Hi,
Could someone pls explain what the stimulus is saying and how is B a better(and correct) answer than B? None of the answers stuck out to me as actually addressing the gap in the stimulus and so I think I might have misunderstood the argument entirely.
Thanks in advance!
Hey,
I have not started any applications yet (still have to take the LSAT) but I was a tutor at my university's writing center for most of my time in undergrad(just graduated) and so have a lot experience editing/reviewing all kinds of writing. If you are comfortable, I can def take a look at your essays.
@ Great, happy to help!
Hey,
Although I got it right, I too, was a bit confused by the wording of this question at first. It took me two whole minutes to get it. Basically, it is asking you to identify an answer that would be in agreement with the Health Association's argument (that based on studies, people who eat meat can change their diets to meatless ones and not suffer as a result) and in disagreement with the Critic's argument (that the disposition of the people in the studies made them an inaccurate representation of people as a whole).
Anyway, I chose E because it was the only which I could see that the two sides have clear opposite opinions on. The Critic, based on his response, would disagree with answer E--perhaps stating that, we cannot make such a generalized extrapolation based on an argument premised on faulty studies. Meanwhile, the Health Association would agree with answer E since it is in line with their initial conclusion that "people who eat meat can change their diets to meatless ones and not suffer as a result..." I hope this makes sense.
Interested! Also planning to take April.
@ This sounds like a good strategy and great way to get better at understanding the different parts of the stimulus and structure!
@ Thank you for sharing! I think my main issue with LR is that I get too lost in trying to remember everything in a stimulus instead of just focusing on the conclusion and premises. However, I definitely think the loophole strategies (especially translations) work but I just need to mentally commit to it with actual practice. I'll try translating sections and see how it goes.
Basically, how do you study for the Logical Reasoning using a strategic and structured method akin to the foolproof method? I am currently focused on Foolproofing but will be start back on LR soon. I have already finished the CC a while ago and was consistently getting around -8 which was my starting point anyway. I also have the Loophole and will go over it one more time since I rushed through it back in November. I would like to know what other effective strategies people have been using for LR before I start focusing on the section again.
What is the stimulus saying??
Upon review, these guys are definitely correct. I should have carefully read the stimulus smh!
Hi,
Can someone please enlighten me on why answer choice C is wrong and why E is not just a restatement of the argument?
Thank you in advance!
I have been at it with the games for about 2.5 months now. If it helps, I follow the pacifico strategy. I can do most of PT 1-23 with my worst being around ~5 on time or with time left. However, when I take a new game, even if I know how to complete it, it takes a long time and I end up missing half the questions. Hence, my timing is the same as it was when I first started fool-proofing even though I "feel" that my inferencing skills have gotten much stronger. I am trying not "hate" this section, but as someone who doesn't enjoy the games, the apparent ineffectiveness of fool-proofing is extremely frustrating. It feels like a waste of time especially because I have not dedicated as much time to the other sections which I am relatively good at: LR (-7 to -5) and RC(-5 to -2). Also, since I'm shooting for June, I don't think I have time to spend another month on fool-proofing. However, I know I need to get my current -10+ to something much lower to break into my goal score. I am just rambling now but I need suggestions on how to re-approach games. Has anyone tried something better than fool-proofing that has worked?
@ Right, the book even emphasizes that the goal is to basically have the process become intuitive and not mechanical to the point of reciting the steps in one's head. I just started practicing the "drill" so I'll keep at it for a few more sections and hope for the best. Thank you for your input!
I am wondering if I'm doing mine correctly. My assumption is that once it "clicks," I can self-correct. But I might be wrong so I'm wondering how those of you that used the Loophole checked your drills for accuracy?
Hi Guys, I am going through the LSAT trainer and came across diagramming drills using "only if" and I am having a hard time understanding the answers. I would really appreciate it if someone could help explain?
My thought process: this is basically two statements in one (one for "if" and the other for "only if"
A. H will go before J if H is after M: M-H--J
B: H will go before J only if H is after M: I get the same answer as the one above, which means my thought process in interpreting "only if" is probably off. The correct answer is J-H-M but I don't understand how. I know that "only if" statements should result in the opposite diagrams as those of "if" statements, but this is a rule I have only memorized and do not necessarily understand. Please help and thank you in advance!
Hey,
One way to think of the necessary assumption is that it is proven/supported by the conclusion of the argument. Unlike the sufficient assumption, which proves the conclusion of an argument, the necessary assumption is instead proven by the conclusion. In the example Kole uses above being in NYC implies and supports that you are indeed in USA(the necessary condition). This, of course, is under the common knowledge that NYC is a city that is only found in the US. So, if you are in NYC, it is NECESSARY or must be true that you are also in the US. This is the reason why the negation test works to verify that you choose the correct answer. When we negate the necessary assumption, it destroys the argument. If the necessary assumption is not true, the argument cannot hold. If you are not in USA, you CANNOT be in the NYC(contrapositive). In practice, when I go through questions, I find the conclusion and premise of the argument first and then I ask myself "if this is true, what necessarily also has to be true?" Sometimes I can come up with guesses before even reading the answer choices, other times, just having that question in mind + the negation test, helps me figure out the right answer choice. Some of this is redundant here but hope this helps!
Hi, I am interested in this. I plan to take in April (might change depending on how my PTs are looking) and also really struggle with games. I think having a group focused on this section might be a good idea!
I am currently fool-proofing PT1-35. Although I am seeing the repetitive nature of the games, I still feel like I am not being as efficient as I could be. I do about 4 games a day and space out it out depending on how I do on each trial. What are your foolproof strategies? Do you breakdown the games in sets, by types, or any other strategies. Although my LR is not the best (-10), my real problem right now is the games and would like to have them down. I have faith in the foolproof method and understand that it might take a while, but I want to do it in an affective manner. All advice is welcomed, thanks!
I have this same question lol. I can "see" how it helps to study with people who are perhaps on the same learning curve, have the same goals and skills as you so I wonder how the groups work here.
This link (of the 7sage Approved Tutors) might be helpful: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/4760/7sages-approved-tutors
Assumptions are basically the missing (or unstated) premises upon which the argument is based. They are the gaps between explicits premises and the conclusion. A solid argument is one that has as few of these gaps as possible. For example, if a stimulus reads: " Jenny loves to go on morning runs. People who go on morning runs are very disciplined in other areas of their lives. So, Jenny lives a healthy lifestyle..." This is not the strongest example out there, but obviously the argument makes an unwarranted leap from the premises to the conclusions. The assumption is that being disciplined translates to a healthy lifestyles. To strengthen the argument, you have to remedy the assumption or close the gap with something like "all people who are disciplined in their lives live a health lifestyle." This is similar, if not identical, to how I answer NA questions. Any other reverse statement would further weaken the argument.
In short, the way I figure out the assumptions in an argument is:
ID the conclusion + premises and ask myself: do the premises 100% support this conclusions?
If not 100%, then what assumption or leap must be made in order to make the support relationship 100%?
I think the most important thing in gaining the ability to find the assumption is your grasp of the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. If you can see how the premises support or do not support an argument, you can find the assumptions when they are present.
Hope this helps.
Congratulations and good luck with apps!
@ Thank you!
Me five! I could use some LG help.
Hi Everyone,
Currently working through the CC and getting ready to start taking practice exams soon. I was wondering if it's possible to add an extra (exprimental) section to one's PT's?? If someone has done this could you please explain how?
Thank you!
@ Thank you!
I ultimately chose A, but really struggle to eliminate B--which turned out to be correct. However, I am having trouble understanding why B is a better answer? Thanks in advance.
Following!
Hi, definitely interested! Currently fool-proofing games and will be moving into PTs soon.
have the same question as above but interested!