Hello, my understanding of this problem is as follows:
Since this is a PSAr question, we first need to identify an existing 'gap' between the premise and the main conclusion. The stimulus states that if external forces intervene to give a community freedom, then that community will fail to be truly free (conclusion), since it is through people's own efforts to become free where the political virtues necessary for remaining truly free have the best chance of arising (premise). Here we can identify a 'gap' between the premise and the conclusion, which is the assumption that giving the political virtues the best chance to arise (through a community's self efforts) is necessary for a community to remain truly free. The contrapositive of this principle is 'if the political virtues are not given the best chance to arise, then a community will fail to remain truly free.'
With this pre-phrase in mind, C matches closest to this idea because its direct translation is if a community does not develop certain political virtues, then it will not remain truly free ('without' is a group 3 indicator, so we take either element, negate it and make it the sufficient condition.) On the other hand, E does not do the job primarily because of the terms 'should not' - whether an external should or should not impose freedom of a community doesn't give any input on whether such attempts can/cannot succeed. E is more a normative statement that doesn't match the assumption that 'if political virtues are not developed (through self-efforts), then the community will fail to be truly free'.
Think about it this way - even if real freedom should not be imposed on by external forces, there still remains the possibility that they do so anyways and real freedom is still brought to the community. C on the other hand rules out this possibility because it posits that for a community to remain truly free, it is necessary that certain political virtues are developed first. This is an objective statement that describes how real phenomena can/cannot arise, instead of a normative judgement on what is/isn't desirable.
@ said:
If I understand correctly, grouping with sequencing games are primarily set up as grouping games, but within the groups you may have to sequence some game pieces. For instance, you may have to choose whether a piece goes into group A, B, or C, then within each group there are rankings, like maybe there's somebody in the "first place" in each group, "second place" in each group, etc.
Conversely, sequencing with grouping games are generally set up like sequencing games but you may have to group some stuff. For instance, you may have to linearly order seven game pieces, then choose whether each piece is an experienced employee or inexperienced, a liquid or a gas, etc.
I hope this helps some! And remember, game types are ultimately arbitrary. If you use a method different than the one in the explanation video and it works well for you or you just find it more intuitive, that's absolutely fine. I realize, however, that game types often help you to conceptualize games.
Yes this was very helpful - thank you!
Hi,
For the tags in the logic games section on the drilling page, there's one for 'grouping with sequencing' and one for 'sequencing with grouping'. Does anyone know the difference between the two?
If there is a difference, then should I do SeqGrp games whilst I'm target drilling GrpSeq/InoSeq games as well?
Thanks!
For future test takers: make sure you have LSAC's LSAT helpline number accessible somewhere if you run into technical difficulties during or at the end of the test. My proctor told me to try ending the test session and restarting it which was TERRIBLE advice because I just got assigned a new proctor who had no idea what was going on. Already submitted a test day complaint but totally echo the general sentiment of Prometric being extremely unreliable.
Hey, my interpretation is as follows: the argument's main conclusion is that the government should provide the money for the networks. Given that this is a weakening question, the correct answer should make this conclusion questionable, so we're probably expecting a choice that implies that the government isn't the only option to fund the networks. E does this by stating that businesses/universities could cooperate together to build the networks, making the conclusion weaker since if businesses/universities could work together, then why should the government get involved?
I believe C is wrong because even though it's true the stimulus doesn't explicitly state who handles the network, an answer being descriptively accurate isn't enough for it to be correct. It also needs to be relevant to the exact premises, conclusion and support structure given. C doesn't address the conclusion of whether the government should or shouldn't fund the networks, only a potential problem that may arise in the future which is irrelevant in this case.
There's actually a lesson on this in the core curriculum:
https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/logical-reasoning-general-approach/
Congrats! Breaking into the 160s is amazing but doing it with a 165 is even better :smile:
Absolutely! To weaken an argument, the answer has to undermine the main conclusion somehow, which only E does. C is an additional consideration which doesn't weaken the specific conclusion that it must be the government to provide money for supercomputers.