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 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 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
Does anyone subscribe to the philosophy of not changing their answers on blind review? I got it right on my first pass but second guessed myself and got it wrong on the blind review...I am a classic overthinker however.
Hi, if the author stated in his conclusion something along the lines of "If I trade my car for a minivan, then I will ensure I will not get into an accident," would C (misinterprets evidence that a result is likely as evidence that the result is certain) be right in that case? Thanks!
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!
Wish me luck! This second question I saw difficulty with understanding the answer choices. My brain falters when the logic falters, but turning that into answers is gonna be key here!
0
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!
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.
39 comments
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 am not understanding how to apply what we've learned to assist us in answering LSAT questions like this
I instinctually wanted to pick the correct answer, but the previous lessons gave me tunnel vision. Oops!
got it correct... yessssssss
Very common logic error one hears in daily life.
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 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.
doubted my first choice, so I chose C and and then got it right in the blind review when I went with my first choice. I AM MY OWN DEMISE. T_T
[This comment was deleted.]
[This comment was deleted.]
Happy i got it right on my first instincts, and took my time on this one and did not double guess my instincts like i did on my first question.
does using the WAJ save your notes automatically? thanks!
This was a very helpful explanation. Thank you!
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
Does anyone subscribe to the philosophy of not changing their answers on blind review? I got it right on my first pass but second guessed myself and got it wrong on the blind review...I am a classic overthinker however.
How do I stop double guessing and just trust my initial predictions
I feel attacked by the Nemo comment.
Yay! I got this one right!
Hi, if the author stated in his conclusion something along the lines of "If I trade my car for a minivan, then I will ensure I will not get into an accident," would C (misinterprets evidence that a result is likely as evidence that the result is certain) be right in that case? Thanks!
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!
The answer choices threw me off. I don't understand that language. 1/2
Ouch 0 for 2! But i've only been at it for three days so of course!
I've drilled this question so many times I'm about to buy a motorcycle
Wish me luck! This second question I saw difficulty with understanding the answer choices. My brain falters when the logic falters, but turning that into answers is gonna be key here!