I'm getting most of these difficult questions right...But not in the 1:25 time...More like 2 minutes...
What I did was not really using the first sentence, but the second sentence which is the premise that refers back to the first sentence: IIP (People want to be instantly and intuitively liked) Implies generally resented.
IIP -> GR
C: ITAP (It is imprudent to appear prudent)
Thus: IIP -> GR -> ITAP
I contemplated on if the ITAP would appear as ITAP ->llP -> GR which is basically somewhat similar to answer B but the thing is, ACTING instantly and intuitively is not the same as the stimulus saying People WANT to be instantly and intuitively liked. Therefore, it just doesn't match. So then it came up to be GR-> ITAP is what I am looking for. Which is E, although it was structured weirdly. But with some luck and some form of process of elimination, it got me to this answer. However, this took way too long and is indeed a time sink.
Hey Guys,
I've been trying to practice and grind on Sufficient Assumption questions. I know how mechanical these can be, but I have found out that I am having trouble translating the stimulus. Overall, I understand the lawgic and everything else, but it has been frustrating because I am having trouble at the first step and not even being able to utilize lawgic. Can anyone help me with this?
Thanks!
One tip for folks struggling in SA: In the argument taking place in the stimulus, you have to take the argument for its descriptive value and be REALLY literal with it. You essentially have to take the argument in a vacuum and make the argument valid while also conceding to the argument's contextual point/conclusion. The answer choices again, in a vacuum, needs to help trigger and fall in line with the argument to the point of validity.
Once you get this conceptually, I think it gets easier to understand the arguments to where you can do these a little more intuitively and/or may help make formal logic easier, especially for tougher questions to which formal logic gets too "technical".
Hello, I've been studying rather ineffectively on my own since January until May, which was when I got 7Sage. Although I must say my understanding and ability to answer questions correctly greatly increased many fold, I am struggling with the level 5 hardest questions, such as RC and LR (THIS one especially). Like many people, I would want to get a 170+ (And I truly believe 7Sage is able to help many people including myself in doing this), I do know that it is best to be able to tackle every question possible to maximize those chances. Is there a specific strategy in tackling these? Or is it the same standard core curriculum strategies, but to a mastery level form? (And extremely careful reading...) I'm doing pretty well on everything else, but once I go up against these level 5 questions, I get destroyed, with the occasional correct one or two.
On another note, I intend on taking the September LSAT. I'm just wondering if 40 hour week study sessions throughout the summer will help me get to the 170+ area.
Same here! Would love to join.
DAMMIT. I was too fixated on the author's argument. This is such a cookie cutter question...Painful lesson, don't gloss over the question stem. The question can ask you to weaken/strengthen either side, not just the author's.
As JY said between B and E: E provides too much freedom to the point where there is no signs of limiting the organization's ability to do whatever they want with the surplus money by requesting permission from the donors in order to justify the argument, which B does. Hard question.
I'm having trouble utilizing the lawgic formulas for this problem...Could some please elaborate this for me? Thanks!
Darn...I initially chose C, then switched to D in a panic. But I do understand why the analogy is weak. D doesn't not show in any way, or link why the analogy is justified. Thus, by looking at the cars and computers "advancing" it can be perceived that they are two separate things.
Congrats! Could you also please inbox your stats if you don't mind? Thank you!