deleted

H.al1997

Sorry if you were responding.

Sami

@mnr12345 said:
Hey everyone,

I've been studying for the LSAT since January, and more consistently, since May 1st. I'm pretty weak on every section (timing with RC, still going through LG CC). I have spent the most time on LR, and I just can't improve on the question types. I bought the Manhattan prep book to give me a different perspective, and so far its been good in helping me solidify what I know and what I may have missed while going through the CC for LR.

I honestly would suggest joining at least Oldies but Goodies that happens every week. They go through old tests and that way you can work through some problems and see for yourself where you are going wrong.

deforestation rate is decreasing + government spent millions to curb cutting and burning --> government efforts are proving effective.
I said I couldn't be convinced of the conclusion because we don't know by how much it has decreased. I said what if it was decreased by only 1%, then we wouldn't be able to say that government efforts were effective.

If we knew that the government efforts were indeed causing even a 1% decrease in deforestation, wouldn't you say it is having an impact and in that way since its better than before at least these efforts are effective in nature. I don't need a 30% or 20% increase to call something effective. Even a 1% seems good enough.

Let's say drilling on LR is causing my average score on PT's to increase by 1%. I can definitely say that the drilling is being effective. It's helping my scores rise.
For example, for a 169 scorer a strategy that gets his average to jump to a 171 would be considered very effective. I would say any strategy that helps a score improve even by a bit is effective.

But the explanation in the prep book says that that we can't be sure that the government is actually affecting the deforestation rate as their could be other things that are contributing to the decrease.

The textbook explanation questioned the truth of the WHOLE conclusion, whereas I focused on the value of a specific word (effective). Do you see other gaps?

The conclusion is always suspect. In a sense that you want to take the premise and just see what you can conclude.
We know: Deforestation rate is decreasing. We also know government spent millions to curb cutting and burning
But can you combine these two statements to say government efforts are proving effective?
For government to prove effective the assumption would be that it was the government's money that actually lead to deforestation decreasing. But we don't know that and its not stated in the premises. What if it was a lawsuit by a private citizen that lead to a halt in deforestation at least till the case has been decided upon? Just because something had the intent of causing a decrease in deforestation and it happened does not mean that the first thing caused the other.

What if I say:
This year there was a new technology that drilled oil was implemented and this year we had more oil drilled than last year. Therefore, this new technology was the cause of more oil being drilled. But what if we simply had more companies that drilled more wells using old technology which lead to more oil being drilled.
None of my premises stated that the new technology caused the increase in more oil drilled. It only stated that it occurred in conjunction.

You want to see your premises as statements and see what you can logically conclude only. All we can say from our original deforestation example is that deforestation decreased and at the same time government spending increased. That's it. Nothing more. Anything else is reaching too far unless stated as a fact in the premises.

I also think I am missing the BIGGER PICTURE of the argument, and this is the pattern I've made note of the most. My question is, other than just keep practicing, what strategies do you use to find the missing link/bridge/support in an argument (whether it is a P - C, P - SC, or SC - MC)?

I think you do need practice but a focus on learning the bigger picture and on argument types. The core curriculum has lessons on them. This example that you brought up will repeat on many tests in other forms. So once you learn them, it's easier to spot them again.

Take a look at this example:
https://7sage.com/lesson/anti-collision-device-causation-question/

The argument looks something like this:
Support: The use of new anti-collision devise increased and information started disappearing from controllers screen. ( If we plug in our old argument; the government spending to stop deforestation increased and deforestation started decreasing). In both cases something started and at the same time another thing started happening.
Conclusion: The new anti-collision device is responsible for information that started to disappear. ( Our old argument in other words; It's the government spending that is being effective in causing deforestation to decrease).
Both arguments jumped from something happening together to one thing causing the other.

Honestly, in my opinion, the strategy to see how all these arguments are similar to each other is what enabled me to get faster and more accurate.

Let me know if this helped or if you have any further questions.

H.al1997

Hi @Sami. Thank you so much for this really thorough response. I really really appreciate it.

Thanks for bringing the 'Oldies but Goodies' to my attention. I just scheduled the next one in my calendar. I find that I always miss out on these study sessions, and I'm not qualified for the LSAT study groups as I'm still going through the C.C. Is there a weekly study session for RC as well that you can direct me to? I tried looking for the "RC with Daniel on Thursday nights" (mentioned in the Oldies but Goodies forum), but couldn't find it. Thanks in advance.

I really like the LSAT example you used because it made that distinction much clearer.

"Just because something had the intent of causing a decrease in deforestation and it happened does not mean that the first thing caused the other." Very important, thank you!

"Honestly, in my opinion, the strategy to see how all these arguments are similar to each other is what enabled me to get faster and more accurate." I will definitely start doing this as I get more comfortable.

I've said a lot of thank you's already (it's a Canadian thing ), but again I really appreciate it!

Sami

Hey no problem . And don't worry, my culture and I guess Canadian as well are all about saying thanks and being courteous. So I completely understand.

The oldies but Goodies for RC is up now. It takes place every Thursday night.

I agree with how important it is to start seeing patterns. These patterns occur not only in LR stimulus but also RC passages.

Good luck. Let me know if you have any additional questions.