@mibuch Here, you can just try to apply sufficiency and necessity and see that it's not a problem in that category. It removes an answer choice I otherwise would have picked if I didn't have a lesson on sufficiency and necessity. We still have yet to learn hypothesis and coorelation and causation, i'm expecting this to set up the coming lessons.
I didn't trust my initial instinct and chose a different answer, on my blind review, I knew my first instinct was the actual correct answer. Definitely need to learn to trust myself!
I confess that I felt like B and C REALLY felt like the correct answers and the simplest one actually being correct and me not catching on seems like a failing I need to correct
@Sameer_Ahamad But they aren't making a conditional statement in the argument, so there isn't a sufficient or necessary condition. They're just saying they read an article that said that minivans and sedans get in less accidents, so they are going to get a minivan to lower their chances of an accident. That's mistaking correlation for causation. Similar logical error in principle, but not in technicality.
@thr107 Actually, it's very possible. The correlation to cause fallacy is very common on the LSAT, and when you see enough examples of it and understand how it works, then you'll almost immediately spot it after understanding the argument in this stimulus.
Also, just to be clear, no one should be drawing anything on scratch paper for a question like this. You'll often see visuals drawn out for explanations, but that's just for the purpose of explanations. It's supposed to help people understand what's going on in the question. By the time you take the test, you'll already understand the issue and there's no reason to draw anything out to understand what a correlation is and why it doesn't prove causation.
@thr107 'm not saying to take my word for it, but something I'm gathering is a lot of this "Lawgic" is just getting you to read sentences a certain way.
Based on the explanation, you can actually conclude that the driver in this scenario will have a higher chance of getting into an accident. Why? Because the sports car is currently built to suit the way the driver drives which is reckless. If he switched to the minivan, then the car would not suit that driving style. Resulting in a higher chance of the car not being able to be controlled while driving recklessly.
I dont understand how to use the blind review. It did not explain how to use it? Am I supposed to look at the right answer and then explain why I think I got it wrong? Im so confused, 7Sage did not explain how to use it
Blind review is when the system has already marked your test and it gives you another chance to go back to the wrong answer questions, try and solve it again without the time-restraints.
Hello, I am a little confused. I chose answer D, could someone explain why stating "trading in his car for a minivan would lower his accident risk" is not a sufficient necessary? Is it because it is not factual, like "trading in my minivan means it would definitely lower risk?"Thanks!
Hi there! Based on my understanding your thinking is correct. Having a minivan/larger sedan doesn't guarantee you won't get into an accident, just like having a sportscar doesn't guarantee you will get into an accident so there's no sufficient necessary.
If it were a sufficient necessary it would be stated like this: If one drives a sports car, one will get into an accident. My friend got into an accident. So, my friend drives a sports car.
Meaning if one thing happens then this must be true. I hope that helps!
Correct me if i'm wrong but in your example the possibility of getting in to an accident in some form of other vehicle hasn't been ruled out, so just because your friend got into an accident doesn't mean he was in a sports car.
Im surprised this is ranked a 3/5, this seems like a fairly easy one? I've seen a few that are ranked as difficult that seem to be pretty easy, so kind of questioning the "Difficulty" ranking (If I sound arrogant to any readers, just know that there are most certainly questions I've gotten wrong that you got right)
@StarBrooks I use Word to organize with headers. I note the PT123.S2.Q21, add screenshot. Note the question labels.
I explain my reasoning for my answer choice while it is still fresh in my mind, and why it was wrong. I then describe the correct answer and where I went wrong.
Here is exactly what I have for this question:
Answered D, then C. Both wrong.
Did not take the time to properly examine. Felt from gut it looked like sufficient from necessary and more or less guessed from it.
There is no sufficient/necessary claim made, deriving the wrong Lawgic. There was no definitive statements that could have been construed into Lawgic.
For answer C it is suggesting something like most by saying likely as certain, whereas in the passage the speaker is not saying that the other is for sure certain. Certain does not match likely.
The answer A is correct because it is a cause/correlation error.
While mini vans/larger sedans correlate with lower accidents, they do not cause lower accidents. Switching to a mini van/large sedan will not suddenly cause a drive to be in lower accidents.
The video explanations are great and so helpful for the LSAT qs. I might be just fresh off the logic flaw questions and got caught off guard by this one, but if answer choice C ended with likely and not certain would that be a correct answer choice?
54 comments
I instinctually wanted to pick the correct answer, but the previous lessons gave me tunnel vision. Oops!
this is such a breathe of fresh air from conditional logic structured questions
Ouch 0 for 2! But i've only been at it for three days so of course!
I am not understanding how to apply what we've learned to assist us in answering LSAT questions like this
@mibuch Hang in there, I've been feeling the same way too. I think it'll click once we get further along in the LR curriculum.
@mibuch Here, you can just try to apply sufficiency and necessity and see that it's not a problem in that category. It removes an answer choice I otherwise would have picked if I didn't have a lesson on sufficiency and necessity. We still have yet to learn hypothesis and coorelation and causation, i'm expecting this to set up the coming lessons.
kinda fishy, nice
I didn't trust my initial instinct and chose a different answer, on my blind review, I knew my first instinct was the actual correct answer. Definitely need to learn to trust myself!
I've drilled this question so many times I'm about to buy a motorcycle
Happy about this one, understood it pretty fast
I feel attacked by the Nemo comment.
Got it wrong but tbf, the correct answer choice was one I was going back and forth on. Ugh.
I confess that I felt like B and C REALLY felt like the correct answers and the simplest one actually being correct and me not catching on seems like a failing I need to correct
I chose D.
Drive recklessly --> Accident.
Premises: Minivans and large sedans have a lower accident rate.
Conclusion: Owning a minivan or a large sedan would lower the accident rate.
They think that owning a different car would lower the rate, but that's just a necessity. It's sufficient (drive recklessly) that can lower the rate.
@Sameer_Ahamad I did the same thing
@Sameer_Ahamad But they aren't making a conditional statement in the argument, so there isn't a sufficient or necessary condition. They're just saying they read an article that said that minivans and sedans get in less accidents, so they are going to get a minivan to lower their chances of an accident. That's mistaking correlation for causation. Similar logical error in principle, but not in technicality.
[This comment was deleted.]
Yay! I got this one right!
2 for 2 so far!
Answering in 47 seconds is impossible if you apply any of the strategies taught here. One might as well guess.
@thr107 Actually, it's very possible. The correlation to cause fallacy is very common on the LSAT, and when you see enough examples of it and understand how it works, then you'll almost immediately spot it after understanding the argument in this stimulus.
Also, just to be clear, no one should be drawing anything on scratch paper for a question like this. You'll often see visuals drawn out for explanations, but that's just for the purpose of explanations. It's supposed to help people understand what's going on in the question. By the time you take the test, you'll already understand the issue and there's no reason to draw anything out to understand what a correlation is and why it doesn't prove causation.
@thr107 'm not saying to take my word for it, but something I'm gathering is a lot of this "Lawgic" is just getting you to read sentences a certain way.
Based on the explanation, you can actually conclude that the driver in this scenario will have a higher chance of getting into an accident. Why? Because the sports car is currently built to suit the way the driver drives which is reckless. If he switched to the minivan, then the car would not suit that driving style. Resulting in a higher chance of the car not being able to be controlled while driving recklessly.
I dont understand how to use the blind review. It did not explain how to use it? Am I supposed to look at the right answer and then explain why I think I got it wrong? Im so confused, 7Sage did not explain how to use it
Blind review is when the system has already marked your test and it gives you another chance to go back to the wrong answer questions, try and solve it again without the time-restraints.
Hello, I am a little confused. I chose answer D, could someone explain why stating "trading in his car for a minivan would lower his accident risk" is not a sufficient necessary? Is it because it is not factual, like "trading in my minivan means it would definitely lower risk?"Thanks!
Hi there! Based on my understanding your thinking is correct. Having a minivan/larger sedan doesn't guarantee you won't get into an accident, just like having a sportscar doesn't guarantee you will get into an accident so there's no sufficient necessary.
If it were a sufficient necessary it would be stated like this: If one drives a sports car, one will get into an accident. My friend got into an accident. So, my friend drives a sports car.
Meaning if one thing happens then this must be true. I hope that helps!
This helped clear it up for me. Thank you!
Correct me if i'm wrong but in your example the possibility of getting in to an accident in some form of other vehicle hasn't been ruled out, so just because your friend got into an accident doesn't mean he was in a sports car.
Im surprised this is ranked a 3/5, this seems like a fairly easy one? I've seen a few that are ranked as difficult that seem to be pretty easy, so kind of questioning the "Difficulty" ranking (If I sound arrogant to any readers, just know that there are most certainly questions I've gotten wrong that you got right)
This one was quick, the past few questions on correlation and causation made this one stick easier.
what are some wrong answer journal notes that you guys keep? I want to start one, just to reread right before or after I started studying everyday
@StarBrooks I use Word to organize with headers. I note the PT123.S2.Q21, add screenshot. Note the question labels.
I explain my reasoning for my answer choice while it is still fresh in my mind, and why it was wrong. I then describe the correct answer and where I went wrong.
Here is exactly what I have for this question:
Answered D, then C. Both wrong.
Did not take the time to properly examine. Felt from gut it looked like sufficient from necessary and more or less guessed from it.
There is no sufficient/necessary claim made, deriving the wrong Lawgic. There was no definitive statements that could have been construed into Lawgic.
For answer C it is suggesting something like most by saying likely as certain, whereas in the passage the speaker is not saying that the other is for sure certain. Certain does not match likely.
The answer A is correct because it is a cause/correlation error.
While mini vans/larger sedans correlate with lower accidents, they do not cause lower accidents. Switching to a mini van/large sedan will not suddenly cause a drive to be in lower accidents.
The video explanations are great and so helpful for the LSAT qs. I might be just fresh off the logic flaw questions and got caught off guard by this one, but if answer choice C ended with likely and not certain would that be a correct answer choice?
@KK411 this is a flaw question, you will learn more tricks once you get there
I got this right but way over time limit :/
got it correct... yessssssss