Maybe if the stimulus indicated that "all participants in the first group were already highly motivated"? The two groups are comprised of people who watched themselves exercising and watched others exercising. Stimulus states that the group who watched themselves exercising exercised 1 hour longer than the other group. I'm not sure how we can fit "highly motivated" into this frame. We already know that the first group exercised empirically longer than the second. Group one wins here.
Like are you saying change the answer to, "all participants in the first group were already highly motivated, and participants who were already highly motivated to exercise did not report....". If that's the case, then they did not exercise any longer than they had before the study compared to themselves, right? But compared to the second group, they still exercised one hour more...?
(C) is also a bit qualitative don't you think? Like how do you measure motivation? Like we can measure time, yes, but what can we use to measure motivation? I mean, even though I hate it, I get why (D) is the best choice. It's an analogy (no matter how sh*y) that provides somewhat "similar" quantitative data that was measured with a method "analogous enough" to the stimulus but exposes a flaw in the method... (A) does the same thing but it reinforces the method. It's very abstract but I think (D) is still more 'in the ball park' than the other answer choices.
I hope this makes sense haha.
I think you're just overthinking it. Even when you think in terms of bi-conditionals:
Stim:
A ↔ B
A
E:
A ↔ B
B
Stim is triggering A whereas E is triggering B. So, E isn't really similar to the stimulus.
Well, E isn't really attacking the conclusion nor the premise explicitly stated in the stimulus. It's attacking the relationship between the premise and conclusion. But it's not directly contradicting the content. The conclusion is: "but this catastrophe was probably not responsible for most of these extinctions".
The stimulus is assuming that most of the dinosaurs did not live near the crater.
How do we know this?
By stating that the regional impact of the asteroid could not have a world-wide impact, our author is assuming that the population of the dinosaurs affected by the asteroid in that area would not be sufficient to conclude that the asteroid was responsible for the most of extinction.
Why is this an assumption?
Because it is not explicitly stated in the stimulus yet our author needs this to be reinforced in order for him to make the relationship of his argument's components stronger.
Well, since this is a weakening question, we need to deny this assumption.
E is the denial of this assumption. What if out of the 100 dinosaurs that lived on the planet, 99 of them lived in the region of Chicxulub crater? Then it seriously undermines the support between "its impact not being world-wide" and "not being responsible for most of the extinction".
I hope this helps you.
I don't think so. In Flaw question types, you are looking for an answer choice that is descriptively accurate with the argument and its flaw.
I don't think so, because, the stimulus is arguing against the thesis that claims animals possess language. We don't know if this thesis is true or not, it doesn't really say. They're just providing 'evidence' to support their positions regarding the validity of the thesis.
In order for E to be even considered as something relevant to the argument, we'd have to assume that thesis has already been confirmed. All we know about the animals is that they signal each other with sounds and gestures. The question we need to ask here is, "does that imply that animals possess language?". Author says no; because in order for the signals to be considered as something relevant to the confirmation that animals possess language, the signals must be able to refer to concrete objects or abstract ideas---which we don't know.
If you break it down, E might look something like
Subject: Some animals
Modifier: that possess a language
Predicate: can refer to......
Even if we changed the 'and' to 'or' in the predicate, we'd still be left with the subject that isn't properly established by the stimulus.
I can see why you would think that because of the bi-conditional lessons, but that condition cannot be triggered unless we establish that animals possess language.
I hope this helps.
I can see why you could've picked C. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it might be because you saw that the Principle only gives us the conditional statement for something that's healthy as opposed to the claim made by the Application about something that's unhealthy. Therefore, the argument made by the Application is flawed because we can't justify what is unhealthy from what we know about healthy because we don't have any information about what is unhealthy.
But, by applying the Principle to Megan's case, the Application is assuming that: reduction in Megan's time socializing is detracting her from her social development.
If this assumption were, in fact, true, then the Application's conclusion is totally justified because that would just be the contrapositive of the Principle.
But see, we don't know if this assumption is true or not. Just because there is a reduction in time socializing doesn't mean it's detracting her from her social development. What if she reduced her daily socializing time from 5 hours to 4 hours and 59 minutes and 59 seconds by increasing her reading time from absolutely nothing/day to 1 second/day ? That's still reducing the amount of time she spends interacting with others. Maybe that one second was very crucial to her social development and now she's !@#$ed, but who knows? We don't have information about something like that. Like what does it mean for something to be "frequent"? What does it mean for something to "reduce" from one point to another? In that sense, hows it that "reduction" related to "detracting"? It's all relative information which we do not have.
The argument of the Application is assuming something that isn't supported by the stimulus. Therefore, the assumption the argument has made is the flaw.
Hello,
I understand why you could have thought that; but when you zoom out a little bit you can see that it's important to note the second part of that sentence as well. I think there's a few things you might need to consider for your thought process with this question.
So the big thing here is:
As modern methods of comm AND transportation continued to improve, life seems faster than ever. This is a conditional statement that shows a relationship between perceived speed of life and improvements in methods of comm and transportation.
Improvements[(Methods of comm) AND (Transportation)] → Life seems faster than ever.
Contrapositive, De Morgan's Law kicks in.
/(L) → / I [(M) OR (T)] .
The critic argues that BECAUSE of the improvements in BOTH (M) and (T), pace of life SEEMS fastER than ever. He goes on to add that this speed----a referential phrase referring back to the faster pace of life----HAS CREATED feelings of impermanence and instability.... (conclusion). So she/he's saying, A caused B which caused C.
You can see that it's a chronological causal relationship between feelings of impermanence, improvements in methods of comm/transportation, and their effects on the perception of the pace of life.
So to sum it up, were you able to properly dissect and label each part of the argument? Were you able to see the relationship between the individual components of the stimulus? Can you see why the argument is a causal one?
Regarding your reasoning for the answer choice.... You are treading on some slippery slope... Just because a word is 'weak' does not necessarily mean that it's the correct answer choice. Are there many subtle answer choices that contain 'weak' words like that? Yes. BUT, you always want to be skeptical of that kind of reasoning because this test is about the Reason itself.
Hello,
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are trying to say that "less likely to eat fat" does not imply "avoiding fat"?
Like, are you trying to say something like, "just because one is less likely to eat fat by avoiding dairy food, doesn't necessarily mean that one will completely avoid fat"? If so, yes, that is part of the flaw in the argument's assumption.
I see why you chose (E). However, we can't say that it will NOT occur because that's confusing probability with certainty. Yes, it could probably happen, but we can't say it will just because we know that it has a chance of happening.
Like, when you flip a coin, you know it's either heads or tails. So, you can't say that it's probably going to be heads, because it could also probably be tails.
(A) is a better choice and the correct answer because it states just that. Just because something is potentially negative, doesn't necessarily mean that it will be.
By eliminating dairy food, you might be less likely to eat fat but maybe the other components of the dairy food was crucial to good health. Maybe dairy food's fat was the good fat that was fighting off the bad fat. Maybe the protein in dairy food was the best protein for your heart and health but now that you eliminated them, your body isn't getting the nutrient it needs, therefore, it might suffer negative consequences.
I hope this helps!
OOPS! I'M SO SORRY!!
For the breakdown of the STIMULUS, THE LAST LINE should read:
Therefore, [(S)→/(A)] or [(A)→/(F)].
NOW the answer choice C is a perfect match with the stimulus and B is not because B has "AND" instead of the "OR" in the last line.
I'm really sorry for any confusion I tried not to make any mistakes :(
Hello,
Yeah I was confused about the inclusive and exclusive "or" too. It'll become more clear in the LG section. I think the answer choice is precisely wrong because of how you understood the "or" here haha.
The inclusive "or" would be something like, "Allen or Chris or BOTH can come to the party"; whereas the exclusive "or" would be something like, "Allen or Chris can come to the party BUT NOT BOTH". For Parallel Method of Reasoning, you really just want to cut through the words and really see the logical structure.
Breaking down the stimulus into Lawgic, I got something like:
(All works of art) → (evoke intense Feelings), (this Sculpture) → (A).
Therefore, (S)→(F).
But (S)→/(F).
Therefore, [(S)→/(A)] or [/(A)→(F)].
Here's what it would look like if it's just ABCs:
(B)→(C), (A)→(B).
Therefore, (A)→(C).
But (A)→/(C).
Therefore, [(A)→/(B)] or [/(B)→(C)]
Answer choice C parallels this perfectly.
Here's what B would look like:
(All Medical research)→(Significant), (this Research)→(M).
Therefore, (R)→(S).
But (R)→/(S).
Therefore, [(M)→/(S)] and [(R)→/(M)]
Here's what B would look like if it's just ABC's:
(B)→(C), (A)→(B).
Therefore, (A)→(C).
But (A)→/(C).
Therefore, [(B)→/(C)] and [(A)→/(B)]
Can you see that the last parts of the stimulus and B do not parallel each other logically? Therefore, B is incorrect. We do not know if the "or" here is inclusive or exclusive. We just know that it's there. Anything else would be an assumption about the "or". I hope this clears some things up.
I foolproofed a section of LG today after not doing anything LSAT related since the June exam and got through it sooooooo much faster than how I did two weeks ago. I usually take notes on how long it took me to do each games, recommended time for those games, level of difficulty, how many questions right/wrong. You might just need some time off for your brain to digest and recover from the intense foolproofing session. Doing more won’t necessarily help... While I believe in intense study sessions, sometimes doing less could actually be more beneficial.
https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/synesthesiacs-causation-question
4:30 and on lol
This came to my mind when I was on a break from studying:
Efficiency -> Effectiveness.
efficiency is: achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense.
effectiveness is: successful in producing desired or intended result.
I think being efficient means being effective with minimum wasted effort (falling for trap answer choices, time sinks, etc.) or expense (getting questions wrong, losing time, etc.). You can be effective (answering correctly) without being efficient but you must be effective in order to be efficient.
I feel you there. I can't believe it's only been a week since the exam. I think I might be slightly burnt out or have some sort of post LSAT blues. I've been trying to distance myself from LSAT to really enjoy some time off but here I am lurking on 7Sage forum again haha. I've been playing a lot more tennis with my friends lately and it has been very helpful for me.
Causation weakening = bring in alternate explanation
Causation strengthening = block alternate explanation
@lucykelly459 Thank you! I really appreciate the support and love from 7Sagers :smiley:
@jponce9029613 said:
September'18 Study Group | Blind Review PT 39 | Thursday, June 14th | 7:30 pm EST
Note: Take the PT under timed conditions; BR to the best of your abilities; join us for all or part of the call! For the purposes of the group please don't check the answers beforehand. If you happen to know the answer, keep it to yourself, and win the argument using your reasoning. Also, please don't go "so I know the answer is C but I don't know why B is wrong?" as the purpose is so that we all collaborate on improving our reasoning skills.
Ohhhhhhh so this is how these calls work. Just take the PT under timed condition and BR without checking the answer choice and give the reasoning for your answer during the call. Is this a weekly thing? Can I join in next time?
@eshishakova820 said:
I am so glad I was able to face my fears and take the exam. I have been studying for a while now and kept thinking that I was not ready. My friends encouraged me to simply take the exam and do my best. I am really happy that I listened to them because now I know what I need to work on and it gets me started on my path to attending law school (instead of just sitting in fear).
For everyone who is thinking about cancelling their exam in the future, I would advise to take it....because like @suhbk3 said, there is no place to go but up!
Right? It wasn’t really as bad as I thought haha.
Congrats to everyone who took the June test today! I don't know about you guys, but 35min was a LOT shorter for me today than any other days I studied on my own hahaha. How are you guys celebrating? I f---ed up some RC and LR stuff but oh well, no place to go but up!
@35955 said:
@suhbk3 said:
:warning: The only exception: you can say which sections were real or experimental. For example, asking questions like “Was the LG with "flowers" experimental?” is okay. You can say “The LG section with "flowers" was real!” But you cannot say “the 3rd game of the real section was In/Out game.”
Wait, @bgurevic262 how did you know about the flowers? Hmmmmmm...
I had 2 RC sections... I started my very first LSAC administered LSAT with a chemical compound punching me in the face. I thought the experimental RC section was SOOOOOOOO much easier. I’m kind of annoyed that that was the experimental section.
I think the real LG had Bonds, WXYZ, flowers, and offices. I thank God for foolproofing and 7Sage...
This is good though. I feel so much better now that I’ve taken the real thing.
LOL
I think it was a pure coincidence because 7Sage uses the same template for years. Haha
Riiiiigghhhttttt.
:warning: The only exception: you can say which sections were real or experimental. For example, asking questions like “Was the LG with "flowers" experimental?” is okay. You can say “The LG section with "flowers" was real!” But you cannot say “the 3rd game of the real section was In/Out game.”
Wait, @bgurevic262 how did you know about the flowers? Hmmmmmm...
I had 2 RC sections... I started my very first LSAC administered LSAT with a chemical compound punching me in the face. I thought the experimental RC section was SOOOOOOOO much easier. I’m kind of annoyed that that was the experimental section.
I think the real LG had Bonds, WXYZ, flowers, and offices. I thank God for foolproofing and 7Sage...
This is good though. I feel so much better now that I’ve taken the real thing.
But is it a biconditional statement? We don’t know. We don’t know if the variables in the conditional statements HAVE to be together and are NEVER apart. You are assuming that the conditional statement is biconditional even when there’s possibility that there isn’t.... Ok, it’s not a biconditional lol.
If we correctly see it as A→B then you can see that what you wrote (A→B = B→A) doesn’t work. You really want these method of resoning questions to be black and white. If the stim goes a certain way, the answer choice will too. I don’t think you can assume ever on this test unless the test explicitly tells us to.
Stim triggers A while E triggers B. When compared to the choice D, which triggers A, E is LESS similar. JY also says the same thing, “they messed up the order”. Since messing up orders doesn’t apply to biconditionals, you can infer that this isn’t a biconditional as well.
Hope this helps.