@SherazShriqui Did you get why you got the two wrong tho ?

@SherazShriqui Don`t worry about it we got this :)

@Ryo ofc we got this :)

This is a horrid question!

Loved this !!!! literally refreshed my mind on Sufficient Assumption

Anyone else almost fell asleep?

Anyone else Choose D :( I eliminated E because it said RESEARCH and literally it said "NO EMPIRICAL RESEARCH " IN THE SECOND PASSAGE ...... UGHHHHH AND I DID NOT CONSIDER PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH !!! THAT IS WHY I CHOOSE "D" WHICH SAYS CONTROLLED STUDIES BUT NOW I SEE IT IS WRONG BECAUSE WE HAD NO CONTROLLED STUDIES AND THAT IS WHY "D" IS WRONG -------- Note: What is a controlled Study ? when you test one thing while keeping everything else the same to see if it really makes a difference. ( THIS WAS NOT IN OUR PASSAGE)

@A'mariePollard

✅ Cause must come before effect. ❌ If effect happens before cause → hypothesis fails.

you’re just making sure you don’t confuse the order — because time order = proof of causal direction on LSAT logic.

🐬 Example (Dolphins)

Hypothesis: “Toxic chemicals caused the dolphins’ deaths.” But if we find out → the dolphins were already dying before the chemicals leaked... → Then the chemicals can’t be the cause. ❌

NOTE DO NOT CONFUSE THE CONTRAPOSITIVE WITH CONFUSING THE ORDER :

The contrapositive is not the same thing as mistaking the order. It’s actually the correct logical reversal — it preserves the truth of the original rule.

Let’s make it super clear 👇

🌿 The Original Rule

If A caused B, then A happened before B. ✅ (Cause must come before effect.)

A---->B

🔁 The Contrapositive (the logical flip)

If A did not happen before B, then A cannot be the cause of B. ✅ (Still true — this is valid logic.)

/B---->/A

🚫 Mistaking the Order (what not to do)

That’s when someone says:

“B happened before A, so B must have caused A.”

B---->A

❌ That’s the causal fallacy of reversing cause and effect — not a contrapositive, just wrong reasoning.

@PaulinaBaczkowski

#feedback yes I agree they where so short not explaining where this applies on the LSAT!!!! But I found this explanation somewhere else not on 7sage....

I also provided a visual chain that helped me! Just notes if someone is as confused as I am...

🧭 LSAT Question Types Where This Appears

1. Strengthen - Is the hypothesis a good explanation?

You Add evidence that supports the causal link or mechanism

1. Weaken- Is there a better or different cause?

You Propose an alternative explanation or show the mechanism is false

1. Flaw- Did they assume one cause explains everything?

Spot the jump from phenomenon → single cause (ignoring alternatives)

1. Resolve/Explain- Which answer best explains the mystery?You Pick the hypothesis that best fits the phenomenon

Causal Reasoning Framework (for LSAT)

[Observation / Phenomenon]

↓

Something happened

[Hypothesis / Explanation]

↓

Because of __

↓

[Causal Mechanism]

↓

The “how” — steps linking cause to effect

To everyone who feels stuck keep going just get the basic idea and move on because this stuff is rubbish

@brightblurr Just keep going this whole section is confusing don`t let this nonsense leave you stuck just get the idea and move to the next....

You know what I am just gonna find the core of the sentence I got Sabotage Vote will backfire... 7sage just expects me to know... Like these explanation are nonsense

@RowanHalli i also got 1/3 its okey what matters is that we keep going :)

1/3 took it twice ----- 1/3 don`t feel bad we get punched twice and we get back up.... Review review review..

Note:subsidiary conclusion means intermediate conclusion ( meaning its like a conclusion that leads to another conclusion.)

D is wrong because their was multiple considerations not just one.....

Did anyone see the word "Without" And apply group 3 translation rule negated the sufficient condition and kept it sufficient hence leading to D ?

@AnibalCPerez SUPER HELPFUL IT MAKES SENSE NOW THANK YOU <3

This question is horrid first of all how do you not even know that removing milk has negative effects ? is that not bringing outside information. D seems more reasonable because premises was about eating less fat for heart health. Then our conclusion spoke about good health. You can have avoided heart disease but have good health. I don`t know if anyone can explain.

@hcjacobs The principle says: yes, we have complete freedom of thought and expression. But the double negative (“does not mean there is nothing wrong”) really means: some things people do with that freedom are still wrong. In this case, it’s saying it’s wrong to exploit corrupt or depraved tastes just to make money.

That’s why C works: it keeps the freedom (no laws stopping books) but still points out that pandering to depraved tastes isn’t okay. It is wrong.

D doesn’t fit because it talks about the government limiting production. I orginally picked it because I was like it looks like their is finacial gail from the recordings but that is not what the principle is about it is about moral right vs. wrong. D completely dismisses if it is wrong.

8 min and 45 seconds without accommodations