Now I'm very confused about "attacking a premise"
JY mentioned that LSAT weakening answer choices never provide plausible evidence that is incompatible with the stimulus.
However, negation, denying the relationship, is actually attacking a premise.
Did I miss something?
@ @ Thank you! Finally I am getting the hang of these kinds of question lol
Premise: G –m→ F
Conclusion: C ←s→ G
This is a question from 7Sage course.
It is asking to find sufficient assumption and the correct answer is F-->C.
I totally agree with the answer, however, was wondering F--m-->C can also be the correct answer.
@ said:
For Point at Issue in which our two characters disagree, we want our answer choice to be one to which one person would say, "YES!" and the other would say, "NO!" In other words, we want our characters to have starkly opposite reactions to the answer choice.
Answer choice D does just that. Character A (the moralist) would fully agree. In fact, the answer choice is just reiterating his argument, essentially. Character B (the host) would disagree, screaming "NO" if he heard that answer choice. He is unsure as to whether there is a moral decline in the first place--and if there is one, it isn't due to TV. In other words, TV is not a cause of moral decline. So D's our answer.
As for how much to assume, I don't really think you need to assume anything to solve this question. For Point at Issue, you want to stay really rooted in the text and focus on the exact words of both characters, as well as their main conclusions
Then do I have to ignore the part “by inviting guests”? I am bothered by that qualification...
The editorial’s argument made a typical flaw. This is a typical flaw saying A → C, Not A.
I know that if A, it is C but I don't know what might cause ~ A. There might be many reasons for not doing A.
https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/tv-talk-shows-disagree-question/?ss_completed_lesson=1717
This is a question that I am dealing.
However, since there are different points with JY I wanted to ask others whether I can solve as below:
I eliminated b) since "contributing to the moral decline" does not guarantee real decrease.
I eliminated d) due to "by inviting guest". Moralist did say "TV shows by being shown the least moral people in our society, contributing to the moral decline in our society." However, we cannot say whether it is hosts or guests or any others.
I understand why other answers are all wrong. However, I cannot understand why d) is correct.
I believe this stimulus want me to assume "people shown in the TV shows with the least moral ppl" is guest.
Also, I don't know to what extent I have to assume when I am solving questions.
Need help : (
@ Thanks! This helped me a lot : )
I was trying to solve NA question by using negation test, but I had a hard time with sentences below:
How do I have to negate this?
I eliminated (D) thinking that I do not need to know the purpose. However, but the thing is that if ppl with similar genes change their inclinations with the purpose, then it means that the inclinations are not necessarily the effect of genetic origin.
Thanks! Now I understand what it means clearly.