I am barely getting these questions correct and i am about to give up. Could someone please tell me your methods for approaching these questions cause negating isnt working for me.

I am back to discuss another cookie cutter argument form. Here is the link to the cost benefit argument structure that I posted about previously: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/21220

This one is known as Phenomenon Hypothesis. In this argument form, an observation about the world is made, followed by a proposed explanation. This post will discuss some common answer choice types LSAC uses to effect the strength of a hypothesis in explaining a phenomenon or observed occurrence.

1. Affirm/Deny Mechanism

Tells us exactly how the hypothesis would explain the phenomenon.

For example, if I say: there is a correlation between white blood cells and strong immune systems, therefore white blood cells cause strong immune systems.

A mechanism would be explaining a plausible way for white blood cells to improve immune systems. Like: white blood cells contain disease fighting chemicals that kill all bad bacteria. So this information strengthens our hypothesis by providing a plausible mechanism.

To deny the mechanism or weaken, we would show that white blood cells have nothing to do with the immune system.

2. Corroborating Data Set

This is when we bring in a new data set which corroborates or jives with the notion that our hypothesis explains our phenomenon.

For example, if I say: bees left a part of Florida that was experiencing a heat wave, so it probably was the heat which drove them out.

A corroborating data set could show that a heat wave happened recently in Nevada and the bees left as soon as it began. This corroborates our hypothesis and makes it stronger by showing that we introduced the purported cause and got the intended effect, right away. This does not make our hypothesis have to be true, but it does make it more plausible or strengthen it.

3. Competing Data Set

The opposite of a corroborating data set. So, a new set of info that makes our hypothesis a less attractive means of explaining the phenomenon.

To stick with the bee example, we could show that another state experienced a heat wave and the bees stayed put. This would show that we have our purported cause without the effect. This does not kill the argument entirely, but it does weaken or make it slightly less plausible.

4. Consequences

Science operates on eliminating hypotheses. We determine what would be necessary if a hypothesis were true. Such that:

Hypotheses true——> Consequences True

Next, we test those consequences. If they are not true, the hypotheses is not true. If they are true, our hypotheses does not need to be true but it lives to fight another day. We then find more additional consequences that would be true and test those. The hypothesis that survives this consequence testing is deemed best and closest to truth, until proven otherwise.

Example:

There was a UFO sighted over Nevada, close to Area 51, it must be aliens.

A consequence of this hypothesis being true would be that aliens exist, are able to travel, or can build things. If we find out any of these are untrue, the hypothesis is no longer possible.

This form is sort of like a Necessary Assumption for science.

5. Block/Introduce Alternative

This answer choice would either build up or break down a competing hypothesis.

In our Alien example, we could say that the US military was conducting weapons testing during the time the UFO was reported and in close proximity to the sighting.

This being true would explain the observed phenomenon without our hypothesis needing to be true. It also is more plausible than our hypothesis. So, our argument would be weakened.

To block out such an alternative, we would just say that the US military was on holiday the day of the sighting and conducted 0 activity in Nevada. Ruling out an alternative hypothesis, helps make our hypothesis slightly more likely.

6. Temporal Affirmation

If a hypothesis is going to explain a phenomenon, it needs to make sense time wise.

For example:

On Monday, it rained and the highway had 35 car accidents. Normally, there are only 10 accidents per day. I hypothesize the rain created poor driving conditions and thus more accidents.

For this to work, we need the additional accidents to have happened after the rain. To strengthen the hypothesis, we say that the day was average at first and the accidents piled up after the rain

To weaken this, we show that there were already 32 accidents that day, before the rain.

7. Irrelevant

Most Answer choices you see on phenomenon hypotheses questions will have nothing to do with how the hypothesis explains the phenomenon.

Always ask yourself: Does this piece of information have any bearing on how the hypothesis explains the observed phenomenon?

For our Alien example, some irrelevant answer choices might look like:

Aliens are more intelligent than Lizards.

Human beings do not have sophisticated enough means to communicate with Aliens

The UFO was sighted by 3 people with doctorate degrees

A similar sighting happened in Nebraska, in 1984.

These things are all great, but they do not address whether or not the object was in fact Aliens!

This list is not meant to be exhaustive and I am sure there are many other ways to strengthen or weaken such arguments. Feel free to share any others below :)

Does anyone how I can improve on weaken questions? I really having a tough time with them.

I understand you have to weaken the support the premise gives the conclusion, but how? Am I questioning the premises? Is there something I'm looking for? Do I say, what if it's something else?

How do I weaken the support? In what ways???

I know these questions are supposed to be "gimmes" but I still struggle with SA and PSA questions, even the ones I get right I don't feel 100% confident. So I've been drilling them and I had some trouble with this one. If anyone could confirm my thought process, and/or offer any tips, it'd be much appreciated.

Context:

Fred and Dorthy are allegedly being considered for receive 25% raises.

Conclusion:

Jim argues that he should also receive a raise to at least what theirs will be or else it is unfair.

Tasha argues that it would be unfair to raise Jim's salary without also raising the 35 employees' [who have been at the company for the same length of time as Jim and earn the same salary as him].

Premise:

Jim has worked at the company longer than Fred and Dorthy have and their salaries would be higher than his with the proposed raise.

Similarly, Tasha says it's unfair to raise his without raising theirs because they have been at the company for the same amount of time as him and earn the same salary.

What I'm looking for:

I need something to justify both parties statements which both deal with fairness and raising (or not) another parties salary with equal or less tenure. So something tying pay to tenure to company. If you raise one party's salary and do not raise another party's salary who has worked at the company for the same or larger amount of time than the first party, then it is unfair.

AC:

A) It starts off correct, "in order to be fair", which would mean the contrapositive of my prediction but the second part doesn't follow. Our stimulus did not mention anything about differences or similarities in duties (although this thought did occur to me while reading the stimulus) so therefore it wouldn't justify why we have to raise Jim's and the 35 employees to raise Fred and Dorothy. Also it says "identical salaries" and Jim is arguing for a salary increase at least F and D. I'm not sure if this would be another reason to eliminate, but at the very least it doesn't match the stimulus. Eliminate (more so for the first reason I think).

B) Same with A that this starts off correct, but the second part also doesn't follow. Although, I didn't eliminate this right away because I initially assumed experience in the field=length of time at company. Upon final confirmation I deleted because experience in the field is much broader than what's supported in the stimulus and we just don't know anything about their experience. It could very well be the case that Fred and Dorothy have 50 years of experience in the field but have only been working at the company for 5 years, whereas Jim while he has been working at the company for 10 years, he only has 15 years of total experience in the field. Therefore, it wouldn't justify the conclusion that Jim's should be raised simply because he has worked at the company longer than they have. Eliminate.

C) The wording of this AC tripped me up because it starts with "in order to be fair" so I took that as the sufficient, but then says "if the first..." So I had to figure out which was the sufficient and which necessary. Ultimately, I understood it as if first employee worked for company longer than second --> business must pay one employee more than another, or else unfair. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this was the reversal of what we needed. It establishes that Jim must be paid more than F and D because he has worked for longer than they have, whereas we need that if we raise F and D (workers with less or equal tenure), raise Jim and 35 employees (higher or equal tenure). Eliminate.

D) This is what we're looking for, as it is essentially the contrapositive of my prediction. "In order to be fair", "must never pay one more than another", "unless" establishes, If you pay one employee more than another---> first employee has worked for company longer than second. So because F and D have not worked at the company for longer than Jim, you cannot pay them more than him. Similar to Tasha as well. Correct.

E) Amount of time they work every day is not discussed nor is relevant in justifying the conclusion. Eliminate.

Hi all! I am really struggling to understand why B is incorrect. I know now that D is the right option, but I'm not sure how to structurally identify why in other LR sections. I'd appreciate any help/explanations!

Wouldn't the inability to detect methane in the atmosphere (C) be the answer? The right answer (B) says that not all living beings have the ability to produce methane, but couldn't "not all" still mean that 99.9% of living beings could (and hence NOT weaken the argument)

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question."

I am a bit confused with PT2.S4.Q14. This was the logic I worked out for each of the answers:

A) This would support the argument, as it would show that there is a causation between the change in definition to only including heart attacks and strokes

B)the cities financial properties are irrelevant to the argument

C)"Expert opinion" is not relevant in this argument

D) Other cities opinions are not relevant in this argument

E) Last year's count does not necessarily reflect the count of this year. it's possible that this year the count was lower

The correct answer was E. I understand that both A and E aren't perfect solutions (otherwise this would be a sufficient assumption), but i do not understand why E is a stronger choice than A. Thoughts?

"not a problem in well-ventilated house but it is in well-insulated house" implies that a well-insulated house is not a well-ventilated house, hence D, correct? I picked E because I mistakenly read the well-ventilated as well-insulated in that a well-insulated house with a houseplant would have fewer toxins in the air than a well-insulated house without houseplants.

Can anyone clarify why E is correct?

I chose E indirectly after eliminating other four answer choices.

.

Explanation for other answers:

[DIAGRAM]

Artist --most-> Hold less insightful political views than well educated non-artist

Artist statement --few-> Artistic talent =/= Political insight

.

[ANSWER CHOICES]

A ) Non-artist?

B ) Thorough education?

C ) Again, non-artist?

D ) Politicians?

.

.

Thank you in advance!

why is it not required to block out that Mayor Drabble could repay her debt to Lee immediately in some other way? Why is the temporal aspect more important by the stimulus? Was stuck between A and E. #help

Why is D correct when it says opposing views are discussed 'briefly". #help

Does anyone write down the board for the acceptable situation question 1? I feel like this could potentially help on future questions to show a could be true answer or something similar. Or is this too risky in case you get it wrong?

I came across a question (PT58, S2 Q19) that had a question stem like the one above and JY's explanation raised a question for me. Does a passage only provide support for the author's arguments? In this passage, the author is refuting a legal theory, so is it wrong to say that the passage is providing support for the opposing theory in any way?

P.S. I would've asked under the passage, but the last comment was 10 months ago. I guess I'm the only one with this problem lol.

I encountered a question with an answer choice that said something like "companies are no more likely to do X if B than if A"

This feels like a riddle to me, and I am not exactly sure what relationship is established here. My best guess was that this means that if B, then X is either the same level or less likely than if A. Is that correct or is there a better way to interpret this relationship?

So I feel like I know what I’m doing but when I look at a new game I’m totally stuck. It seems like everything I thought I knew flies out the window. Especially for in and out games. I read how people say these games are repetitive but to me they all seem so different. How do I get to this “repetition” stage. I’ve practiced games on here over and over. It’s the new ones I’ve never seen that give me a hard time.

I'm having a tough time learning logic games.

I started with 7Sage sequencing and moved to LSAT Demon around the time I got to grouping. JY's explanations are methodical and he seems to go rule by rule, although sometimes I find his methods hard to follow. LSAT Demon has a tendency to solve them by completing all worlds and combining rules logically/intuitively. Overall, the approaches are fairly different. I'm not even sure which methods make the most sense to me.

I understand logic games are known for being the most foreign yet most learnable, but I'm feeling a bit paralyzed. I almost feel more confused as time goes by. I really need to get a grip on these before the LSAT in June.

Does anyone here have suggestions or methods that worked for learning logic games?

Anyone have experience with both 7Sage and LSAT Demon logic games?

I would be especially grateful of advice from anyone who previously struggled with logic games and vastly improved.

For conclusions that are along the lines of "this theory/explanation is wrong", I have a tough time keeping the entire idea in my head. For most questions, I will highlight just the conclusion. However, when I just highlight "this is wrong", I cannot reference the idea quickly enough. Are there any helpful tips to overcome this issue?

Hi

PT 76 S2 Q19 AC (D) is not a flaw because the author does not presume that the argument it cites is the union leaders' only argument for their view while PT 25 S2 Q12 AC (E) is a flaw because a reason not mentioned in the stimulus is not considered.

Both of the arguments do not contain phrases such as "the only reason why..." and yet they seem to give me contradictory responses. How do we know when premises are the only reasons why the author comes to the conclusion in an argument where there is no mention of the reasons being the only reasons?

Hey everyone, I am having a hard time with Flaw Questions. I know we are supposed to memorize the common argument flaws but that is where my struggle is. I am very much a visual/example type of learner. When going through the flaw types I realized it would really help me to understand and memorize them if I had examples. So I have been going through PTs and Drills that I have done trying to match them up with the flaw types and could use some help. Some I am able to easily match up to the type of flaw and others I am not. I have listed the different types below, some have specific question examples and then underneath I have a list of questions I need help matching. If anyone knows of any specific PT questions that match up with the other flaws please let me know so I can add them to my list. I hope this can also help others that struggle with flaws.

Flaw Types with Example Questions

1) Attacking the source of the argument

PT19S2Q14 *Thanks keets993

"rejects a claim by attacking the proponents of the claim rather than addressing the claim itself"

PT25S4Q04 *Thanks keets993

"assails legislation on the basis of the questionable character of supporters of the legislation"

PT39S4Q11 *Thanks keets993

"diverts attention from the content of the article by focusing on the writers' actions"

2) Uses terms unclearly/equivocation

PT25S04Q17

"The argument ambiguously uses the word "afford""

PT53S1Q12 *Thanks keets993

"ambiguity of risk"

PT22S2Q24 *Thanks keets993

"draws a conclusion based on equivocal language"

3) Analogies that really aren’t analogous enough

"It relies on an analogy between two things that are insufficiently alike in the respects in which they would have to be alike for the conclusion to be supported"

4) Appealing to authority in an area outside their expertise

5) Causation confusions

PT47S3Q23

“It takes for granted that if a correlation has been observed between two phenomena, they must be causally connected”

PT30S2Q25 *Thanks keets993

"because hormone levels are correlated with heart disease they influence heart disease"

PT47S1Q23 *Thanks keets993

"ignores the possibility that an increase in theta waves may not always be accompanied by a state of profound creativity"

PT18S4Q9 *Thanks keets993

"It mistakes a correlation between the type of brain damage described and Parkinson's disease for a causal relation between the two"

PT39S4Q20 *Thanks keets993

"overlooks the possibility that the same thing may causally contribute both to education and to good health"

PT20S1Q10 *Thanks akistotle

"ignores the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars"

PT20S4Q14 *Thanks akistotle

"It concludes that one thing was caused by another although the evidecnce given is consistent with the first thing's having caused the second"

PT30S2Q25 *Thanks akistotle

"Because hormone levels are correlated with heart disease they influence heart disease"

PT31S2Q9 *Thanks akistotle

"offers no evidence that the individuals queried would have responded differently had they been asked the same questions in years prior to the survey"

PT64S1Q5 *Thanks akistotle

"dogs' misbehavior is the cause of, rather than the result of, frequent discipline"

PT65S1Q8 *Thanks akistotle

"illicitly infers a cause from a correlation"

PT66S4Q25 *Thanks akistotle

"foods containing fiber also contain other substances that, when consumed, tend to prevent colon cancer"

6) Circular Reasoning

PT17S2Q2 *Thanks keets993 and akistotle

"draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim given in support of that conclusion"

PT17S3Q20 *Thanks keets993 and akistotle

"assumes what it sets out to conclude"

PT6S3Q8 *Thanks akistotle

"It assumes what it seeks to establish"

PT24S2Q8 *Thanks akistotle

"presupposes the truth of the conclusion it is attempting to establish"

PT49S2Q23 *Thanks akistotle

"The purported evidence that it cites in support of its conclusion presumes that the conclusion is true"

7) Confusing necessary and sufficient conditions

PT63 S1 Q25

“infers that something that is sufficient to provide a motive is necessary to provide a motive”

PT22S2Q25 *Thanks keets993

"confuses a sufficient condition with a required condition"

PT17S2Q11 *Thanks keets993 and akistotle

"It mistakenly interprets P to be claiming that a factor assures, rather than is necessary for, a legislator's effectiveness"

PT17S3Q9 *Thanks keets993

"does not establish that only a bird could have made the track"

PT18S4Q3 *Thanks keets993

"Grass seeds will not germinate well unless they are pressed firmly into the ground. The grass seeds sown in this yard were pressed firmly into the ground, so they will germinate well"

PT22S4Q21 *Thanks akistotle

"presupposing that if an action's having a certain property is necessary for its being a certain type of action, then having that property is sufficient for being that type of action"

PT23S2Q19 *Thanks akistotle

"taking the nonexistence of something as evidence that a necessary precondition for that thing also did not exist"

PT23S3Q17 *Thanks akistotle

"mistakes being sufficient to justify punishment for being required to justify it"

PT24S2Q23 *Thanks akistotle

"From the assertion that something is necessary to a moral order, the argument concludes that that thing is sufficient for an element of the moral order to be realized"

PT30S4Q14 *Thanks akistotle

"It mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion to follow for something that ensures that the conclusion follows"

PTJ07S3Q25 *Thanks akistotle

"confuses a condition's being required for a given result to occur in one case with the condition's being sufficient for such a result to occur in a similar case"

PT64S1Q24 *Thanks akistotle

"confuses a claim that under certain conditions a certain action should be taken with a claim that the action need not be taken in the absence of those conditions"

PT67S2Q09 *Thanks akistotle

"treats a statement whose truth is required for the conclusion to be true as though it were a statement whose truth ensures that the conclusion is true"

PT68S3Q21 *Thanks akistotle

"takes for granted that the speech could not be inappropriate if it was not inflammatory"

8) False dichotomy

PT22S4Q09 *Thanks keets993

"treats two things, neither one of which can plausibly be seen as excluding the other, as though they were mutually exclusive"

PT39S4Q26 *Thanks keets993

"Since there is a storm moving in, the outside temperature cannot rise this afternoon. Therefore, it must fall."

9) Confusing probability for certainty

"It takes for granted that the economic incentive to construct colonies on the Moon will grow sufficiently to cause such a costly project to be undertaken."

10) Confusing "is" for "ought"

11) Percentages v. quantity

"Far more pedestrians cross at corners than jaywalk"

12) Surveys and samplings to reach a general conclusion

PT 63S1Q3

“It relies on the opinions of a group unlikely to be representative of the group at issue in the conclusion”

PT51S1Q4

“fails to state the number of dermatologists surveyed, which leaves open the possibility that the sample of doctors is too small to be reliable”

PT31S2Q03 *Thanks keets993

"Those who are best able to provide answers to the question are patients, rather than physicians"

PT39S4Q21 *Thanks keets993

"that there may be few if any other plumbers working in Moore's town"

13) Hasty generalization

PT51S3Q6

“draws a generalization that is broader than is warranted by the findings cited”

PT30S2Q13 *Thanks samantha.ashley92

"Treats a claim about what is currently the case as if it were a claim about what has been the case for an extended period"

PT39S2Q2 *Thanks samantha.ashley92

“draws a conclusion about all cases of a certain kind on the basis of evidence that justifies such a conclusion only about some cases of that kind”

PT18S4Q25 *Thanks keets993

"He attempts to refute a general claim by reference to nonconforming cases, although the claim is consistent with the occurrence of such cases"

14) Experiments to reach a general conclusion

"playing the study's card game perfectly requires fairly low levels of perception and memory"

15) Your argument fails therefore the opposite of your conclusion must be true

PT47S1Q8

“takes for granted that the fact that a claim has not been demonstrated to be false establishes that it is true”

PT51S1Q15 *Thanks samantha.ashley92

“the argument, in its attempt to refute one theory of species classification, presupposes the truth of an opposing theory”

16) Relative v. absolute

PT 53S1Q22 *Thanks keets993

"mistakes a merely relative property for one that is absolute"

PT 85S3Q24

"takes for granted that there are not significantly more households with a dog than ones with a cat"

17) Confusing one possible solution for the only solution

"Confuses being an adequate solution with being a required solution"

18) Red herring

PT26S2Q11

"it appeals to the emotion of pity rather than addressing the issue raised"

PT18S4Q11 *Thanks keets993

"relies on an irrelevant reason for rejecting the civil libertarian's argument"

-PT18S2Q04 *Thanks keets993

"He argues against a point that is not one that Marianna was making"

19) Tradition fallacy and novelty fallacy

“fails to show that a certain conclusion of the recent report is better justified than an opposing conclusion reached in older studies”

20) Confusing part v. whole

"To put together this year's two All-Star Teams, the best players in the league were selected. Half of them were put on Team One, and half were put on Team Two. Since each player on the two teams was one of the best players in the league this year, it follows that the two All-Star Teams are the two best teams this year."

I also describe this is as 'falsey transfers attributes that can't be transferred' *Thanks keets993

PT17S3Q19 *Thanks keets993

"Of all the flowers grown in the university's botanical garden, the Oakland roses are the most beautiful. Since the university's botanical garden is the most beautiful . Since the university's botanical garden is the most beautiful garden in the region, the Oakland roses grown in the garden must be the most beautiful flowers grown in the entire region."

PT17S3Q16 *Thanks keets993

"assuming that because something is true each of the parts of a whole it is true of the whole itself"

PT62S2Q7 *Thanks LCMama2017

"This paragraph is long. So the sentences that comprise it are long."

21) Beliefs v. facts

22) Relies on people's opinions as fact

"a claim is inferred to be false merely because a majority of people believe it to be false"

Match the flaw

PT47S1Q23

“ignores the possibility that an increase in theta waves may not always be accompanied by a state of profound creativity”

PT51S1Q6

“It fails to take into account that what brings someone happiness at one moment may not bring that person happiness at another time”

PT51S1Q18

“overlooks the possibility that most people may have voted for small cities even though a large city received more votes than any other single city”

PT51S3Q4

“fails to consider that the total amount of money spent on education may be much greater than the total spent on sports”

PT51S3Q9

“fails to consider the possibility that the vehicle related fatality rates in other areas are also rising”

PT67S2Q9

"treats a statement whose truth is required for the conclusion to be true as though it were a statement whose truth ensures that the conclusion is true"

PT67S2Q21

"the argument fails to consider that bees might be present even in the absence of a particular condition that would ensure their presence"

More added by @samantha.ashley92

PT30S4Q8: "The argument presumes that no other evidence is relevant to the issue at hand"

PT30S4Q14: "It mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion to follow for something that ensures that the conclusion follows"

MSS - can someone help explain why D + E are incorrect and A is correct? I'm just missing something.Thanks in advance :)

Can anyone explain to me how the answer for this question is (b) and not (e)? I cannot convince myself that (e) is not the right answer. Saying (b) is the right answer seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Someone please help!

I got tricked. I did not pay enough attention to the words. I chose option answer E, but it says "most articles" whereas C has "Ragnall's" which is more specific.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

Originally got this question wrong (picked E), but I think I understand why C is right - could someone confirm my thinking?

Stim:

P: Infant death rates have declined historically

C: But that doesn't necessarily mean the babies currently born are actually healthier now.

Hm, why is that? Is it that they are more likely to live but are still really weak when they're born?

ACs:

A - We're not focused on the rates for infant mortality. The stim already addresses some localities where the rates have increased.

B - This explains why 51%+ of the infants who are already part of that mortality rate died, but doesn't explain why the infants who survived aren't necessarily healthier.

C - Originally I eliminated this AC because I misunderstood the stimulus when it came to "infant mortality" and what actually meant to be part of that rate. But if the US is developing awesome tech that is able to keep babies alive, then that explains why babies are dying are lower rates - we're able to save them better, but nothing's really changed in their unhealthy state during birth.

D - Again, not focused on infant mortality rates

E - Originally picked this one because C just didn't click for me, so I tried to justify that E introduced some sort of alternative cause as to why they're not as healthy. But this has one huge issue: The stim is talking about babies at BIRTH and this AC is talking about babies who grow into toddlers, young kids, etc.

#help

I keep getting stuck on where to put the slash in a conditional diagram that has "no" or "none", has anyone figured out at tip that helps them? Also is without a sufficient or necessary indicator?

Does anyone know how to translate this?

Thank you