I was crying when I got my score yesterday. Over a year of studying. First diagnostic was a 157. Quite studying an entire semester due to depression. My first test, and the highest I had hit on my practice tests was 171. Thank you so much to 7Sage, I would’ve never hit this without this program. The only program I will ever recommend!
https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/advanced-valid-forms-review/
We have B-most->Z which implies two inferences B-most->C and B-most->/O. When you combine B-most->Z with B-most->/P, that gives you the inference /P some Z. But can you also then take the two previous inferences, B-most->C and B-most->/O, in combination with B-most->/P to create to additional inferences, /P some C and /P some /O, respectively? If those last two inferences are not valid inferences, then why are they not? I ask because in the comments on the lesson, someone stated that you can infer /P some Z but NOT /P some C and /P some /O, which makes zero sense to me.
There are two separate groups of lessons on the syllabus - one for assumption questions and one for causation/phenomenon-hypothesis questions. This has led me to believe that within weakening questions, these are two different sub-types. For weakening questions, it is my understanding that for some (assumption questions) we should attack an assumption that is made, while for others (causation questions) we should attack the fact that the author says x causes y when in reality that is not necessarily the case (y could cause x, z could cause x and y, or there could simply be no relation between x and y). My confusion is whether or not these are two separate questions, or if I should instead always be looking for an assumption that is made and causation is a tool to attack that assumption. I also need advice on how to identify causation questions vs. assumption questions if they are separate question types within weakening/strengthening questions.
1975: avg individual income: 95, avg price paid for car: 10
2000: avg individual income: 100, avg price paid for car: 20
avg individual income % change: 5%, avg price paid for car % change: 100%
author's conclusion: individuals, on average, pay more relative to their income than they did 25 years ago.
E: There are less new cars sold to individuals now than 25 years ago, meaning that while the avg price has increased steadily compared to avg individual income, that does not necessarily mean that individuals, on average, are paying more relative to their incomes because if every time a new car is sold, it is purchased by a group of 5 people rather than one individual, that means despite the average price of a car increasing steadily relative to the average individual income, individuals are spending less, on average.
#help
I understand why B is correct, but shouldn't E also be correct given that the premise has to do with household accidents but the conclusion talks about "accidents" in general? I mean, data relating to household accidents is completely irrelevant when discussing accidents as a whole. Just because more right-handers, in total, cause household accidents has no influence over whether or not left-handed people are more prone to accidents, in general. And the author does disregard the opposing claim by calling it a myth.
#help I got this correct because it was clearly the only relevant answer, but why is it the case that E doesn't attack the conclusion or premise of the second legislator?
Can someone explain the difference between assumption questions and causation questions when it comes to strengthening/weakening questions? I am completely lost after the causation lessons.
The argument assumes that as age increases, so does the likelihood that you will refuse to disclose financial info. But how do we know the latter is dependent on the former? It could just be that people born into older generations were always taught to not discuss financial info, whereas younger people were not. Then age isn't the cause, but rather the period they were born.
Why is it that we can use the contrapositive on this problem but on a former problem, we were told that it could not be used? I believe it was an earlier MSS question.
#help (Added by Admin)
Thank you to all three of you! I will continue to work on improving my ability on SA/PSA questions using the lawgic method; they are the question type I have struggled with the most, but drilling some earlier has seemed to already help a little.
I did the SA/PSA lessons and seemed to be somewhat slow and only got about 85% of all the problems in the lessons correct. I've found that it helps to just think of them as strengthening questions at first and attempt to find an assumption that will strengthen the argument, then use logic if it seems too difficult. Is this a viable method or will it come back to bite me if I don't just learn to drill out SA/PSA questions with logic (i.e. will it lessen my chances of getting more difficult SA/PSA questions correct, slow me down with these problems, etc.)?
#help I eliminated B because of the fact that the statement in the question stem only acts as support for the sub-conclusion when it is combined with the statement that "many people complain about government intervention in their lives," yet the latter statement I mentioned is not included in the question stem. Thus, I chose D because saying people tend to not reelect inactive politicians makes a generalization about the group of people whom do not like government intervention in their lives by saying that most of them do such a thing. What makes B a better answer than D??? Saying that people tend to not reelect inactive politicians is useless as support for the sub-conclusion unless you also know that many people dislike government intervention, and we are not given that statement in the question stem.
#Help — How necessary is it to follow a specific anecdote throughout your entire personal statement? I have been writing mine about a disability that I have, and I start it off with an anecdote of me at the doctor’s office for the intro paragraph, but I largely depart from that for the rest of the essay in order to describe how that disability affected me negatively for years, then how I learned to cope with that disability while still feeling as though it would only ever hold me back, and finally how I discovered that the coping mechanism I learned in response to my disability is actually a skill that is underutilized in law and one that I plan to use in my legal career.
I feel like my essay is pretty good (I’m not finished writing it, but in terms of where I see it going), but it seems as though every personal statement I read follows a singular anecdote throughout the essay. Also, 7Sage recommends that you focus on a scene (specific point in time), rather than a summary (span of time), but I don’t see how I can squeeze my idea into a specific anecdote/point in time. Help please:(
Are there any principle question stems? 36 tripped me up in thinking it was a principle question, so I am concerned I would get the two mixed
#help (Added by Admin)