Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 29 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
Related Discussions
LSAT LR Lingo:)
Hey guys! I hope your study is going well... I just have a few questions you may be able to help with:)
I have been a bit confused on the exact definition of a few common words that continue to appear on LR Answer Choices. For example, "It qualifies the conclusion of the argument." I have always thought that to qualify something, you make it more relevant, or more suitable. Or to be eligible for something. Is this what the LSAT writer means as well?
And another, "Takes for granted that there are only two possible alternative explanations." Does this mean that, the argument assumes that there are only two explanations, without supporting with evidence?
And lastly, is there a difference between "Phenomenon and Correlation?" JY's lesson explains that Correlation includes two events happening concurrently but many answer choices use the word, "Phenomenon" in a confusing way. They use it when the stimulus seems only to address simply a causation/correlation event.
I am sure there is some document out there that defines the LSAT's common words..if so, I would LOVE to see that:D
Thank you all for the help!!
-Hannah
I have been a bit confused on the exact definition of a few common words that continue to appear on LR Answer Choices. For example, "It qualifies the conclusion of the argument." I have always thought that to qualify something, you make it more relevant, or more suitable. Or to be eligible for something. Is this what the LSAT writer means as well?
And another, "Takes for granted that there are only two possible alternative explanations." Does this mean that, the argument assumes that there are only two explanations, without supporting with evidence?
And lastly, is there a difference between "Phenomenon and Correlation?" JY's lesson explains that Correlation includes two events happening concurrently but many answer choices use the word, "Phenomenon" in a confusing way. They use it when the stimulus seems only to address simply a causation/correlation event.
I am sure there is some document out there that defines the LSAT's common words..if so, I would LOVE to see that:D
Thank you all for the help!!
-Hannah
Comments
2. You have it right
3. Phenomenon can be used for any "event" or "occurence" which may or may not include a relationship of some sort. Usually the interpretation of the "occurence" is what the LSAT questions poke at (for instance causation vs correlation).
Others may have a more helpful definition.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/qualify
"Make sure you know the context when using the word qualify. In one sense, it means to be right for, to measure up. In another sense, though, qualify means to change something slightly, to limit it or add a condition to it."
There may be other possible alternative explanations.
Check out @"Nicole Hopkins" webinar to help:
https://7sage.com/webinar/weaken-strengthen/
Keep posting your questions - you have great instincts to recognize concepts you are not sure about:)
"It qualifies" = allows for the possibility that something else may occur/the conclusion is true given certain circumstances.
ex: Conclusion - "Therefore, if Y happens, X will happen" (Y is the qualification. In this case, it's in the form of conditional logic. You can think of a qualification as a fancy way of covering one's butt. E.g. "I never said X will always happen...I said, if Y happens, X will happens").
Edit: I should mention that more often than not, on the LSAT, to qualify something is just a fancy way of mentioning that it has limitations. For a great example, refer to the June 07 PT, RC, passage 4. The final paragraph is an example of an author qualifying his or her claim (author posits that a different method of analysis works incredibly well, but qualifies said statement by claiming that this method of analysis isn't perfect).
"Takes for granted" = A fancy way of saying "Assumes, possibly without warrant"
"Phenomena" = Thing...literally, that's all it is.
"Correlation" = Two or more things that just happen to occur at the same time (seemingly with some type of relationship. Hence, the "Co-Relation")