Hi everyone, I have been struggling on improving on Phenomena Hypothesis questions, it’s usually the only questions I get wrong. Does anyone have any tips on how to think about the questions?
I’ve watched all the videos it’s just one of those things that doesn’t click for me. I pick the trap answers each time!
24
7 comments
Honestly I would say be able to identify the premise and conclusion with absolute certainty, from there you can hone in on the argument and be able to see what's "wrong" with it. That alone got me from, 48% to 70 odd % in two weeks...
this is my struggle too. I am following.
Most of the Phenomenon–Hypothesis questions are also causal reasoning questions, so it can help to approach them from that perspective. Personally, I don't like training them as a separate question type because, to me, the important skills are the same ones used in Causal Reasoning and the main part to practice is Strengthen, Weaken, Explain, and Flaw questions. One thing I always ask myself is: "what doesn't quite make sense?" or "what's the gap in the explanation?" Then I ask, "How do we know A caused B?" (I know this gets mentioned a lot, but it's worth repeating because LSAT loves testing causation and assumptions.)
2 other tips I use for myself:
Make sure the answer choice does not violate the premise yet can reasonably include part of the premise. Most of the questions are supposed to answer while having premises intact, sometimes when I am time-pressured I accidentally forget a detail in the stimulus and pick answers that violate the stimulus or perhaps answers where the answer choice is just nearly unrelated or way too much assumptions need to connect back to the premises.
Don't overthink(cuz I know I am an overthinker), at most, make one reasonable inference/assumption from what is given in the stimulus and answer choice. If your answer requires two or three additional assumptions, that's a sign we might be stretching it too far and probably not a great answer. (There are a few very difficult LSAT questions where more inference is needed, but they're uncommon.)
Ex:
A shopping district installed more beautiful street lights, and crime decreased by 20% the following year. What might explain it?
A good answer choice would be: The increased lighting made it harder for criminals to avoid being seen. (the only assumption here being criminals don't want to be seen, which is also reasonable).
A slightly stretched answer choice could be: After the beautiful street lights were installed, more visitors came, increasing people making criminals less likely to commit crimes. (2 assumptions here, one is that beautiful lights IS what attracted more people, and that the criminals mind having many people around, like what if they are doing pickpocketing and actually prefer more people?)
A VERY stretched answer choice: The beautiful street lights attracted more tourists, which encouraged new businesses to open. (Ok?? So do we have to assume that new business reduces unemployment, so less poverty and therefore decreasing crime? This makes sense, but we are doing way too much of the heavy lifting for this answer choice to make sense. The answer choices should do the heavy lifting themselves and not us)
Note: It does not mean the stretched answer choice will definietly be wrong, cuz sometimes when other answers are just worse, the bad answers are the right answers.
@phi thank you for spending time on this detailed explanation. My struggle is also these types of questions and your answer helped a lot.
@sufam001 glad it helped! 😊
@phi A fellow overthinker! Thank you for this response--great answer.
@phi this is a great explanation thank you