#help Could someone clarify how we know BS→GF (as stated by JY)? I've listened to his explanation a few times, and I just can't wrap my head around it. I've tried to articulate why I can't understand the explanation below. It would be useful if someone were to "check my work" below to make sure I haven't made errors in reasoning that are leaving me unable to understand JY's explanation? Thanks!
I can see how, as a pedagogical device, classifying Cynthia's conclusion as basic science (BS)→GF is helpful because it makes answer choice E more apparently wrong in terms of outcome, but I can't see how we can understand BS→GF from the stimulus we are given. That is, I can see how BS→GF is equally as likely as GF→BS.
Is Cynthia saying corporations amply funding technologies makes government funding of technologies unnecessary (and thus, shouldn't fund technologies; GF→BS) or is Cynthia providing an additional reason for increased investment in basic science (and thus, should continue to fund technologies while simultaneously funding basic research; BS→GF)? I think this point is relevant because it helps me understand whether or not Cynthia's conclusion is one of sufficiency or necessity.
Also, thinking less about Cynthia's statement in isolation and the stimulus as a whole, it appears to me that they disagree about the conditions that are necessary for government funding. Luis is saying if funded by government, then the project is expected to yield practical applications. Cynthia, on the other hand, could be saying if funded by the government, then the project is a basic scientific research project that furthers theoretical knowledge.
In either case, (E) still seems correct. Whether GF→BS is Cynthia's conclusion, it still appears to remain true that there need not be an expected benefit to performing basic research to receive government funding. It may be an outcome of Cynthia's conclusion (i.e. the result is GF→BS→E) but it is not always the case.
Hi there,
This is a weakening question.
Let's break down the argument:
C: Gov should subsidize new vaccines (requested by health department)
P: Marketing of vaccines is less profitable than marketing of other pharmaceutical products. (As an aside, I wasn't quite sure what was meant by "other pharmaceutical products." I tried to envision what would constitute "other pharmaceuticals" - perhaps antibiotics? cough medicine?. I find often that playing with the words and making sure I have a picture in my head of what is going on helps me get through the argument and hone in on deficiencies.)
With regard to the argument, I thought that the way it was structured was totally weird. Why are we talking about marketing of vaccines? Surely the argument would be better served by talking about the resulting profits of the vaccine and not the profitability of marketing.
A - looks good. if your pool of potential subjects for your vaccine are increased over that of the pool for other pharmaceuticals, it weakens the conclusion. of course we can't say for certain how much it would impact the overall profitability, but it does seem to take away support from the argument.
B - this answer choice essentially says that vaccines are effective in treating an affliction but so are other non-vaccines. this doesn't change the argument in any way. essentially, it remains the case that vaccines are less profitable than other pharmaceutical products because you don't even need to use vaccines to treat certain illnesses. If this is the case, it remains highly likely that the government should subsidize the new vaccine.
C, D, and E are all similarly wrong for the same reason that B is wrong. None of them directly address the issue of whether the government should subsidize the new vaccine. With C, how does the marketing of non-vaccines or non-medicines impact the goal of getting government to subsidize the new vaccine? With D, how does the fact that other pharma companies produce vaccines impact the goal of getting government to subsidize the new vaccine? With E, how does the cost of administering the drug impact the goal of getting the government to subsidize the new vaccine?
Thank you so much. You were spot on with in this regard. I had treated this statement way too broadly and see now that it was improper. Thanks again!
I dismissed answer choices A and C on the basis of "what is true of pretzels in this regard is also true of caramels." It seems to me that if we take everything as true in the stimulus then the correct answer for this question doesn't really seem like a flaw. #help
Admin note: edited title
Just because something isn't viable or meets its demise, doesn't mean its value in question automatically. The best example of this (to my mind anyway) are orphan drugs. People who have rare diseases may find an orphan drug extremely valuable, but the value to a pharmaceutical company to make a drug is extremely low without some subsidy. Thus, value is something that is determined based upon perspective and not some inherent property.
The flaw has to do with the fact that traditional school = students with a teacher in a class room. traditional school was made possible by books.
c: traditional school will not survive.
Well, says who? why can't the new media make it just as likely that traditional school will be maintained despite decreased reliance on books? The argument characterizes something that enabled its development as a requirement for its development.
Answer choice E does not provide another factor that could have affected the study results precisely because the time frame under study is the same time frame. It would not follow that varying economic conditions could change the work week unless you assumed that each study had analyzed a different set of varied economic conditions. Answer choice E says "recognize that varying economic conditions result in the average workweek changing in length." In order for your answer to be the reason that the argument is flawed, we'd have to know more about what economic conditions were looked at for each study or at least know that they actually looked at different conditions.
Well, why is answer choice D correct?
P: two studies used different methods of investigation.
C: we don't need to look any further for differences.
Essentially, the author says "of course they're going to be different, they've used different methods." But, says who? why should we believe that? why couldn't the two studies looking at the same time period have been the same? isn't it possible, given what we know about our world and about science generally, that two different methods can yield the same result? why is it the case that we can conclude we don't need to look any further because they used differences? all these questions should be going through your head when you read the argument.
The argument fails to consider that different methods can yield the same results by just dismissing the fact that the only reason they had differences was because they used different methods. The author surrendered their intellectual curiosity, much like jar jar binks surrendered on naboo.
Hey there,
I'm not sure why you think C is the correct answer. I'm going to assume that you meant D.
I could see where you might think that A is the correct answer. In my mind, the first step to getting this question right would be to loosely define "succession" as you understand it. When I think of a succession, I think of something giving way to another entity. For example, the succession of a monarch.
You likely lost your way with the usage of "this" immediately preceding succession. Often when we write something and use a place holder for a concept, it immediately refers back to the idea most recently given. English is a complex language, so this isn't a hard and fast rule. (See what I did there? I used "this" to reference "immediately refers back to the idea most recently given" and not "complex language")
"This succession" refers most directly to the land returning to mixed hardwoods. X returning to Y can be considered a succession. This is precisely why D is correct.
For A to be correct, the author would have to rearrange the passage such that "this succession" immediately followed the concept of clearing followed by regular burning. It wouldn't really make sense for the author to refer back to a concept a few sentences ago without some sort of definitive qualification. As you can see in my example sentence above, I qualify "this" by having the "rule" there. Clearly, the phrase "English is a complex language" isn't really a rule - more of a general statement. The only rule that I mentioned previously was "refers back to the idea most recently given."
No, I don't believe your diagram is correct. Your /P(Hom) is attempting to say No P is Hom. Using this same framework, your conclusion says C is Hom - which is C→H or All chordates are Hominidae. Your translation of /P(Hom) is also not correct. You're saying If you're not a P, you're a hom...which isn't quite right.
Ex: Jim is tall. Therefore, Jim is big. You could translate as follows:
J->T. => J->B. The SA would be T->B.
You could also translate as follows:
J(T) => J(B). The SA would still be T->B. The way I've noted Jim is tall is essentially how you noted No P is Hom, except for the negation. Essentially, what your notation seems to say is that if you're not jim, then you're tall. Can you see how my notation here parallels your diagram? Can you also see how the sentences "if you're not Jim, then you're tall" and "no jim is tall" are actually different? Can you see how your notation would appear to treat both the same?
If this had been a real curve breaker question, i.e. one that was so evil that had an answer choice saying "all Cs are H," my guess is that you would have chosen that answer. Your selection of the correct answer seems to rely more upon the words lining up with the correct negation on them.
I had to google what pteropsida is to most clearly illustrate why your diagram is wrong. Pteropsida refers to a type of plant. Hominidae refers to apes. Your diagram essentially says If you're not a plant, you're an ape. This is definitely not true. There are insects, shellfish, bacteria etc. The correct translation for no P are H is group IV, negate necessary. P->/H.
Turning back to the LSAT question: P->T->/C is correct. To get P to arrow over to /H you could have T->/H or /C->/H.
The correct answer gives us the contrapositive of the latter, H->C or "all Hominidae are chordates." B.
Again, to provide a more concrete showing: Take a look at wikipedia's page for hominidae. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
We can see that hominidae is below the phylum chordata. That is to say, all hominidae are completely subsumed by chordata or hominidae is one part of all chordates.
Another example of a chordate is a fish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuna
Can you see how a chordate could be either an ape or a fish and how a chordate is broader than both tuna and hominidae?
Hope this helped.
Ran out of time to edit:
Notice also in JY's explanation of why answer choice C is correct says: "that's another reason why hard tracks are faster." Seems like JY may also be thinking that this strengthens, i.e. providing another reason, the argument
Yeah, I'd say so. You could see my response to jasminesade below to view my thoughts.
To answer adstewa's question regarding is this line of reasoning ok for similarly worded stems, I'd say it's probably ok. But in treating it like a strengthening question only, where the stem is asking you for a showing of a partial explanation, I think misses the mark.
I would argue that partial explanations entail both strengthening and weakening answer choices. I mean, what are we doing when we strengthen arguments? we're providing additional support (that was not previously provided) to make the argument stronger. The additional support to make an argument stronger shows that the evidence provided in the stimulus is only partially present.
Similarly, if you are weakening an argument by providing a premise that takes away support, you are also showing that the arguments only provides a partial explanation by having a premise that draws support away. Think of causation/correlation questions where you have two phenomena happening together and the conclusion is A causes B. Well, an explanation could be partial in that C causes both A and B.
In the instant case, I believe that this question does not specify strengthen or weaken and that either approach could lead to the correct answer. The reason for this is because posture (in answer choice C) and foot contact (from stimulus) don't necessarily contradict one another. Both can be utilized in combination to increase a runner's speed i.e. it could be the case that the reduced foot touch time on hard surfaces improves posture to increase speed.
I think the decision to classify this question as a weakening question is a pedagogic device given our causation/correlation framework. It's much easier to demonstrate why this answer is correct from a causation/correlation framework because it latches on to a concrete idea (an alternative explanation for why the runner runs faster, C causes A).
I mean, JY even in his explanation of this question advises that we stick very closely to the question stem, despite his characterization of this as a weakening type question. My thought is JY recognizes that answer choice C is an alternative explanation, but JY also recognizes that this is not in conflict with the premises in the stimulus. I think it's much more beneficial to address the issue in the question stem directly. I wouldn't worry about whether this is truly a weakening question or truly a strengthening question. At the end of the day, what matters is that you recognize that the answer choices below, if true, relate to the argument set forth above. As you can see, the remaining answer choices, A, B, D, and E do not have anything to do with the argument directly.
Please feel free to entirely disagree and disregard what I wrote. The truth is I didn't treat this as a weakening or strengthening question. I treated this as a question where I'm supposed to find an answer choice that demonstrates that there may be more information provided to the argument.
wow, this is a total surprise!! this is such a wonderful community.
This is the Tuesday morning motivation I need. Thank you for sharing.
I think this relies on your intuition and not a mechanical, per se rule. Is this sentence equivalent? Only poetry is not translated well. I would say that these two sentences are trying to convey the same thing, especially in view of the passage as a whole.
@ianmatthewharris949 this is great. i'm going to try your method of blind review. sounds great!
Thanks for the great summary! Jealous you live in NYC and can kick it with JY. Seems like a really cool dude.
Generally speaking, a BS/BA is insufficient for Patent Prosecution at a law firm. If you're talking about Patent Litigation, you may get by.
The market is saturated with PhDs, many of whom have post-doctoral experience. The fact that you CAN get a position with a BA/BS does not, practically speaking, mean you will get a position.
Engineering disciplines, like EE, are vastly different as the patent life cycle is much shorter which in turn leads to more continual filings.
The single innovative style, at least in my reading, comes from the development of "thinking big and to respect the sweeping gesture of the arm, the brush stroke required to achieve the desired bold effect of mural art."
The portion of answer choice B that gave me the most pause was the "trends in modern art." Maybe I do not know enough about what constitutes modern art vs non-modern art. My guess is that modern art is inclusive of expressionism...
Congrats! Just the motivation everyone needs!
Hey there, here is the lesson :) https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/advanced-bi-conditionals/
Hope this helps. Good luck!
@gregoryalexanderdevine723 Yeah, from what I hear it is imperative to get acclimated to the 70s before sitting for the exam.
Seconded. Definitely try to take the more recent tests. The other thing I would add is to try not to waste the newer tests until you feel like you're comfortable with what you've learned in the curriculum. It's been my experience (limited to be honest) that while I think I'm comfortable with the curriculum, questions change my approach and thinking. I'd give it a bit of time before diving right into the newer tests. Good luck!
I think Rachel hit it on the head, but I'll add this as well. You should commit to memory Group I and Group 2 logical indicators, which are discussed in the curriculum. These logical indicators will help you identify whether they're asking you for the sufficient (Group I) or the necessary (Group 2) assumption.
Absolutely the best program there is!!
@mattdarephd78 Given your undergraduate loans, it might be a good idea to work (maybe at an IP firm?) before you head to law school. My thinking is this, you want to go to the best possible law school you can if your goal is big law, and you may want to figure out you actually enjoy patent work before taking on more debt only to find out you hate the work. Patent prosecution can be brutal and is much akin to factory work. You put the pieces of the application together, send it off, and defend your product (which may or may not be novel).
The nature of your work is definitely firm dependent but EE is massively hiring because there is much more work than people to file and write applications. Thus, any IP related work at this stage in your career will heavily focus on Patent Prosecution. While some firms may let you assist in litigation or other legal matters, I wouldn't expect this to be the norm in EE.
My opinion is that you should work to get into a firm that has tuition assistance and then decide from there how you'd like to proceed. If you'd like to continue working for the firm and prosecuting inventions while having them pay for school, then great. If you think you'd be hard pressed for time and would like to focus solely on your studies, then quit your firm job and enjoy your time in law school. You may find out you actually hate IP and, as a result are more receptive to other subjects in law school, say tax, corporate, or whatever.
Good luck!
Hi there, thanks for your reply.
I didn't have a problem with this question. I was listening to JY's explanation of the question and realized it didn't make sense to me. The conditionality I'm referring to is from JY's explanation. I think my problem with JY's explanation is that when I thought more deeply about how I was interpreting the stimulus, I had a conditional statement that was opposite to JY's.