I was confused on this too, but I think I understand it now. B is a principle. The issue with that answer choice isn't that it's a principle, but rather that Varela doesn't actually disagree with the principle.
She never says "actually looking into private matters is totally okay even if it's not legitimate scientific investigation." We have no idea whether she agrees or disagrees with the principle. What we do know is that she disagrees with the wording Pulford uses and the distinction he makes between curiosity and inquiry. Does that make sense?
I chose D for the same reason and am still confused. #help
Ignoring "bulged dick" let me see if I can help lol
For me, I picture sufficiency as a "trigger." So, for a bulged or slipped disc to be sufficient, that would mean anyone who has one automatically triggers having that back pain as well. But, we learn from the stimulus that this isn't right. If we break down the argument, it's basically just saying "well if it doesn't automatically trigger that pain then obviously it doesn't lead to that pain." Kind of a shitty argument.
JY's example is that if smoking were sufficient for lung cancer, anyone who smoked would obviously also get lunch cancer. but that isn't the case. It IS the case however that smoking can potentially lead to lung cancer. It's also the case that a bulged disc can potentially lead to severe back pain. But it doesn't automatically trigger it. This is what the argument fails to consider.
I am CONSTANTLY confusing myself with sufficiency and necessity, especially in questions like this where it isn't really super clear. What helps me the most is to remind myself of the "New York/USA" example and see if I can apply it to the question at hand:
Being in New York is sufficient for being in the United States. ie if you're in NYC, you're automatically also in the USA. But, being in the USA is not sufficient for being in New York. For example, I could be in Utah. So, saying "I'm in the USA" does not trigger that I'm in New York.
For this argument, if you want bulging discs to be your sufficient condition, you have to make it New York and you have to make 'having extreme back pain' the USA. Once you do that, you realize that simply having those discs isn't enough to automatically trigger the pain. Does that make sense?
Idk-I also struggled between AC A and AC B, but B just pointed to the weakness of the actual argument a lot more
#feedback same as everyone else's but just boosting since it hasn't been addressed yet!
1. The type of question is not present in the title or anywhere on the page. It just says "theory and approach." So, unless we went back to the syllabus, we would not know that "AP" stood for Argument Part"
2. What is MP? several of us are confused. Main Conclusion, perhaps?
3. There is a random question stem in the fourth paragraph that is not present in the actual passage anywhere. This question stem is actually for the next lesson.
I understand why C is correct on a theoretical level, but I am still mad about it lol. For SO many lessons, JY has been emphasizing that "grammar is king." It's been drilled into us CONSTANTLY that dissecting grammar is super important to picking the right answer choice.
The stimulus says that activities that pose risks are acceptable if...
It does NOT say that risks are acceptable. "That pose risks" is a modifier of "activities."
Answer choice A was the only one that satisfied the rule and talked about the activity itself being acceptable, not the risk! Answer choice C says the risk is acceptable. How should I know if the risk is acceptable in answer choice C? The stimulus says nothing about risks being successful-only activities that pose risks. I originally picked C but then remembered to focus on the grammar. I then decided on A and was proud of myself for not being tricked by the test writers. Jokes on me.
I could easily see this being an explanation for a different question with the trap answer being something worded like AC C and the correct answer being something worded like AC A.
Why does grammar matter so much on other questions but is seemingly irrelevant here?
(again, I understand why C is correct and A is incorrect. I get that not buying a new car isn't really an activity and we have no idea if the risks are life threatening. That part makes sense to me. Just mad about the grammar of it all and mostly just venting).
#help #HUHHHH????????!!!!!!!!
I chose C for the same reason! The conclusion is that 1984 exercised influence on a great number of the newspapers readers. But what if 1,000 is not a great number? What if that's only a fraction of how many people read the newspaper? To me, knowing how many people actually read the newspaper would help evaluate the strength of the argument.
I see pretty good reasoning for picking both B or C. Not sure why B is a better answer than C though. Could anyone help clarify why C isn't as good of an answer as B?
One thing that has REALLY helped me with these is something JY said once in an explanation video: one cannot disagree with something they don't have an opinion on. Basically, if the author doesn't say anything about a specific answer choice, don't just assume they haver an opinion on it! This has helped me with process of elimination and remembering that there is only ONE right answer
Hi! This is not an argument. These are just statements we can assume to be true.
If you were to say "Only roses are red. There is a red flower in the garden. Therefore, the flower in the garden is a rose" That might make more sense.
In lawgic:
Red --> Rose
/Rose --> / Red
We're given the information that all red things have to be roses. We're also given the information that there is a red thing in the garden. The conclusion that follows is that there's a rose in the garden
Essentially, the argument needs to have a conclusion. These are just premises.
Hi! Not sure if this is helpful, but what helps me is to just go sentence by sentence and translate each one into Lawgic before even trying to chain. Doing this repetitively makes it more instinctual, I've found.
So for question 1:
If Mr. White grows weed, then he also cooks meth. If he synthesizes LSD, then he cannot cook meth. He can make heroin only if he synthesizes LSD.
Growing weed = W
Cooking Meth = M
Synthesizing LSD = LSD
Making Heroin = H
Let's go sentence by sentence and find the conclusion and the contrapositive.
If Mr. White grows weed, then he also cooks meth.
W-M
/M-/W
Next Sentence
If he synthesizes LSD, then he cannot cook meth.
LSD - /M
M - /LSD
Final Sentence
He can make heroin only if he synthesizes LSD.
H-LSD
/LSD - /H
Now, let's combine all of our rules into one list.
W - M
/M - /W
LSD - /M
M - /LSD
H-LSD
/LSD - /H
You'll notice that there are some repeat symbols. For example, "/M" shows up with "/W" as well as "LSD." SO, if LSD-/M, and /M-/W, then it must be true that LSD-/M-/W. (Or in english, if he makes LSD, he can't make meth, which means he can't make weed).
Using the same logic, we see if there's H, then there's LSD. So let's add it all together:
H-LSD-/M-/W
If he makes heroin, he makes LSD. If he makes LSD, he cannot make meth or weed.
Or, we can say the contrapositive, which is:
W-M-/LSD-/H
If he makes weed, he also makes meth. If he makes meth, he cannot make LSD. If he doesn't make LSD, he can't make heroin.
Does that make sense? Basically, just write everything into lawgic and make sure the contrapositive is there too. Then, you'll see which things relate to one another.
Hi! I'm planning on taking the August (and maybe September) LSAT. Is there anyone in NYC in the same boat? I'd love to meet somewhere like a coffee shop or the Bryant Park Library to study/work our way through 7sage.
Even just to study quietly next to each other and not even talk would be appreciated lol. Sometimes it's just nice to have solidarity.
Shoot me an email if interested!
I'm still really confused on this question. I picked answer choice A on both the test and the blind review.
Is it not possible that their views contradict each other and they just don't know it? Perhaps they are just dumb, but that doesn't mean their views don't contradict each other. For example:
My cat is fat, so he gets extra belly rubs. (This is a fact. You just read it so even if you didn't already believe it before, you certainly believe it now.)
Many of my friends criticize my cat because they believe that being fat has no health benefits. These same friends believe that belly rubs have health benefits.
Here's the entire content of those people's beliefs:
b1 - Being fat has no health benefits.
b2 - Belly rubs have health benefits.
Do the friends in question not have contradictory views? Even if they aren't aware that their views are contradictory, that doesn't make it any less true that they contradict, right? Maybe I'm just super confused but I didn't think people had to be aware that their views contrasted each other for the contrast to be legitimate.
I ruled out answer choice C because I thought the wording of "good" and "for society" was too vague. The stimulus says, "These same people think that kindness and social harmony are good." Good for what!!??! Good for dogs? Good for their own family? Good for elementary classrooms? Good for fat cats who like belly rubs? It doesn't say. How do we know that these people think that kindness and social harmony are specifically good for society? We don't. So, we can't explicitly say whether their views are mistaken. Right? Because of this, I just thought that the stimulus gave far more support for answer choice A than answer choice C.
Please help. I feel like I am going insane.