Preptest 35-4-20 Forum

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 9:38 pm

I'm a little confused on what role the sentence that starts off with "thus, since" is supposed to mean for this argument. Is it a intermediary conclusion? I've been looking at LSAT hacks forum and MHLSAT forum and they almost seem to ignore this part of the stimulus, and focus on the premise before it. I don't understand the role of that sentence in the larger scope of the argument.

somethingElse · Post by **somethingElse** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 9:53 pm

Post removed...

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 9:54 pm

Weaken

somethingElse · Post by **somethingElse** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 9:58 pm

Post removed...

mjsjr · Post by **mjsjr** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:02 pm

Hi there! I'm also a current student of the LSAT, so feel free to interpret my reply however you wish. But here are my thoughts:

First, I hate this problem. I actually encountered it in the Powerscore LR bible about a year ago.

The question stem asks us to weaken the argument--so we know that the stimulus contains an argument. I think finding the conclusion would be helpful because then we can determine if the sentence you're inquiring about is the conclusion or something else meant to support it.

Sentence one: doesn't sound like what the argument is overall trying to support. Sounds more like a fact usually found in a must be true question.

Sentence two: sounds exactly like the sentence above it: just a general statement with nothing supporting it.

Sentence three: okay, here we go. We have a conclusion indicator "thus." Seems promising. It looks like they're saying "thus, because Eurasians came right before the peak of the Ice Age (and also because of the two facts we mentioned above), we can conclude that: the first NA Eurasians came from a distant part of Eurasia."

So, to me, it looks like the sentence you're referring to begins with an additional premise that supports the conclusion, which is the final clause of the stimulus.

Does that help or did I miss the mark?

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:17 pm

mjsjr wrote:Hi there! I'm also a current student of the LSAT, so feel free to interpret my reply however you wish. But here are my thoughts:

First, I hate this problem. I actually encountered it in the Powerscore LR bible about a year ago.

The question stem asks us to weaken the argument--so we know that the stimulus contains an argument. I think finding the conclusion would be helpful because then we can determine if the sentence you're inquiring about is the conclusion or something else meant to support it.

Sentence one: doesn't sound like what the argument is overall trying to support. Sounds more like a fact usually found in a must be true question.

Sentence two: sounds exactly like the sentence above it: just a general statement with nothing supporting it.

Sentence three: okay, here we go. We have a conclusion indicator "thus." Seems promising. It looks like they're saying "thus, because Eurasians came right before the peak of the Ice Age (and also because of the two facts we mentioned above), we can conclude that: the first NA Eurasians came from a distant part of Eurasia."

So, to me, it looks like the sentence you're referring to begins with an additional premise that supports the conclusion, which is the final clause of the stimulus.

Does that help or did I miss the mark?

I knew what the conclusion was, I'm excellent at finding the conclusion of an argument, I just had problems with the premise. So was this just a premise that was just there but not really focused on when we got to the answer choices?? I don't really see anything relevant in the answer choices that bridges the connection between the bit of evidence and the answer choices. The relevant choices all seem to refer to the premise above....I rem this problem earlier in my prep as well. I did not like it then, I don't like it now lol

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:20 pm

somethingelse55 wrote:Thanks. The first part of the sentence, "since Eurasians did not settle in NA until shortly before the peak of the ice age," is a premise. Then the rest of the sentence is the main conclusion of the whole argument.

To me this would make more sense, but I don't know if that's necessarily correct.

mjsjr · Post by **mjsjr** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:35 pm

ltowns1 wrote:
mjsjr wrote:Hi there! I'm also a current student of the LSAT, so feel free to interpret my reply however you wish. But here are my thoughts:

First, I hate this problem. I actually encountered it in the Powerscore LR bible about a year ago.

The question stem asks us to weaken the argument--so we know that the stimulus contains an argument. I think finding the conclusion would be helpful because then we can determine if the sentence you're inquiring about is the conclusion or something else meant to support it.

Sentence one: doesn't sound like what the argument is overall trying to support. Sounds more like a fact usually found in a must be true question.

Sentence two: sounds exactly like the sentence above it: just a general statement with nothing supporting it.

Sentence three: okay, here we go. We have a conclusion indicator "thus." Seems promising. It looks like they're saying "thus, because Eurasians came right before the peak of the Ice Age (and also because of the two facts we mentioned above), we can conclude that: the first NA Eurasians came from a distant part of Eurasia."

So, to me, it looks like the sentence you're referring to begins with an additional premise that supports the conclusion, which is the final clause of the stimulus.

Does that help or did I miss the mark?

I knew what the conclusion was, I'm excellent at finding the conclusion of an argument, I just had problems with the premise. So was this just a premise that was just there but not really focused on when we got to the answer choices?? I don't really see anything relevant in the answer choices that bridges the connection between the bit of evidence and the answer choices. The relevant choices all seem to refer to the premise above....I rem this problem earlier in my prep as well. I did not like it then, I don't like it now lol

The point isn't to help you find the conclusion. It's to identify the conclusion so that we can determine how the other sentence relates to it. It seems like it supports the conclusion. Okay, so it's a premise, but what kind? Is it just a premise or a subsidiary conclusion. Well, it's not supported by any other premises, right? The other two sentences can in no way be said to support the intermediate conclusion that Eurasians did not settle in North American until shortly before the peak of the Ice Age. So it's just a premise. At least that's what I think. The final sentence is just set up to say, because of these first two facts listed, and SINCE this other fact, we can conclude that NA Eurasians came from a distant part of Eurasia.

The premise in the final sentence is meant to connect with the first premise that states mastodons became extinct at the peak of the Ice Age. I think the author is trying to say since Eurasians came right around the peak of the Ice Age and because Mastodons became extinct then, the first Eurasians came around this time and left their deadly projectile in this Mastodon. The author is assuming that the projectile is a Eurasian projectile obviously because he uses this information to conclude that the first Eurasians came from a distant part of Eurasia. If the projectile wasn't Eurasian, then why would he be concluding that?

Let me know what you think.

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:51 pm

mjsjr wrote:
ltowns1 wrote:
mjsjr wrote:Hi there! I'm also a current student of the LSAT, so feel free to interpret my reply however you wish. But here are my thoughts:

First, I hate this problem. I actually encountered it in the Powerscore LR bible about a year ago.

The question stem asks us to weaken the argument--so we know that the stimulus contains an argument. I think finding the conclusion would be helpful because then we can determine if the sentence you're inquiring about is the conclusion or something else meant to support it.

Sentence one: doesn't sound like what the argument is overall trying to support. Sounds more like a fact usually found in a must be true question.

Sentence two: sounds exactly like the sentence above it: just a general statement with nothing supporting it.

Sentence three: okay, here we go. We have a conclusion indicator "thus." Seems promising. It looks like they're saying "thus, because Eurasians came right before the peak of the Ice Age (and also because of the two facts we mentioned above), we can conclude that: the first NA Eurasians came from a distant part of Eurasia."

So, to me, it looks like the sentence you're referring to begins with an additional premise that supports the conclusion, which is the final clause of the stimulus.

Does that help or did I miss the mark?

I knew what the conclusion was, I'm excellent at finding the conclusion of an argument, I just had problems with the premise. So was this just a premise that was just there but not really focused on when we got to the answer choices?? I don't really see anything relevant in the answer choices that bridges the connection between the bit of evidence and the answer choices. The relevant choices all seem to refer to the premise above....I rem this problem earlier in my prep as well. I did not like it then, I don't like it now lol
The point isn't to help you find the conclusion. It's to identify the conclusion so that we can determine how the other sentence relates to it. It seems like it supports the conclusion. Okay, so it's a premise, but what kind? Is it just a premise or a subsidiary conclusion. Well, it's not supported by any other premises, right? The other two sentences can in no way be said to support the intermediate conclusion that Eurasians did not settle in North American until shortly before the peak of the Ice Age. So it's just a premise. At least that's what I think. The final sentence is just set up to say, because of these first two facts listed, and SINCE this other fact, we can conclude that NA Eurasians came from a distant part of Eurasia.

The premise in the final sentence is meant to connect with the first premise that states mastodons became extinct at the peak of the Ice Age. I think the author is trying to say since Eurasians came right around the peak of the Ice Age and because Mastodons became extinct then, the first Eurasians came around this time and left their deadly projectile in this Mastodon. The author is assuming that the projectile is a Eurasian projectile obviously because he uses this information to conclude that the first Eurasians came from a distant part of Eurasia. If the projectile wasn't Eurasian, then why would he be concluding that?

Let me know what you think.

I think I'm going to put dirt on this question so it will never be seen again lol, and yeah I get what you were trying to point out, I was just saying finding the conclusion which is supported by other statements is not that hard for me, which is why im having a little bit of a hard time with this question, because I can usually navigate through the rest of the stimulus to see what roles other statements play. As for your reasoning I pretty much understand, and until an LSAT expert gives another explanation yours is what I'm using to explain this question to myself lol thanks

mjsjr · Post by **mjsjr** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:56 pm

No problem. Good luck!

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:59 pm

mjsjr wrote:No problem. Good luck!

You too

somethingElse · Post by **somethingElse** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:11 pm

Post removed...