@thr107 Although I laughed reading this message because I had this same thought last night. "Is it worthwhile paying this money and getting these wrong?". Trust me it will get better, we only two weeks in there's so much more to approve!
Look at the keywords answer choices e and b are using. E gives us information that is technically true, but it's not relevant! The keyword "some" in e could be any variation from 1 to all. But the keyword "most" in answer choice b significantly weakens the argument by implying that the majority of success isn't coming from the contents of the program, but from the prior educational experience of the parents!
The secret to time: being able to confidently eliminate answers.
I find reading every choice vital since they can be so tricky in offering a tempting answer, but if I can eliminate as I go---I can keep a reasonable time.
That of course is my ideal... 13 secs over this time. Had to re-read the answer because I was nervous about getting it wrong. Should have just answered.
Ok I first said E was the answer, and then in the blind review I said B, but ok it makes sense that the one who weakeness most is B because is saying that the reason why the kids are performing better is because their parents are educators (which is an alternative hypotheses to the conclusion)
and E is just saying some (which could be 1 or all according to previous lessons) children who don't participate in the program did good in school, that is not an alternative hypothesis, it's just extra information
@LauraBolivar i did the same and I think E would be right in the sense of a sufficiency/necessity question type (i might be wrong but thats what im thinking from his explanation).
The main reason I eliminated e without a second of thought was that it didn't really have much to do with the conclusion.
Based on better grades, program should be expanded (paraphrased)
e was something like other students not in program do great as well.
Well... so what? Does that mean the new 'home' program is not effective? Why not still run it even if alternatives also lead lead to great results. (Sort of over analyzing my reasoning which was more immediate, but without watching the video yet, this was it)
I'm very confused about this question. The question asked, if turn, what most weaken's the educators argument? So I chose E first and then A, because it seems that those two answers would least support the argument the educator is trying to make. Did anyone else get the question confused like I did?
@GabrielleFils-Aime the argument that the educator is trying to make is that these programs, the ones who put the child's parents as the childs first educator causes said children in these experimental educational programs to perform better than average in school, i.e higher grades. Answer choice A says that not all small children enjoy being taught by their parents. Even if this is the case we can't assume that for example and I might be reaching, that these children when being taught by their parents don't listen and in turn don't absorb any of the knowledge they're being taught; so they don't perform better than average in school. Just because they don't enjoy something doesn't mean that it isn't beneficial in a certain field. So even if these children don't enjoy being taught by their parents they could still perform better in school than those not taught by their parents. For answer choice E my interpretation is that even though some of the children who weren't part of these programs performed exceptionally well in school that has nothing to do with why the program isn't successful. Maybe those kids were super smart, maybe they studied a lot longer than everyone else, just because some people don't participate in one thing and do as well or better than the ones who did doesn't mean that we can say that the program doesn't work. If there are 100 people who got into an accident and all equally injured their legs, 75 went to physical therapy and 25 didn't and then we say that of those 75 people 50 made a recovery in 2 months and 20 of the ones who didn't made the same recovery in 2 months can we really say look, 20 who didn't go to PT made a recovery so therefore PT is useless. What about the 50 who made a recovery? just because someone got the same results without a program or help we can't say that thing is useless.
Sorry for the rambling maybe this confused you more, I hope I helped!
@Calin I appreciate the explanation!! I am still confused though, I'm saying how would answer B be the answer when it most strengthens the educators argument that the programs are succeeding. Even though the question asked what most weakens the educators argument, cause yes, it would be helpful that the program is thriving because the childs' parents were educators previously.
@GabrielleFils-Aime My mistake I understand what you mean now. The reason that answer B is the right answer is because it doesn't strengthen the argument of the educator. The educator's argument is that the program is successful because it teaches children's parents how to be the child's "first teacher" and that's why they do well in school. answer choice B is saying well wait a second if parents have educational experience and have already taught children then the program isn't successful because the program is teaching parents how to teach children it's successful because the parents already know how to teach which would mean that the program has no purpose. It's not the program that's making these children have better scores than the average child, it's the parents with educational experience. So it doesn't strengthen the argument because it's saying that what's making a difference isn't the program it's the children's parents who have experience as educators. I hope I helped!
The passage wants us to believe this: participation --> performance. However, if most of the parents participating in the program have prior education experience then the causal chain would look more like this: Parents w/ prior education exp. --> participation --> performance. Think of A-->B-->C. Therefore A-->C. Therefore, Parents w/ prior education exp. --> performance.
@MadlynV You can change the BR settings if you want. I have mine set to only flag questions I've got wrong. It has helped immensely in comparison to wasting time deliberating what is right and wrong on BR.
The thing that trips me up is that to me B is strengthening the conclusion of why these programs should be implemented. I am not doing the best in these and not will probably have to backtrack which I did not want to do. :( these "weakened" arguments are just not clicking for me
I think I am trying to attack the conclusion that the programs should be expanded instead of the assumption that the better performance is due to the programs themselves, not some other factor.
Hey there! The conclusion here is "This shows that the programs are successful and should be expanded." What you should be attacking is the premises, you have to weaken the support for the argument. Make us doubt that "the programs are successful". The "should be expanded" goes hand in hand with the program being successful.
I got the correct answer (B) but for those that chose (E) my reasoning for ruling that one out was just remembering that there are always outliers. Remember in the previous lesson where the graphs were shown as a visual for the relationship between A and B -- that is what I remembered to rule out E. Just because there are outliers does not negate the fact that a correlation still exists between two phenomenon. Hope this helps someone!
I put E instead of B. I interpreted "success" for the program as relative improvement in child's grades between those of parents in the program vs. outside the program. So even if parents were educators, as long as the program improved their teaching ability and their kids' grades, it would still be a success.
B obviously makes sense if success for the program is "how much better the parent becomes at teaching." But that only feels like an intermediate goal or mechanism to an ultimate outcome (i.e. better grades), not the end goal within itself.
Is this where the language of "Some" in E and "Most" in B swings the balance? So E really reads "at least one kid did exceptionally well outside the program" vs. "at least half the parents were educators?"
The review video did not go into detail, so I want make sure I'm understanding this correctly.
I made the same mistake as you. For the argument I translated programs are successful and should be expanded. I guess with the correct answer (B) it makes sense as to why it would weaken the argument of the premise-the kids in these programs have better than average performance. Because their parents have experience, they can offer more valuable lessons or advanced skills. Therefore, their performance can come from any of those factors from the help of their parents.
The implication in Choice B is that what is causing the kids in the EEP program to do better in school, is not the EEP program itself, but being raised by a parent who has a background in education.
This weakens the argument that EEP programs are successful and should be expanded.
This is due to the fact that, in the case a child was in an EEP program being taught by a parent who did not have a background in education, there would be no additional benefit to the child and they would not have a higher school performance than average.
Choice B offers an alternative hypothesis (having parents w/ an education background is actually what is helping children achieve above average school performance), which weakens the argument.
Answer Choice E addresses children that were not in the EEP at all. It says that some of them do incredibly well in school. However, since they did not do the EEP they are ‘outside’ the correlation. They are, literally, outliers. The existence of outliers does not weaken correlation.
I had B and then switched to E. But I understand why E is wrong now. E is just bringing outside information that is not mentioned in the argument doesn't do anything to weaken or strengthen it. B attacks explicitly the argument that is outlined, which is: Participation -> Performance Increase. "some students doing well that didn't participate in the program" does not provide any reasoning as to what's wrong with the phenomenon. B saying "most of the students parents were experienced teachers" is stronger in attacking the argument because it's saying "ok all these kids parents are already teachers so of course this sample of kids is going to do really well"
You're allowed to bring in outside information in a Strengthen/Weaken question type (technically) because the correct answer choice is trying to either strengthen or weaken the stimulus. This wouldn't be the case for something like a Must Be True question where the task asked of you from the stem is different and you can't take in outside information because your basis for the correct answer choice is limited to the information in the stimulus. The issue with E being the incorrect answer has to do with the fact that some people doing well in school outside of the program has nothing to do about the strength of the program itself and your task is to weaken the conclusion that we should expand the program (or whatever, can't remember exactly what it was). B is correct because if the parents in the program are past educators then that could be the alternative reasoning as to why they did well in the program, not the program being a good program itself.
The way I looked at it was for answer choice B -- I thought about the experiment and the first step of random population/groups. I thought that it cannot be random if parents are already experienced ?
Is this a good way of thinking or approaching a question like this?
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.
44 comments
I guess I should give up.
@thr107 Never
@thr107 Never dat brother
@thr107 feels like it at times! But then we get a question right and feel okay again (last two I got wrong) and finally got this one right!
@thr107 Although I laughed reading this message because I had this same thought last night. "Is it worthwhile paying this money and getting these wrong?". Trust me it will get better, we only two weeks in there's so much more to approve!
@thr107 you better keep going.
Correct! And only 14 seconds over! Yay!
Quick Note!
Look at the keywords answer choices e and b are using. E gives us information that is technically true, but it's not relevant! The keyword "some" in e could be any variation from 1 to all. But the keyword "most" in answer choice b significantly weakens the argument by implying that the majority of success isn't coming from the contents of the program, but from the prior educational experience of the parents!
The secret to time: being able to confidently eliminate answers.
I find reading every choice vital since they can be so tricky in offering a tempting answer, but if I can eliminate as I go---I can keep a reasonable time.
That of course is my ideal... 13 secs over this time. Had to re-read the answer because I was nervous about getting it wrong. Should have just answered.
I was really thinking that the parents with expériences would strengthen the argument. I do understand better after the explanation.
Correct and only 21 seconds over WAHOO!!!!
Ok I first said E was the answer, and then in the blind review I said B, but ok it makes sense that the one who weakeness most is B because is saying that the reason why the kids are performing better is because their parents are educators (which is an alternative hypotheses to the conclusion)
and E is just saying some (which could be 1 or all according to previous lessons) children who don't participate in the program did good in school, that is not an alternative hypothesis, it's just extra information
right?
@LauraBolivar i did the same and I think E would be right in the sense of a sufficiency/necessity question type (i might be wrong but thats what im thinking from his explanation).
The main reason I eliminated e without a second of thought was that it didn't really have much to do with the conclusion.
Based on better grades, program should be expanded (paraphrased)
e was something like other students not in program do great as well.
Well... so what? Does that mean the new 'home' program is not effective? Why not still run it even if alternatives also lead lead to great results. (Sort of over analyzing my reasoning which was more immediate, but without watching the video yet, this was it)
I'm very confused about this question. The question asked, if turn, what most weaken's the educators argument? So I chose E first and then A, because it seems that those two answers would least support the argument the educator is trying to make. Did anyone else get the question confused like I did?
@GabrielleFils-Aime the argument that the educator is trying to make is that these programs, the ones who put the child's parents as the childs first educator causes said children in these experimental educational programs to perform better than average in school, i.e higher grades. Answer choice A says that not all small children enjoy being taught by their parents. Even if this is the case we can't assume that for example and I might be reaching, that these children when being taught by their parents don't listen and in turn don't absorb any of the knowledge they're being taught; so they don't perform better than average in school. Just because they don't enjoy something doesn't mean that it isn't beneficial in a certain field. So even if these children don't enjoy being taught by their parents they could still perform better in school than those not taught by their parents. For answer choice E my interpretation is that even though some of the children who weren't part of these programs performed exceptionally well in school that has nothing to do with why the program isn't successful. Maybe those kids were super smart, maybe they studied a lot longer than everyone else, just because some people don't participate in one thing and do as well or better than the ones who did doesn't mean that we can say that the program doesn't work. If there are 100 people who got into an accident and all equally injured their legs, 75 went to physical therapy and 25 didn't and then we say that of those 75 people 50 made a recovery in 2 months and 20 of the ones who didn't made the same recovery in 2 months can we really say look, 20 who didn't go to PT made a recovery so therefore PT is useless. What about the 50 who made a recovery? just because someone got the same results without a program or help we can't say that thing is useless.
Sorry for the rambling maybe this confused you more, I hope I helped!
@Calin I appreciate the explanation!! I am still confused though, I'm saying how would answer B be the answer when it most strengthens the educators argument that the programs are succeeding. Even though the question asked what most weakens the educators argument, cause yes, it would be helpful that the program is thriving because the childs' parents were educators previously.
@GabrielleFils-Aime My mistake I understand what you mean now. The reason that answer B is the right answer is because it doesn't strengthen the argument of the educator. The educator's argument is that the program is successful because it teaches children's parents how to be the child's "first teacher" and that's why they do well in school. answer choice B is saying well wait a second if parents have educational experience and have already taught children then the program isn't successful because the program is teaching parents how to teach children it's successful because the parents already know how to teach which would mean that the program has no purpose. It's not the program that's making these children have better scores than the average child, it's the parents with educational experience. So it doesn't strengthen the argument because it's saying that what's making a difference isn't the program it's the children's parents who have experience as educators. I hope I helped!
@Calin Ohh I see now!! That makes perfect sense. Thank you so much!!
Last question of the foundations curriculum guys :(
@VanillaCat lol
first try correct and BR correct, i like these causal relationship questions (i loved stats in uni)
The passage wants us to believe this: participation --> performance. However, if most of the parents participating in the program have prior education experience then the causal chain would look more like this: Parents w/ prior education exp. --> participation --> performance. Think of A-->B-->C. Therefore A-->C. Therefore, Parents w/ prior education exp. --> performance.
if i got the answer right on my original try, why did it flag it for blind review?
@MadlynV it flags if you take too much time even if you answered correctly
@MadlynV You can change the BR settings if you want. I have mine set to only flag questions I've got wrong. It has helped immensely in comparison to wasting time deliberating what is right and wrong on BR.
Cant hear the audio. Seems much lower when compared to the rest of this section.
The thing that trips me up is that to me B is strengthening the conclusion of why these programs should be implemented. I am not doing the best in these and not will probably have to backtrack which I did not want to do. :( these "weakened" arguments are just not clicking for me
I think I am trying to attack the conclusion that the programs should be expanded instead of the assumption that the better performance is due to the programs themselves, not some other factor.
Hey there! The conclusion here is "This shows that the programs are successful and should be expanded." What you should be attacking is the premises, you have to weaken the support for the argument. Make us doubt that "the programs are successful". The "should be expanded" goes hand in hand with the program being successful.
I got the correct answer (B) but for those that chose (E) my reasoning for ruling that one out was just remembering that there are always outliers. Remember in the previous lesson where the graphs were shown as a visual for the relationship between A and B -- that is what I remembered to rule out E. Just because there are outliers does not negate the fact that a correlation still exists between two phenomenon. Hope this helps someone!
great explanation!
I put E instead of B. I interpreted "success" for the program as relative improvement in child's grades between those of parents in the program vs. outside the program. So even if parents were educators, as long as the program improved their teaching ability and their kids' grades, it would still be a success.
B obviously makes sense if success for the program is "how much better the parent becomes at teaching." But that only feels like an intermediate goal or mechanism to an ultimate outcome (i.e. better grades), not the end goal within itself.
Is this where the language of "Some" in E and "Most" in B swings the balance? So E really reads "at least one kid did exceptionally well outside the program" vs. "at least half the parents were educators?"
The review video did not go into detail, so I want make sure I'm understanding this correctly.
I made the same mistake as you. For the argument I translated programs are successful and should be expanded. I guess with the correct answer (B) it makes sense as to why it would weaken the argument of the premise-the kids in these programs have better than average performance. Because their parents have experience, they can offer more valuable lessons or advanced skills. Therefore, their performance can come from any of those factors from the help of their parents.
@duncan.aronson
The implication in Choice B is that what is causing the kids in the EEP program to do better in school, is not the EEP program itself, but being raised by a parent who has a background in education.
This weakens the argument that EEP programs are successful and should be expanded.
This is due to the fact that, in the case a child was in an EEP program being taught by a parent who did not have a background in education, there would be no additional benefit to the child and they would not have a higher school performance than average.
Choice B offers an alternative hypothesis (having parents w/ an education background is actually what is helping children achieve above average school performance), which weakens the argument.
--------------------------------------------------
Answer Choice E addresses children that were not in the EEP at all. It says that some of them do incredibly well in school. However, since they did not do the EEP they are ‘outside’ the correlation. They are, literally, outliers. The existence of outliers does not weaken correlation.
--------------------------------------------------
@jordkerns This makes so much more sense. Thank you!!!
@jordkerns I dont know why I spend time watching the videos when the comments help me understand better. Thank you this makes more sense!
This is the first time I've gotten an answer incorrect initially, and then found my error on blind review and gotten the correct answer.
I had B and then switched to E. But I understand why E is wrong now. E is just bringing outside information that is not mentioned in the argument doesn't do anything to weaken or strengthen it. B attacks explicitly the argument that is outlined, which is: Participation -> Performance Increase. "some students doing well that didn't participate in the program" does not provide any reasoning as to what's wrong with the phenomenon. B saying "most of the students parents were experienced teachers" is stronger in attacking the argument because it's saying "ok all these kids parents are already teachers so of course this sample of kids is going to do really well"
You're allowed to bring in outside information in a Strengthen/Weaken question type (technically) because the correct answer choice is trying to either strengthen or weaken the stimulus. This wouldn't be the case for something like a Must Be True question where the task asked of you from the stem is different and you can't take in outside information because your basis for the correct answer choice is limited to the information in the stimulus. The issue with E being the incorrect answer has to do with the fact that some people doing well in school outside of the program has nothing to do about the strength of the program itself and your task is to weaken the conclusion that we should expand the program (or whatever, can't remember exactly what it was). B is correct because if the parents in the program are past educators then that could be the alternative reasoning as to why they did well in the program, not the program being a good program itself.
Don't usually leave comments on these, but this entire section seemed almost too easy in comparison to every other, no?
I was going to go with B .... until I saw E...
I also got tripped up on this, but the explanation as to why E was not the right answer made sense to me.
The way I looked at it was for answer choice B -- I thought about the experiment and the first step of random population/groups. I thought that it cannot be random if parents are already experienced ?
Is this a good way of thinking or approaching a question like this?