Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Attacking the premise is right?

ELPISTOLERO9ELPISTOLERO9 Alum Member
in Logical Reasoning 285 karma

Hey y'all

It's rare for an answer to attack the premise and be right, but how rare is it after PT75.

On question 75.3.13: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-75-section-3-question-13/

The correct answer choice contradicts a premise in the argument, now as this is against the learned approach of never attack the premises. How often is it seen in the rest of the prep tests? If it is often, how did you guys adjust your process of thought in order to get these type of questions right.

-Moreover, if y'all have some drills to be more consistent at getting 4/5 star difficulty questions right I would highly appreciate it!

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • sadface1sadface1 Core Member
    8 karma

    I found this question difficult when I first did it and still feel it takes time to wrap my head around the logic.

    But I wouldn't say that my thought process is different for this question than for any other weakening question or that the correct AC attacks the premise.

    The way I read it is that there is a division between the Administrator and the Grad Students about the function of a Teaching Assistant. The Administrator believes that a TA's function is the fund their education whereas the Grad Students believe that a TA's function is either different or greater than the definition provided by the Admin.

    Just as with any weakening questioning, I'm thinking that the correct AC must provide some evidence that pushes the division in favor of the grad students. Given the stimulus, it should be something that tells me that the definition of a TA's function as provided by the Admin is limited in some way so as to support the Grad Student's claim.

    I'm reading the Admin's premise as a confusingly worded conditional which needlessly complicates the premise that 'TAs are TAs because they need tuition money' but there is a logical gap between evidencing why TAs do a job and what the function of that job is. Since the conclusion is about the function, the Admin has not really provided meaningful support.

    By contrast, the correct AC provides some justification for the Grad Student position by showing that the faculty is considering using TAs in a way that goes beyond simply funding their education. This does not mean that the premise presented by the Admin is untrue but, rather, that it is not entirely true - it is only a partial explanation of a TA's function.

    This is how I interpret the question as not breaking the mold of a weakening question by attacking the premises. Please let me know if there is some error in my thinking.

  • blanklawblanklaw Member
    490 karma

    Interesting approach! I agree with that distinction of function

  • ELPISTOLERO9ELPISTOLERO9 Alum Member
    285 karma

    @sadface1 Thank you for the explanation, the distinction makes sense so we can stick to not attacking the premise.

    I've also found a webinar that talks about a specific approach towards weaken and strengthen questions in which they cover this question, which i also found really helpful so we can wrap our head on the logic of this question.
    Here's the link of the webinar: https://7sage.com/webinar/weaken-strengthen/
    the explanation starts at 1:04:00, but to fully understand the approach you need to start watching 40:00. If you have time, watch the whole thing as it might add to your arsenal for these questions.

Sign In or Register to comment.