- Joined
- Feb 2026
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
NA makes so much sense once I treat them as "MBT" question types! The negation test was not clicking for me lol
I was stuck between B and C and initially did not understand why B was the answer. Then, after careful review, I came to realize that C does not strengthen the argument -- it merely widens the gap in the stimulus between the premises and the conclusions. Our goal is to lessen that gap.
On the spectrum of support, this argument is weak because the author is making the assumption that not releasing enough information about UFOs and brushing aside these requests is grounds for believing that spacecraft have been spotted near Earth. In essence, the essayist is jumping from point A to point D.
Answer choice C is wrong because it contributes to the gap already present in the argument. It just reinforces the premise that the government is hiding something.
Answer choice B lessens this gap by connecting the government's secrecy to the essayist's conclusion. If the government would withhold information related to UFOs only if it were established that they were from other planets, then the government's refusal to release information becomes evidence that it has, in fact, determined the UFOs are extraterrestrial.
On test day, I thought they provided us with headphones to block out sound? Are ear plugs a specific accommodation?
Hi all,
I feel as if I have a decent grasp on the different LR question types -- except for Necessary and Sufficient Assumption. For some reason, these just don't click naturally for me, and I even struggle on the Level 2 and 3 questions. I am leaving points on the table by not fully comprehending this topic.
Is there anyone that could explain this to me? I find that the online and even 7sage explanations don't help much and I might need someone else's interpretation of the subject matter to understand it.
Thank you!
@isabellagirjikian Hi! I'll try my best. If I'm being completely honest, I am not using the chart/spectrum of support that 7sage teaches. I think approaching Point at Issue questions like "Most Strongly Supported" questions is a great approach. Also, I think the first part of this lesson, where they talk about the speakers either being explicit vs. implicit about their opinions helped me to better approach those questions.
For this specific example, this was my approach:
1) Read the question.
2) Identify that it's a point at issue question type and tell myself that I'm looking for where the speakers disagree
3) Translate Lutsina's argument/identify the conclusion. Lutsina is saying that futuristic sci-fi is a better source of social criticism than conventional fiction.
4) Translate Priscilla argument/indentify the conclusion. Priscilla is saying that conventional fiction is a better source of social criticism than sci-fi because conventional fiction is grounded in reality.
5) I think from here, we can deduce that they're disagreeing about what which fiction genre serves as a better tool for social criticism.
I would say that in this example, their point of disagreement is explicitly stated. Lutsina, in the last sentence, says "Thus futuristic sci-fi has the potential to be a richer source of social criticism." Richer than what? Than conventional fiction. A comparison is being made here. Priscilla refutes this claim by saying, in the last sentence, "the most effective social criticism results from...conventional fiction." Answer choice C gets us here.
Congrats!!! How long did you study for?