how do u folk solve "most supported" questions? Forum

[sangr]

ok so these types of question seems to be ones where I choose the seemingly impending conclusion, based on the dudes words in the stimulus.

theoretically, this should be simple enough but i always choke up on these. I know every question is different and all but is there any specific mindset/ method for these?

[pinkzeppelin]

Usually there are 2 or 3 answer choices for these types of questions that are blatantly wrong (e.g. the stimulus refutes the answer choice instead of supports it)

Once you've narrowed it down, look at each answer choice and ask yourself what assumptions have to be made past the stimulus to support that answer choice. The answer choice requiring the least/best assumptions is the right answer. Most of the time, the correct answer requires no assumptions, but sometimes lsac likes to screw with you.

[StrictlyLiable]

Must Be True based on the passage. I look at it as an inference, which it is.

[Confused&Pissed]

You ask yourself what is implicitly implied in the stimulus. Look at the line of reasoning and try and figure out what the author is getting at. Unlike must be true questions, it doesn't have to be true, but is most reasonably inferred based on the evidence in the stimulus. Combining premises, looking for small leaps in logic, or asking how broad the conclusion might be often leads to the correct answer. The incorrect answer choices are usually too strong (this must be true, is always the case, everyone involved, no on etc.).

I altered the hell out of this question to give you an example of what I'm talking about. I hope I do not confuse you further, and please feel free to disregard everything I am writing. BTW I made up a lot in the stimulus so don't make fun of it.

Recent research indicates that increased consumption of soy beans and tofu by middle-aged men reduces their susceptibility to stroke in later years.
(increased consumption of SB and T reduces risk of stroke)

The researchers speculate that this may be because soy beans and tofu are rich in vitamin D.
(suspect its the Vit D in SB and T that reduces risk stroke)

Low levels of vitamin D are associated with high levels of zerotysteine, and amino peptide that contributes to blocked arteries.
(Low Vit D correlated with High levels of Z, really bad peptide that contributes to blocked arteries)

Adding Prems together you get: Increased Vit D in SB and T help lower risks of stroke---maybe by reducing Z, maybe by some other method, maybe it’s just some crazy correlation with no rhyme or reason to it.

Which one of the following AC’s is most strongly supported

A: An increased risk of stroke is correlated with low levels of zerotysteine---Its High levels of Z which is bad, not low. Thus this is not supported.

B: A decreased risk of stroke is correlated with increased levels of vitamin D----This could be true, or it could be false, but it is supported by the premises and the inferences that we made.

C: An increased propensity for blocked arteries is correlated with decreased levels of zerotysteine---Decreased levels of Z is correlated with a reduction in risk, High levels contribute to blocked arteries, thus this is not supported.

D: A decreased propensity for blocked arteries is correlated with low levels of vitamin D---Less Vit D more Z means more blocked arteries, thus this is not supported.

E: Stroke is prevented by ingestion of vitamin D in quantities sufficient to prevent a decline in the levels of zerotysteine. We are talking about increased risk and decreased risk, not complete prevention. Furthermore, we don’t know what quantity of Vit D would be sufficient. This is too strong, and thus not supported by the stimulus. This could be true, but it is not supported by the info we were given.

Most of these AC’s could be true. We only know of correlations discovered in one experiment, but the task is to find out which AC is supported/implied by the information we are given in the stimulus.

[odon59]

First you have to figure out if this is a strengthen question (the right answer strengthens/supports the stimulus) or an inference question (the stimulus supports the right answer). This can be tricky, so always ask yourself "who/what is doing the supporting?"

If it's an inference, then the right answer MUST BE TRUE based on the evidence in the stimulus.

If it's a strengthen, then the right answer will make the argument stronger, usually by adding additional evidence. Here, all the wrong answer choices will likely weaken the argument or do nothing.

[Confused&Pissed]

Isn't strengthen, what AC "most supports" the stimulus, while soft must be true is what AC is most "supported by" the stimulus? I though the OP was asking about the latter?