Hi Garett and hfrdmn,

I found this question super challenging as well. So I googled the question and I was able to find an explanation that makes more concrete sense to me.

I really thought A was the right answer until I read the explanation by a different test company. I find it weird to post it directly, I think you should be able to find it if you google the question.

Anyways the explanation says that "(A) As one gets older one gets wiser." is meant as a per person type of premise ( I think this is what J.Y. is trying to get at)

This is more visible if we rewrite this premise just a bit more explicitly such as "As an individual gets older that same one individual gets wiser."

When we compare our rewritten premise, which unpacks the referential "one" in AC (A), to the initial premise in answer choice "(D) The older a tree, the more rings it has" we can start to see a difference in the relationship that D is presenting. It's more of an absolute general statement - similar, certainly more similar to the stimulus "The higher the altitude, the thinner the air."

Finally, the explanation by christine.defenbaugh brings this all together by stating "The blanket rule in (A) does apply to all people - but only to one person at a time. Every person is wiser than their younger self, but we can't use this rule to compare two different people"

I disagree when she says "The blanket rule in (A) DOES apply to all people" I think this is what makes this type of choice so tricky. Is that the argument in A CAN apply to all people but, once we unpack A using referential phrasing, we can see more clearly it isn't what the argument is claiming.

Assuming that answer choice A DOES do something is what I think can start to lead us down the path of confusion. It applies to any one individual, and therefore all individuals, individually, but we can't compare this quality across different individuals because this quality can vary per individual.

If I recall correctly J.Y. has a video explaining comparison statements which may be more helpful.

Charter says the student body must include some students with special educational needs: this is some parameter of the argument.

We continue reading and find that no students with learning disabilities have enrolled yet. Then we get the conclusion.

——————

Given the information above we must conclude that the the school is in violation of its charter, because a violation of a charter is no students with special educational needs are present.

Sooo... what must be true?

That the author is assuming that the only students with special needs are those with learning disabilities.

@wesleybward464-B @ohnoeshalpme804 Thank you both so much for taking the time to write this out. My studying has been so sporadic I have been unsure about how to proceed.

@crossabygail494

Do you know if 7Sage will put up the webinar or has put up the webinar for this? Or does anyone know?

#help

Hi! @476

Thanks so much for providing the tracking sheet. Would it be possible to get some clarity on how you used the sheet? I guess I am sort of wondering if the time it took you to read through the passage on RC, and answer each question, both things together, added up to 40 minutes - just the first time you ever went through a passage, and then on the second try it took you 40 minutes just for the questions.

Also, I am not sure what the circle column is for. I've listened to both the podcast twice and haven't been able to figure that out.

It looks like a super helpful tracker and I am hoping to use it as intended, just starting to track RC.

I got the questions from the previous problem set correct, yet, this one I was stumped by and was not able to finish.

Great, Thank you for the update!

I'm near SF, can also accommodate time zones!

I sat down, took it last June, canceled the score, I knew there was no way I was getting the score I needed. I am supposed to be sitting down for it in a couple of weeks and just delayed it by a couple of months. I am thinking about pushing it a whole other cycle. All I can do is tear up at these thoughts.

However, this post and the thoughtful comments are encouraging ... and grounding. I am feeling grateful to everyone who has shared. Cannot thank y'all enough.

Would anyone else know of any other possible similar summer institutes this year? I am definitely interested in the curriculum. However, I checked out the website and unfortunately it's not exactly a cheap 2 weeks, even as an online institute. Could it still be a good idea even if Duke is not exactly a target school?

Thanks for the heads up!

I appreciate this post. I have been stuck on this problem set for a couple of days and J.Y.s explanation didn't make sense. It was when I read "The author also fails to consider the 18 year olds who graduated..." that what I was missing hit me. It was what I needed to understand before being able to make sense of answer choice C.

Can someone clarify? In the video J.Y. maps out the relationship as Depression/Hypocondria being correlated with Tinted Glasses, concluding that Depression causes the wearing of the Tinted Glasses.

His diagram is like this: D/H -> TG (This would indicate that tinted glasses are the necessary condition in the conditional logic framework)

But the conclusion in the passage reads like this: "it can be concluded that when such glasses are worn, it is because the wearer has a tendency to be depressed or hypochondriacal."

Which I would diagram like this TG ->D/H (This would indicate that glasses are the sufficient condition in the conditional logic framework )

Is there something that I am missing? I am seeking clarification because I think it would make it easier to identify a weakening question more accurately. I tried reading through the comments and I didn't find them too helpful.

#help

I am having such a hard time seeing how A is not weakening the question.

I completely understand and agree that D does weaken the question, however, I can't get past the idea that A also weakens it, what led me to choose it is the "be as happy as possible" in the conclusion.

If I understand it correctly the premise is:

Most people who have pets are less happy than most

people who do not.

Conclusion : Any person who wants to be as happy as possible

would do well to consider not having a pet

I interpret the premise as a generalization since it says "most" soo... a lot of the people who have pets are less happy than a lot of the people who do not.

Translation 1:

p -> less happy

not less happy -> no pet.

Translation 2:

p-> h

h->p

Now: A says "Some people who have pets are happier than most who don't". OOOOOhhhhhh....I just realized I was making the assumption that if someone where to tell me "some" actually are happier, while I was making the claim that "most" ...I would be thinking they meant all...which is not the case.

Takeaway: SOME doesn't negate or lessen MOST.

If you are still reading this, thank you for taking the time. I hope it was helpful. Other 7Sagers have done a good job of explaining. Such as @tams2018 "Most is at least 51% of people. That doesn’t mean the 49% leftover aren’t happy." If you have been struggling with this question, I would definitely recommend continuing to read through the comments. I finally feel like I can move on, the "as happy as possible" is addressed by answer choice D because it offers that you can be happy if you have a pet.

Does anyone know if a weakening question will have both an answer choice that weakens the question, AND an answer choice that will destroy the question premise/conclusion? I ask this as I work on the Weakening Problem Set 10: LSAT PT24 - Section 2 - Question 01- December 1997

#help

Thanks!

Hi czheng15! As far as I understand it...a weaken EXCEPT question doesn't have to support the answer, it can be irrelevant and still be the correct choice. The choice doesn't have to support the argument, it could just be an added fact. However, if someone else understand this differently, I would totally appreciate knowing that.

Anyone else dismiss E because they were thinking that it was almost hearsay? but then..after reading through the comments you realize you are supposed to take everything the LSAT says as true.

Thank you @Vee_silva ! This is close to the third time I see this and have not been able to find it in the curriculum thus far. You wouldn't also happen to know where J.Y. discusses this?

@jhaldy10325 @crossabygail494 Sounds great! Thank you both. So excited.

I believe this makes me the 14th person to share my interest in this! Thanks again!

Hello,

I'm looking everywhere, trying to figure out what POE means...

@jhaldy10325 definitely also interested, I don't know if you can, but maybe a poll would help? Or at least a notice in the forums? Perhaps some kind of announcement?

Hello!

Not sure if you are still here on 7Sage, but I am wondering what you mean by POE? I am curious if I missed this somehow in the previous lessons of the core curriculum, or if it is it coming up, or maybe not even a 7Sage thing.

Thanks in advance for your time!

Totally 100% agreed with this... I think we could have taken this argument to the LSAC... they would win due to the counterarguments that are pointed out later in here. "

"I chose B because the answer was supported. I felt that C was too specific for something that I did not know about. Really if you just remember the loose rule that MSS correct answers are usually generalized so that it is difficult to have them unsupported, then you would get the credited answer. B is just harder to disprove relative to C. Li had exactly 40%? She had the exact average? WTF is this?" - Jeff the Cheeseburger

As well as J.Y. mentioning in the video, that B cites "on average" Li is too specific a data point, what if there are other factors in Li's life that do not allow for that 40% decrease to be true? Like he smokes etc.

What is POE?