Got it right, but man, it took me forever to get there, 8 mins. Sure, I haven't actually sat down and studied in months (a bad habit I have, but I also work paving highways so I am exhausted most days), I also realized that I cannot be in a room with a TV blaring and studying these. I had to constantly stop and reread because Phineas and Ferb were screaming at me facepalm.
smacked E on the first read. something about it screamed out to me. i'm not sure if it was the one that made the most sense or the other ones didn't seem to make sense and that made it more correct to me..? 00:54. might need to read the analysis
While solving this question, I got overwhelmed thinking about do I have to know the premise/conclusion? What about the modifiers? What about the subject/predicate? Where are the referentials? The modifiers? But given the time limit on a real LSAT, I recognize that it may be not possible to analyze all of this. I know that it has to be intuition but when I stumbled upon this question I didn't quite know where to start. I read the paragraph and understood it but didn't know how to approach it.
What would be the best way to study for questions? How would I know by just looking at this question that it is a question focused on referentials? Should I start by analyzing all of the steps I mentioned above and take some time before it becomes automatic?
I figured it wasn't B bc the stimulus says "almost all" and "unlikely" so it is not saying all corporations do this by using this phrasing. Is that another way of looking at it?
Note: asking "what" or "why" and finding out what these ambigious words actually mean/refer to and highlighting both the words "intended purpose" and what that purpose was would make clearer the options
@GabrielLerma At this stage in the process I think that we're all a little bit slow because we're manually applying everything that we've just learned. Over time we'll be able to do it instinctively just by doing that manual application and your time will eventually go down, I think. I wouldn't worry about it too much right now.
@GabrielLerma You're gonna do great! Just try not to rush yourself on the Foundationals and the Practice. Whatever you build as instinctual muscle memory will be stronger if you take your time to really understand and build it. If you're at the drill/practice test section, why not try something like a timed and a not timed test and see what the difference is. You might know more than you think!
Does anyone else struggle with when to use the third factor analysis of a question? That the question suggests that "A" causes "B", when in reality it's "C"? I understand after watching the video that motivation was the key aspect of the passage and not productivity. However, I know this was only a 1 star question. So expect that for harder questions, it will be even harder to determine when to decide if an argument's reasoning is off because it does not consider something. If someone who's struggled with this can comment below to help me out that would be great.
I'm restarting 7 sage for the 3rd time after trying a private tutoring course. So I'm hoping this go around using a training schedule that is accomodating of my work-schedule, that I can improve my LR & RC abilities
I think the advice about breaking down the referentials is extremely helpful in dissecting the question stimulus. I will also say something that helped me understand this better was to refer back to the lesson about assumptions when filtering through each answer choice. The fewer and more reasonable assumptions each answer choice made the more logical it seems. Which made it pretty easy to eliminate down to answer choice E because it made the fewest assumptions and was worded in such a way that it only used language previously stated in the stimulus.
It's helpful to break down the question and prompt before looking at all the different choices. I got the question right but I didn't spend enough time analyzing the exact argument the author was making/all the referentials so I might have gotten it wrong if it was a harder question
The first sentence is not context. It's another premise. P1: the purpose of the posters is to increase motivation to work productively. P2: Workers are already motiviated. C: Therefore the posters are not achieving their intended purpose.
i relied on grammar very little with this question and just used the skills i learned from identifying weak arguments and assumptions. not sure if that's a logical route but i got it right loll.
I got this question, but it took me 2:25 (+1:13). My problem was mostly to understand what they actually mean those answer choices from A to E. Will this be eventually better with practice? Any advice please?
@Temporubato Don't worry about it! There's a whole section of Flaw questions waiting for you down the road (be warned lol.)
BUT I can help with a quick preview of how I do flaw questions (if it helps!)
Think of the hole in the stimulus.
FIRST AND ALWAYS FIRST, I look for the conclusion
"These corporations' use of motivational posters is unlikely to achieve its intended purpose."
The kernel of the stimulus is that "some" corporations put up posters to boost motivation. And "most" of "these (the corporations that put up posters) are already motivated. With these premises, the author concludes that these corporations will not boost employees' motivation through posters.
The author is pretty much saying, "Posters boost motivation, but since your employees are already boosted, the posters won't boost motivation." When you put it this way, the flaw becomes clear: Posters could boost motivation even more, and employees go brrrrrr.
Identifying the hole is the best and fastest way to answer a question, but it takes a lot of practice! But you got this!
Think "Which one of the answer choices, if true, would weaken/absolutely RKO the argument?"
SAME THING, I look for the conclusion
"These corporations' use of motivational posters is unlikely to achieve its intended purpose."
A: Think "It's true that the stimulus fails to consider whether corporations that do not currently use motivational posters..."
We stop here since the stimulus is only concerned with the corporations that DO put up the posters.
B: "It's true that, with respect to their employees' motivation to work productively, corporations that decorate their halls with motivational posters are representative of corporations..."
We stop here since the issue at hand isn't representation. The stimulus argues that boosters won't boost morale.
C: "It's true that even if motivational posters do not have one particular beneficial effect for corporations, they may have similar effects..."
We stop here since we only care about boosting morale, not other effects.
D: "It's true that employee productivity is strongly affected by factors other than...
We stop here since we only care about the posters boosting motivation, not the productivity of these employees themselves.
E: "It's true that even if employees are already motivated to work productively, motivational posters may increase that motivation."
This is the correct answer. Other than the process of elimination, if motivational posters can increase motivation regardless of an employee's current motivation level, it contradicts the author's argument that posters won't increase motivation.
This method is more time-consuming and is more of a backup plan if you have already skipped this question and are returning to it after doing all the other ones. You also need to be very sensitive in understanding each answer choice and eliminating the incorrect ones.
TLDR: Don't worry about "flaw" questions now, worry about them later! However, my two methods for dealing with "flaw" questions are either to identify the holes and search for the correct answer (faster but more challenging) or to consider "which answer, if true, destroys the author's conclusion?" (slower).
Hope my brain-rot Michael Reeves-esque explanation helps!
I got this question correct but it took me long to figure out. I think the habit of referring back to the referents in the clauses help to hammer home what information the author precisely brings up in a clearer way since it can remind you while you're reading.
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.
73 comments
Got it right, but man, it took me forever to get there, 8 mins. Sure, I haven't actually sat down and studied in months (a bad habit I have, but I also work paving highways so I am exhausted most days), I also realized that I cannot be in a room with a TV blaring and studying these. I had to constantly stop and reread because Phineas and Ferb were screaming at me facepalm.
smacked E on the first read. something about it screamed out to me. i'm not sure if it was the one that made the most sense or the other ones didn't seem to make sense and that made it more correct to me..? 00:54. might need to read the analysis
While solving this question, I got overwhelmed thinking about do I have to know the premise/conclusion? What about the modifiers? What about the subject/predicate? Where are the referentials? The modifiers? But given the time limit on a real LSAT, I recognize that it may be not possible to analyze all of this. I know that it has to be intuition but when I stumbled upon this question I didn't quite know where to start. I read the paragraph and understood it but didn't know how to approach it.
What would be the best way to study for questions? How would I know by just looking at this question that it is a question focused on referentials? Should I start by analyzing all of the steps I mentioned above and take some time before it becomes automatic?
I figured it wasn't B bc the stimulus says "almost all" and "unlikely" so it is not saying all corporations do this by using this phrasing. Is that another way of looking at it?
was stuck between D, and E but for the blind review I got it right. note to self: READ SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY. Smh
That was the quickest question that I, Me, Mwah, the future attorney, just answered lol.
@Kawayllc I love the way you said this lol!
Note: asking "what" or "why" and finding out what these ambigious words actually mean/refer to and highlighting both the words "intended purpose" and what that purpose was would make clearer the options
Kinda surprised I got this right but I'm still glad I did. Occam's Razor is the best tool to use ngl
Am I the only one who thought they were talking about one corporation?
@RahwaA Completely understandable! The text mentions at the beginning "Many Corporations" so we are inclined to believe more than one.
Trying to assume on these questions will be my downfall. Only focus on what the question is asking and only. DONT ASSUME!!!!!
See I did really well here, but I clocked in +02:56 over the suggested time, which is 1:12. Any tips??
@GabrielLerma At this stage in the process I think that we're all a little bit slow because we're manually applying everything that we've just learned. Over time we'll be able to do it instinctively just by doing that manual application and your time will eventually go down, I think. I wouldn't worry about it too much right now.
@SavanahHoffstein You're the best. I'm just a little worried because I'm supposed to take this thing in June
@GabrielLerma You're gonna do great! Just try not to rush yourself on the Foundationals and the Practice. Whatever you build as instinctual muscle memory will be stronger if you take your time to really understand and build it. If you're at the drill/practice test section, why not try something like a timed and a not timed test and see what the difference is. You might know more than you think!
@SavanahHoffstein Good call. I like the way you think!!
@SavanahHoffstein I definitely noticed this. I was even trying to look for the referentials and all of that lol
i feel like i stuggle to understand what the actual question itself is asking us to look for in many lsat practice questions.
I got this one correct. It did take me sometime though. I was between (e) and (b).
@TaylarGottsegen I chose B and now I feel silly about it after seeing the explanation and the fact that this is an 'easy' difficulty question.
Context, Premise, conclusion highlighted. Then its barbeque chicken from there.
@besrawi Tyler Kolek, the hero of New York!
Does anyone else struggle with when to use the third factor analysis of a question? That the question suggests that "A" causes "B", when in reality it's "C"? I understand after watching the video that motivation was the key aspect of the passage and not productivity. However, I know this was only a 1 star question. So expect that for harder questions, it will be even harder to determine when to decide if an argument's reasoning is off because it does not consider something. If someone who's struggled with this can comment below to help me out that would be great.
I'm restarting 7 sage for the 3rd time after trying a private tutoring course. So I'm hoping this go around using a training schedule that is accomodating of my work-schedule, that I can improve my LR & RC abilities
Got it right! Used logical reasoning from arguments lesson :D
@MRod Likewise, put simply the other choices were too convoluted to make any sense.
I think the advice about breaking down the referentials is extremely helpful in dissecting the question stimulus. I will also say something that helped me understand this better was to refer back to the lesson about assumptions when filtering through each answer choice. The fewer and more reasonable assumptions each answer choice made the more logical it seems. Which made it pretty easy to eliminate down to answer choice E because it made the fewest assumptions and was worded in such a way that it only used language previously stated in the stimulus.
It's helpful to break down the question and prompt before looking at all the different choices. I got the question right but I didn't spend enough time analyzing the exact argument the author was making/all the referentials so I might have gotten it wrong if it was a harder question
The first sentence is not context. It's another premise. P1: the purpose of the posters is to increase motivation to work productively. P2: Workers are already motiviated. C: Therefore the posters are not achieving their intended purpose.
I got it right! Yay!
i relied on grammar very little with this question and just used the skills i learned from identifying weak arguments and assumptions. not sure if that's a logical route but i got it right loll.
@mnv449 same. For me the grammar complicated the question.
I got this question, but it took me 2:25 (+1:13). My problem was mostly to understand what they actually mean those answer choices from A to E. Will this be eventually better with practice? Any advice please?
@Temporubato Don't worry about it! There's a whole section of Flaw questions waiting for you down the road (be warned lol.)
BUT I can help with a quick preview of how I do flaw questions (if it helps!)
Think of the hole in the stimulus.
FIRST AND ALWAYS FIRST, I look for the conclusion
"These corporations' use of motivational posters is unlikely to achieve its intended purpose."
The kernel of the stimulus is that "some" corporations put up posters to boost motivation. And "most" of "these (the corporations that put up posters) are already motivated. With these premises, the author concludes that these corporations will not boost employees' motivation through posters.
The author is pretty much saying, "Posters boost motivation, but since your employees are already boosted, the posters won't boost motivation." When you put it this way, the flaw becomes clear: Posters could boost motivation even more, and employees go brrrrrr.
Identifying the hole is the best and fastest way to answer a question, but it takes a lot of practice! But you got this!
Think "Which one of the answer choices, if true, would weaken/absolutely RKO the argument?"
SAME THING, I look for the conclusion
"These corporations' use of motivational posters is unlikely to achieve its intended purpose."
A: Think "It's true that the stimulus fails to consider whether corporations that do not currently use motivational posters..."
We stop here since the stimulus is only concerned with the corporations that DO put up the posters.
B: "It's true that, with respect to their employees' motivation to work productively, corporations that decorate their halls with motivational posters are representative of corporations..."
We stop here since the issue at hand isn't representation. The stimulus argues that boosters won't boost morale.
C: "It's true that even if motivational posters do not have one particular beneficial effect for corporations, they may have similar effects..."
We stop here since we only care about boosting morale, not other effects.
D: "It's true that employee productivity is strongly affected by factors other than...
We stop here since we only care about the posters boosting motivation, not the productivity of these employees themselves.
E: "It's true that even if employees are already motivated to work productively, motivational posters may increase that motivation."
This is the correct answer. Other than the process of elimination, if motivational posters can increase motivation regardless of an employee's current motivation level, it contradicts the author's argument that posters won't increase motivation.
This method is more time-consuming and is more of a backup plan if you have already skipped this question and are returning to it after doing all the other ones. You also need to be very sensitive in understanding each answer choice and eliminating the incorrect ones.
TLDR: Don't worry about "flaw" questions now, worry about them later! However, my two methods for dealing with "flaw" questions are either to identify the holes and search for the correct answer (faster but more challenging) or to consider "which answer, if true, destroys the author's conclusion?" (slower).
Hope my brain-rot Michael Reeves-esque explanation helps!
I got this question in less than 90 seconds LETSSS GOOO
I got it right this time! I am so proud of me and you guys too!
It helps if you read the question first. Then read the stim. I dont know it always works. Its been super helpful for me.
I got this question correct but it took me long to figure out. I think the habit of referring back to the referents in the clauses help to hammer home what information the author precisely brings up in a clearer way since it can remind you while you're reading.