@OverheadHopefulStructure Thank you!
I sometimes get tripped up distinguishing between premises and background context. Sometimes I miss a premise because I think it’s just context, and other times I mistake context for a premise. Has anyone else struggled with this? If so, what strategies have helped you get better at telling the difference? I’ve already gone through the explanations in the core curriculum, and it's not really clicking - I’d really appreciate some fresh perspectives.
I got this wrong because I didn't recognize it as a premise. This seems to be where I get the most tripped up on these types of questions. I thought that this sentence was merely offering context. Has anyone else overcome this challenge, if so what ways of approaching has helped you?
@lilacsunrise0526 did you read this article?
@JustinWright2000 ^^
Here is an example I have come up with:
All Italian olives make good olive oil
Taggiasca is a type of Italian olive
Therefore, Taggiasca olives makes good olive oil
Good olive oil is used in making great pasta
C. Therefore, when Taggiasca olive oil is used, the pasta will be great
@AutonomousTacticalTheory Dallas Giants? please don't ever say that again
@Sameer Ahamad It does not work both ways. In the second interpretation, the premise about reliability does not support the conclusion about whether operational tracking studies illustrate exact return on investment. The issue of reliability is separate from the ability to illustrate something. A study can illustrate a result regardless of whether it is deemed reliable. The word “illustrate” refers to showing or demonstrating something, not necessarily doing so in a reliable or valid way. Therefore, the claim that some studies are not reliable does not justify the conclusion that they fail to illustrate return on investment. So it must be the case then that the first interpretation is right
@JonSnowTakestheLSAT There is no unstated assumption in the argument. The use of "can" signals that Disney Vacation Club members are now eligible to access the Genie+ fast pass, but the argument immediately qualifies that eligibility. Members may obtain the pass only if they meet one of two conditions: either offering ten goats in propitiation or prostrating before Goofy's altar. These conditions are presented as mutually exclusive and exhaustive. In other words, while members can get the pass, they cannot obtain it unless they fulfill one of these two requirements. (It is wise to approach "can" statements as way they imply cannot be done)
The mention of downloading the pass via the app is irrelevant to the core logic. It, perhaps, introduces an additional premise, but one that does not affect the validity of the argument. This is common on the LSAT - arguments often contain extra, irrelevant details. Just because a premise appears does not mean it must be used. What matters is whether the conclusion logically follows from the necessary premises. In this case, the conclusion rests on two key facts: Walt has the Genie+ pass, and he has never prostrated himself. Therefore, he must have offered the goats. The argument is valid
Sorry, it can certainly feel discouraging to practice so much and not see progress. My biggest piece of advice would be to watch every explanation video for all the problems you miss. Then make note in the notes section why you go the answer wrong. Getting a roommate, friend or spouse can help too. I have a few neighbors who are also studying for the LSAT and we get together a few times a week and explain to each other why we got questions wrong. It is very very helpful. It's also helpful to do this with questions you get right. When I first started studying I would get many questions correct without being able to articulate why they were correct. I know you can figure them out. It does take time, but it can be helpful to do more intentional repetitions. hopefully this helps