was a bit odd to me, wasn't like the others.
Regarding #9, I think it would be determined by the answer choices. The approach of reasoning down from the stimulus would be the same. If answer choices were very strongly worded with universal statements, it would likely be a principle question. More nuanced and less abstract choices would suggest an MSS question. Either way, the task of finding a single answer choice which aligns with the stimulus and eliminating four others that go against or do not impact the stimulus would be the same.
Regarding #37, the question stem asks to identify from the following situations. Situations are not usually principles, depending on how they are worded. Again, I think the answer choices would dictate your response and the approach would overall be almost the same. On reading the q stem, I expected some list of rules in the stimulus that wasn't an argument and then the answer choices to be some hypothetical situations that were quite mundane, e.g. "A manufacturer cannot label cans from different batches with the same identifying number."
In any case, the task at hand is to accept the stimulus as true and then find the one single answer choice that would break any one of those rules. That is, find four answer choices that could be true and eliminate them. Find one that is definitely and will always be false and you are set.
89 comments
This quiz served as an important reminder that there are a ridiculous number of question types.
5/5 timed no BR.
HSAHFASF
for folks looking for flashcards with 7 sage Q Stem labels: https://quizlet.com/140131849/logical-reasoning-question-stems-flash-cards/
Thank you！ Very helpful!
Anyone else get snagged by question 37? "Which one of the following situations violates the food labeling regulation?"
yes
yes sir
Question 37 doesn't make any sense to try and guess without context. How are we supposed to know that "Which one of the following situations violates the food labeling regulation?" means it is a Must Be False stem?
I really like these types of exercises. They're very useful because how can you expect to get a question right if you don't know what you're looking for? For those looking for further practice, open a practice test and just read the question stems (not the stimulus) and decide what type of questions they are.
45/46 - stumped by #37
@benfikhman ^ can someone please explain 37
question 37 confused me.
@Veebeelee seconding this #help
@mad
Okay, I am here to (Try to) explain.
"Which one of the following situations violates the food labeling regulation?".
First, what's our goal? To find the answer choice that violates the reasoning, that I am assuming is in the stimulus. Okay, brain, so we think it is either must be True/false, weakens, or Principle. Weakens we can get rid of because it's not asking us to invalidate the food labeling regulation's logic, but its asking for us to find an example. Finally, principle is looking for a generalized explanation that is being violated, but we want a specific situation. Therefore, it has to be Must Be False. All of the other types of reasoning don't accomplish these goals, so it can't be anything else.
@Veebeelee yeah, it needed more context. I assumed we were applying a principle, but we weren't given any indication in either direction.
Can someone explain why #37 is a MBF? #help
I would think that this answer would be more obvious had we been given the stimulus along with the question stem.
I missed this one too, at first, but I think it boils down to the word violates.
Which one of the following situations violates the food labeling regulation?
If the answer choice violates a stated regulation above, then it doesn't weaken it or call it into question, it completely defies the argument. So if the stimulus is taken as truth, then the correct answer choice cannot be possible in the same world that we're given. In other words, it must be false.
This was really helpful as a review of the question types in LR. Thank you!
I love these I feel like they should be incorporate way more to understand and recognize better.
is there more of these out there that I can do to practice my recognition of the stems? I loved this activity
@MGonz6 There is also a Mixed 2 version of this if you haven’t done it. Go to the top of the screen -> click study -> click lesson library. Then it should be after the first version of this drill
The test isn't going to cook me, I'm going to cook it 😎 🔥
I'm really bad at this
can someone explain 37?
@DisneyFour based on the stimulus about the food labeling regulation it will offer 4/5 choices that could comply with the regulation.One choice will describe a situation that breaks the rule. If a situation violates the regulation, then it must be false that the regulation was followed properly in this instance.
Can anyone explain why Question 37 "Which one of the following situations violates the food labeling regulation?" is MBF and not Rule-Application?
getting faster and more accurate lfg!
Yikes!! Really happy for the reminder to go back over this stuff. Thanks!!!
PSA/SA questions and Strengthen/MSS always trip me up. Anybody have any recommendations on how to differentiate the two consistently?
#help (Added by Admin)
SA and PSA differ in how close to valid they make the conclusion. A PSA AC just needs to get close. A SA AC needs to get to 100% validity. So a SA question stem, will essentially ask "which of the following ACs justifies the conclusion". In contrast a PSA question stem will appear as "which of the following most justifies the conclusion" Notice how the PSA gives you a bit of wiggle room whilst the SA gives you none?
Strengthen and MSS questions are fundamentally different in what they are asking you to do. In a MSS question, you are asked to assume that all the premises given in the stimulus are true. From this assumption, which AC can be concluded. In a strengthen question, the stimulus contains a full argument. The question is asking for an AC that if added as a premise would make the argument's conclusion closer to being valid. In other words, in a MSS question, you are asked to find a conclusion for the stimulus. In a strengthening question, you are asked to find a premise for the stimulus.
If you keep in mind what each question stem is asking you to do, it becomes much easier to distinguish between them.
I got them all right except for Q37 - I thought it was Principle, turns out to be MBF. Just the question stem was a bit odd to me, wasn't like the others.
42/46 not bad. lets roll.
@Gregmjr Same!
would love a way to flag and come back to specific questions!
#9 and #37, aren't they principle question? I'm confused...
Regarding #9, I think it would be determined by the answer choices. The approach of reasoning down from the stimulus would be the same. If answer choices were very strongly worded with universal statements, it would likely be a principle question. More nuanced and less abstract choices would suggest an MSS question. Either way, the task of finding a single answer choice which aligns with the stimulus and eliminating four others that go against or do not impact the stimulus would be the same.
Regarding #37, the question stem asks to identify from the following situations. Situations are not usually principles, depending on how they are worded. Again, I think the answer choices would dictate your response and the approach would overall be almost the same. On reading the q stem, I expected some list of rules in the stimulus that wasn't an argument and then the answer choices to be some hypothetical situations that were quite mundane, e.g. "A manufacturer cannot label cans from different batches with the same identifying number."
In any case, the task at hand is to accept the stimulus as true and then find the one single answer choice that would break any one of those rules. That is, find four answer choices that could be true and eliminate them. Find one that is definitely and will always be false and you are set.
I thought so too!
^ Same question, if these aren't principle questions, what would a principle question look like please. Thank you!
Same question here - going to go review the MBT/MBF, MSS, and Principle sections I suppose
what is argument part questions again?
33/46. Number 7 was tricky