@dancingqueen138 "which one (proposition) is best illustrated" tells us that we are looking for a conclusion in the answer choices that is supported (illustrated) by the stimulus. "which one is best" tells us that we aren't looking for an air-tight valid conclusion, but rather which one is the best fit. Both of these point combined end up pointing us in the most strongly supported direction.
^(I was stumped by this one too but this is how I'm thinking about it on review)
@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.
@adzballroom Someone else can correct me if I am wrong but I believe 46 is SA (instead of NA) because it doesn't say the argument's conclusion relies on this assumption. If (insert answer choice) is assumed then the conclusion will follow logically, but it isn't necessary to assume (insert answer choice). Another alternate answer choice not in our A-E selection could suffice whereas in NA that is not the case.
SA introduces an assumption that can absolutely propel the argument to the finish line but isn't necessarily required. NA prompts would say something along the lines of "depends" or "requires," - essentially anything that indicates that the argument would fall apart without it.
I like to think about it like this:
In SA, the correct AC satisfies the argument (usually a stand-out, potentially overkill statement). In NA, the correct AC is absolutely necessary for the argument to remain intact, so it could end up being on the weaker end of the spectrum (or not, just depends on the other ACs).
"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.
@schusterkarli487 most of the NA question stems will say the argument REQUIRES this assumption while the SA question stems will say the conclusion follows logically with this assumption
You might want to go back through the curriculum for a review but in short, weaken means you pick the answer that punches the argument in the face. Descriptive weakening means you pick the answer that describes how the argument should be punched in the face
Not gonna lie, I was scared they were gonna quiz us on every type of LR question like in the individual drills for each section. 🥲 Glad it's just the question stems because I never move past a quiz or drills until I am happy with my score. Ahhh!
In other words, I appreciate the ultimate LR quiz being left to our choice in doing whenever in the drills/practice (which I will do after doing RC section). 😅
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?
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
85 comments
How is #9 most strongly supported?
@dancingqueen138 "which one (proposition) is best illustrated" tells us that we are looking for a conclusion in the answer choices that is supported (illustrated) by the stimulus. "which one is best" tells us that we aren't looking for an air-tight valid conclusion, but rather which one is the best fit. Both of these point combined end up pointing us in the most strongly supported direction.
^(I was stumped by this one too but this is how I'm thinking about it on review)
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 46 pls
@adzballroom Someone else can correct me if I am wrong but I believe 46 is SA (instead of NA) because it doesn't say the argument's conclusion relies on this assumption. If (insert answer choice) is assumed then the conclusion will follow logically, but it isn't necessary to assume (insert answer choice). Another alternate answer choice not in our A-E selection could suffice whereas in NA that is not the case.
@adzballroom SA vs. NA
SA introduces an assumption that can absolutely propel the argument to the finish line but isn't necessarily required. NA prompts would say something along the lines of "depends" or "requires," - essentially anything that indicates that the argument would fall apart without it.
I like to think about it like this:
In SA, the correct AC satisfies the argument (usually a stand-out, potentially overkill statement). In NA, the correct AC is absolutely necessary for the argument to remain intact, so it could end up being on the weaker end of the spectrum (or not, just depends on the other ACs).
45/46 - stumped by #37
@benfikhman ^ can someone please explain 37
This was really helpful as a review of the question types in LR. Thank you!
Can anyone explain why Question 37 "Which one of the following situations violates the food labeling regulation?" is MBF and not Rule-Application?
42/46 not bad. lets roll.
@Gregmjr Same!
41/45
33/46. Number 7 was tricky
32/46- in 6 min
I love these I feel like they should be incorporate way more to understand and recognize better.
question 37 confused me.
@Veebeelee seconding this #help
@LSATurd
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.
Whats the difference between sufficient assumption and necessary assumption questions? I am struggling?
@schusterkarli487 most of the NA question stems will say the argument REQUIRES this assumption while the SA question stems will say the conclusion follows logically with this assumption
I'm confused. What's the difference between 'weaken' and 'descriptive weaken/flaw'??
You might want to go back through the curriculum for a review but in short, weaken means you pick the answer that punches the argument in the face. Descriptive weakening means you pick the answer that describes how the argument should be punched in the face
would love a way to flag and come back to specific questions!
Not gonna lie, I was scared they were gonna quiz us on every type of LR question like in the individual drills for each section. 🥲 Glad it's just the question stems because I never move past a quiz or drills until I am happy with my score. Ahhh!
In other words, I appreciate the ultimate LR quiz being left to our choice in doing whenever in the drills/practice (which I will do after doing RC section). 😅
Never saw "Must be False" on the CC
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?
19.5% Flaw/Descriptive Weakening
does this mean we are going to see the most of these questions on LR section?
@mahekmallik01148 depends if this sample of 46 was randomly selected lol.
Anyone else get snagged by question 37? "Which one of the following situations violates the food labeling regulation?"
yes
yes sir
#help. What would a principle question stem look like as opposed to an SA/PSA question stem?
getting faster and more accurate lfg!
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!
I'm really bad at this