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?
@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.
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!
@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.
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.
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!
We'd still have a problem with the part saying "evidence that a result is likely." The evidence doesn't establish that avoidance of an accident is likely -- we know there's a correlation between accident rate and type of car, but that doesn't suggest that someone's chance of getting into an accident will change by switching cars.
@Kevin_Lin Hi Kevin, I chose the correct answer on this using my gut, however I'm lost on the falsity in the logic for Answer Choice D. The logic of the argument seem to be:
Minivans or Larger Sedan -> Lower Risk of Accident
Drive a Minivan -> Lower Risk of Accident
Using Lawgic, at what point does the logic fall apart? Or should I simply seek and destroy the argument using the correct answer choice?
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.
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.
45 comments
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
this is such a breathe of fresh air from conditional logic structured questions
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.
I got this right but way over time limit :/
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
@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.
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.
@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.
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
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.
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
Don’t be afraid to get some wrong, thats what practice is for, you learn better when you make mistakes rather than getting everything right.
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!
We'd still have a problem with the part saying "evidence that a result is likely." The evidence doesn't establish that avoidance of an accident is likely -- we know there's a correlation between accident rate and type of car, but that doesn't suggest that someone's chance of getting into an accident will change by switching cars.
@Kevin_Lin Hi Kevin, I chose the correct answer on this using my gut, however I'm lost on the falsity in the logic for Answer Choice D. The logic of the argument seem to be:
Minivans or Larger Sedan -> Lower Risk of Accident
Drive a Minivan -> Lower Risk of Accident
Using Lawgic, at what point does the logic fall apart? Or should I simply seek and destroy the argument using the correct answer choice?
@esheeler This question doesn't involve conditional reasoning, so we shouldn't be thinking about diagraming it in Lawgic.
@Kevin_Lin Thank you! After writing the previous comment, I reviewed some of the material in this course closer and found that as well. Thanks again!
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.