Subscription pricing
There is a myth out there that on Strengthen questions the LSAT will always give us four definitive non-strengtheners and only one strengthener. But this problem is arguably definitive proof that the myth is false.
(B) is not the correct answer. Yet it is a necessary assumption of this argument, because if the social impact of none of the new drugs is poorly understood, then we don't have any reason for the premises to support the claim that we should be generally slowing down introduction of the new drugs to the marketplace. The clear assumption of this argument is that we don't have a good understanding of most of the new drugs on the marketplace, and (B) is a smaller assumption contained within that larger one, which makes it necessary. (Note that there is an argument that it is not necessary because the argument just has to assume that we don't have a "good" understanding of these new drugs, not that our undestanding is "poor". That view has merit, but I don't believe it is important to deal with here.)
In other problems, a necessary assumption has been a correct answer to a Strengthen question. And that makes sense, because providing a necessary assumption does, at a minimum, help the argument.
But here, although (B) is necessary, it is not correct, because (A) is better. Clearly, either not all necessary assumptions are strengtheners or some strengthen problems will require us to pick the best of multiple strengtheners.
Admin note: edited title
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-4-question-20/
@wraith985-4026 said:
I think you've misunderstood my point. Once you achieve mastery of the material, it honestly doesn't matter what you do. You can redraw diagrams, work over a pen diagram with pencil, eat a cheeseburger with one hand while diagramming with the other, phone a friend while you work, whatever. The question is how you achieve that level of mastery given that you're not already there. You don't get there by relying on prior work as a primary problem solving methodology (i.e. if your explanation of how to do a question is 'look at question #X', you're doing it wrong). You get there by understanding how the questions work individually and independently.
Put another way, an expressed worry about not being able to use prior work indicates reliance on something that ought not to be relied upon. It is a perfectly acceptable thing to use, and it may even be the most efficient thing to do in a given circumstance. But there's a big difference between using a strategy because you've determined it to be the best way to dispose of a question, and using it because that's the only way you know how to efficiently dispose of that question. The former demonstrates command over the situation; while the latter attempts to skip over that part by way of a crutch. (Yes, I am aware that it's not always one or the other)
I absolutely disagree that there is negligible time savings by using the pen/highlighter tactic. OP highlights grouping/chart games, which is the most obvious example of where this is extremely effective. The time savings garnered by not having to redraw 4x6 grids and rewrite all the inferences is substantial for even the fastest of us, non-masters included. I would never, ever go back to recopying the charts in those games. And even in 'normal' sequencing or grouping games, I've come to prefer it. At the very least, it's not disadvantaged and is sometimes significantly advantaged from a time perspective, and how you weigh that against the prior work issue is ultimately your call. It's not perfect, but nothing is. One size doesn't fit all. Hence the comment about it being a fantastic tool for your toolbox, and the significant caveat early in my previous post where I say you can mix and match - you don't have to use every tool every time, but you do want to have it accessible for when it makes sense to use it.
Thanks for clarifying. Reliance on prior work is not the best way to learn games and if one must actually "rely" on it (rather than strategically use it as a time-saver when available), then there's a gap in LG understanding. I agree.
I suppose I was just a little bit confused in that I was hoping for a discussion of pros and cons of pen/highlighter approach vs. prior work approach when it comes to actual test-taking strategy and your position on that wasn't clear -- the bulk of your response seemed to be aimed at the idea that prior work isn't something that we should be using anyway, and by saying that there wasn't "much of a cost" to forgoing prior work it seemed as if you were saying the time save by using prior work was negligible. I see now that you're saying we shouldn't rely on it, but seem to accept that it may actually be ok and even more time-efficient to use it when the opportunity presents itself. That's what I'm curious about.
Pen/highlighter approach, no re-copying boards.
Prior work approach.
Pen/highlighter approach + re-copying boards to use prior work.
Which approach, on average, saves more time? It probably depends on the student.
As an aside, given your thoughts laid out above, I assume you're against the "local questions first then global questions after" approach that JY is taking in the more recent LG explanations? That approach is a kind of "crutch", isn't it? I don't mean to be combative; I just like getting into the controversial weeds of LSAT strategy.