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
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?
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.
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 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 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"
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?
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.
29 comments
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?
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?
Last question of the foundations curriculum guys :(
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?
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 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.
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"
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...
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?