I picked E because I saw the first three words, "A patient complained..." I thought of it as "complaining" = "worrying." Then I thought well... the less you complain, then the less you worry, then the less you'll feel fatigued (since you are sleeping more.) However, I'm not sure if this is a good thought process or not.

Negation Test? if you negate C, that would wreck the argument. Soooooo would it be okay to use Negation Test on atypical strengthening questions?

Picked C erroneously during PT. During BR, D stands out much clearer. Can you also rule out C because it has prescriptive language (should) as opposed to the stimulus that contains descriptive language?

Is it me or is the RC in the more recent tests just much more difficult? Question 7 was horrible. I quickly eliminated B but its ALL. IN. THE. DETAILS. -_-

Good silt video though. I guess. (rolls eyes)

Man... this Passage killed me. I need to practice a lot more. I feel like I understand the passage but these questions made me question myself.

The negative wording in the Answer Choices threw me for a loop but with a basic understanding of the stimulus, and changing the wording "it would not be wrong" to "it would be okay" really helped clear any confusion I would have with reading the Answer Choices.

"Accedes" = Making a decision

"Having PROOF" = It is ACCURATELY represented

"9 of them were...Lazy... free-riding... assholes"

jots down in notes

"tentatively" = "might"

careless reading on my part ugh

Where is Question 22 in Section 4?

Those damn asshole drivers....by the way, 7Sage sponsors Geico :p

I'm not sure if this is something that one can rely on but when I get stuck with these sorts of questions, I actually used the negation test on the answer choices. I know there usually aren't arguments with premises and conclusions in MSS question types but I saw the first sentence as a conclusion and I saw the rest of the sentences as premises. If you negate D, then you have:

"Film historians DO believe that film reviews in newspapers and magazines reveal typical film audience members' views."

This would wreck the "argument" so to speak. Now if you are to ask,"if you negate, C,wouldn't that also hurt the quote/unquote argument?" Well yeah, but that's if you read the second sentence as the conclusion. And how do you know which sentence to read as a "conclusion?" Well, use the "therefore test." You have to determine which sentence carries more weight. I know using "therefore" in front of either sentence is going to sound funny but you know what I mean. Just read one of those sentences as a conclusion and see which one could sound like it's the conclusion. The tone and emphasis of the author will start to flow better in order. (I think)

Again, I have no clue if this is a valid technique or not because I picked C during my timed practice but now looking at it closely, I can see how negating answer choices can help. As JY mentioned above, A, B, and E are eliminated pretty quickly but maybe this is something you can do when figuring out answer choices. Also it is important to pay VERY close attention to detail, I read over "typical" pretty fast and didn't even notice it until I saw JY's video.

But if I'm completely wrong, then nevermind lol.

I have always translated "not all" to mean "some." Is that bad? That's why I picked E because based of the orangutans response to the screwdriver, they were trying to dismantle the cage so I thought they were able to use it enough to warrant that they have some knowledge of it. Deception... I thought was too strong... but then I read "pretend."

Anyway, is it better if I translate "Not all" to "some DON'T?" If I say "some nonhuman primates DON'T understand tool use," then I would be able to eliminate it more easily because we cannot infer that on the basis of a few nonhuman primates that DO know how to use it, that some don't. Would this be an appropriate translation?

"Pooping them to death" lol

but keeping premise and conclusion intact and just weaken the relationship...hmm...

I'm sorry but answer choice "C" is complete BS. like because the initial bird received it first at a random spot and then had it passed on to two distinct birds in the same location of a corresponding chromosome, THAT is what makes the argument stronger? I picked B because I thought that answer choice ruled out an alternative explanation for why it wouldn't be the H virus. Like it was only the H virus that was inside the chromosomes of the birds. Or am I reading answer choice B wrong?

For Q.13

I chose E because lines 31-33 specifically state "Family mediation does not guarantee the full protection of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, whereas a goal of the court system is to ensure that LAWYERS can secure all that the law promises to their clients."

I agree that the entire second paragraph states the benefits of Court Adjudication but I only referenced the lines that the question asked and I thought that's what E was referring to. Could there be another explanation for this?

This question kind of sucked for me. I just had no idea what it was saying but making use of most pieces in the argument and how it relates together with the answer choice made sense to me... I don't know if that makes sense haha.

Thanks everyone! Yeah I don’t feel like having unnecessary hassle. Shaving it is! Best of luck to everyone on test day! May the force be with us all!

@ said:

Identifying the elements is usually the most important part for me, and going back to the quizzes on sufficient assumptions helped with both.

Necessary assumptions are a complete horror show. The answer is often unpredictable. The bridging questions are usually easy, but the blocking questions are a nightmare.

I feel the same about N.A. questions! I tend to negate the wrong answer choice and that kills me during Practice tests.

@ said:

I was the same way as you for assumption questions. A part of the difficulty in these questions are understanding the stimulus. Make sure to slow down and fully understand. (As well as all the other advice given above).

Thank you! I'll be sure to slow down and try to understand completely what I am reading :)

@ said:

@ said:

Hey 7Sagers,

I've been studying for at least a year now But for some reason I have so much trouble trying to correctly answer Assumption, Sufficient Assumption and Necessary Assumption questions. I have gone over the curriculum and been utilizing negation tests, conditional logic, etc. But I am simply not improving. Does anyone have a certain method that works for them? Or am I doomed? :/ I have been scoring 16 questions on LR sections but that would be higher if I got more Assumption questions correct. Any thoughts?

Hmm... Are you having trouble understanding the logic behind what you're looking for with NA/SA questions? For instance, do you fully understand the difference between necessity and sufficiency?

In any case, you aren't doomed. If you do understand those things, I would recommend the same thing Jknauf wrote above. Learning valid argument forms and utilizing a strategy like @ outlined in the past is your best bet.

Just out of curiosity, what other question types are giving you trouble?

I guess I'm having trouble setting up which conditional statements piece together. But I fee llike I am strong in knowing my logical indicators. And to be honest know. I don't fully understand those types of questions I suppose. I know one is sufficient in "bridging the gap" and in Necessary Assumption Questions,I know I need to find the one that is REQUIRED for the argument to work and I can use the negation test but I still end up getting those wrong... Other question types I usually get wrong are MBT and Inference questions :(

@ said:

Learn the valid argument forms. For sufficient assumptions, you want to be a fine tuned machine. You want to develop a mechanical process @ compiled one on another thread, I'll post it below

@ said:

Here's a way to break these down that might be beneficial. I don't diagram anymore, but I think my intuitive process is something like this. I think it would make for a good exercise. If you can identify all these variables quickly and accurately, they always interact the same way.

Step One: Identify the variables.

Frequently, this is the real challenge of SA questions. They can make this incredibly difficult, and it's a task that I feel like is often overlooked as something that needs to be approached deliberately.

So let's say our variables are:

A --> B --> C

A

therefore

X

Step Two: Identify the trigger.

The trigger is the variable that is confirmed by the argument which sets the conditional chain into motion. A --> B --> C is largely meaningless. By providing the non-conditional A, they trigger the chain. A is the trigger. In some arguments, there is no trigger, and you will need to provide one in the AC. This argument would look something like:

A --> B --> C

therefore

C

Our answer would simply be A here.

Step Three: Identify the hanger.

If they're not just looking for a trigger, there's more to do. Once we know our variables, there will be one that is left hanging--a triggered live-wire that dead ends. This variable is frequently the sufficient variable in our AC with our conclusion in the necessary (although they could flip it, of course). In this chain, our hanger is C.

Step Four: Pair the hanger variable with the conclusion.

C --> X

or

/X --> /C

They do have a few variations they can use to complicate this, but they're pretty simple. The most common would be to have the conclusion represented as an untriggered conditional like:

A --> B --> C

A

therefore

D --> X

It's basically the same thing though. In Step Four, you pair your live hanger with the dead sufficient condition from the conclusion in order to charge it:

C --> D

Hope this helps. You don't want to rely on this or mapping either on the real thing, but they are good exercises in order to learn to see how it all fits together. Just remember to identify your variables at the beginning! That's normally the hard part!

Thanks a lot! Yeah I have been memorizing the valid argument forms but for some reason I often "bridge the gap by adding the wrong piece of the puzzle" to get to the right answer choice. It's difficult to explain but sometimes I would get a question wrong because I think I'm piecing some conditional statements in the wrong order,place, or direction.

An example would be LSAT 35 S.4 Question 14

Marian Anderson, the famous contralto, did not take success for granted. We know this because Anderson had to struggle early in life, and anyone who has to struggle early in life is able to keep a good perspective on the world.

A) Anyone who succeeds takes for granted.

B) Anyone who is able to keep a good perspective on the world does not take success for granted.

C) Anyone who is able to keep a good perspective on the world has to struggle early in life.

D) Anyone who does not take success for granted has to struggle early in life.

E)Anyone who does not take success for granted is able to keep a good perspective on the world.

LEGEND:

ASL = Anyone who had to struggle early in life

PKG = Keep a good perspective

DTSG = Does not take success for granted

The argument basically sets up as

ASL --> PKG

ASL (Anderson)

DTSG(Anderson)

The correct answer choice is B. I got it wrong. B looks like this.

PKG --> DTSG

And you basically would have to add this answer choice to the end of the first conditional statement above. And it would look like this:

ASL --> PKG --> DTSG

ASL (Anderson)

DTSG(Anderson)

My mistake would be something like picking either D or E since DTSG could point to either the ASL or PKG. Basically I would piece the argument incorrectly because I think to myself, “maybe I can bridge the gap by saying all DTSG are ASL or PKG. .” And then suddenly it just happens to be easier than that where I just have to add the DTSG at the end of the first conditional statement.

Is this a reasoning error of mine because I don’t fully understand the Valid Argument Forms? I’m not sure if this makes sense. I tend to put pieces in the wrong places still.

But what if an argument has a Kamehameha with Kaio-Ken and Super Saiyan God Ki? :p

I hate this question

POE is your friend.