Sentence
stringlengths 0
4.66k
| video_title
stringlengths 26
111
|
|---|---|
So we probably want to think about it from their perspective. Airlines are designed to make money, does focusing on the leisure travelers make financial sense? Maybe. There's a lot more of them. But maybe not. And if we can come up with a way in which it doesn't make financial sense or sense for some other reason, that's all we need to undermine this argument. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
There's a lot more of them. But maybe not. And if we can come up with a way in which it doesn't make financial sense or sense for some other reason, that's all we need to undermine this argument. Since the main goal of most companies is to make money, we might consider that helping the most number of people may not be the airline's objective, their goal, right? They may have another goal in mind. If the goal was to help as many people as possible, then maybe we would want the airlines to be focused on better serving the leisure travelers. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Since the main goal of most companies is to make money, we might consider that helping the most number of people may not be the airline's objective, their goal, right? They may have another goal in mind. If the goal was to help as many people as possible, then maybe we would want the airlines to be focused on better serving the leisure travelers. But if the airline's goal isn't to help the most number of people as possible and maybe instead is to maximize profits, then we may be making a different decision. It kind of depends. Right now, we have no way of knowing where more revenue or more profit is coming from. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
But if the airline's goal isn't to help the most number of people as possible and maybe instead is to maximize profits, then we may be making a different decision. It kind of depends. Right now, we have no way of knowing where more revenue or more profit is coming from. Is there more profit coming from the business class travelers or is there more profit coming from the main cabin travelers? We don't actually know. And if the tickets for business class are very, very, very expensive, let's say $5,000, whereas the tickets for the leisure travelers are more like $100, then we could imagine a scenario in which the revenue coming in off the business class part of the cabin actually brings in more money than the revenue coming in off of the main cabin. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Is there more profit coming from the business class travelers or is there more profit coming from the main cabin travelers? We don't actually know. And if the tickets for business class are very, very, very expensive, let's say $5,000, whereas the tickets for the leisure travelers are more like $100, then we could imagine a scenario in which the revenue coming in off the business class part of the cabin actually brings in more money than the revenue coming in off of the main cabin. This might be a little extreme, but it's definitely within the world of possible. And if this were true, then maybe we would want to be focused on providing the best possible service for those business class travelers. It might be a lot easier to provide world famous service for 10 people than it is to provide world class service for 40. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
This might be a little extreme, but it's definitely within the world of possible. And if this were true, then maybe we would want to be focused on providing the best possible service for those business class travelers. It might be a lot easier to provide world famous service for 10 people than it is to provide world class service for 40. So now that we understand that there might be a financial incentive to be focused on the business class travelers, we should be able to undermine this argument simply by saying something along the lines of, yep, if the revenue coming in off the business part of the cabin is greater than the revenue coming off the main part of the cabin, then the recommendation that airlines should be focused on leisure travelers may not be a good one. Now let's go to the answer choices and take a look. Answer choice A says that business travelers often make travel decisions based on whether they feel given airline values to business. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So now that we understand that there might be a financial incentive to be focused on the business class travelers, we should be able to undermine this argument simply by saying something along the lines of, yep, if the revenue coming in off the business part of the cabin is greater than the revenue coming off the main part of the cabin, then the recommendation that airlines should be focused on leisure travelers may not be a good one. Now let's go to the answer choices and take a look. Answer choice A says that business travelers often make travel decisions based on whether they feel given airline values to business. So this does seem to suggest that the business travelers might be pissed if the, if the quality of the service goes down, right? They're looking to make sure that they're well taken care of. And if we're not taking care of them or the airlines are not, maybe they'll go somewhere else. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So this does seem to suggest that the business travelers might be pissed if the, if the quality of the service goes down, right? They're looking to make sure that they're well taken care of. And if we're not taking care of them or the airlines are not, maybe they'll go somewhere else. This could call into question the conclusion, but the problem with it is it's not quite strong enough. There's a couple of places of weakness here. First off, if we look at the beginning of the answer choices, business travelers often make travel decisions. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
This could call into question the conclusion, but the problem with it is it's not quite strong enough. There's a couple of places of weakness here. First off, if we look at the beginning of the answer choices, business travelers often make travel decisions. So how often is often? A few times, a couple of times, the minimum associated with often isn't very high. It's like a sum statement. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So how often is often? A few times, a couple of times, the minimum associated with often isn't very high. It's like a sum statement. So just because some business travelers make such decisions doesn't mean that this is going to be enough of them for us to be really focused on them. And then, you know, secondarily, just because they're going to make decisions based on whether they feel that a given airline values their business, they may still feel that way. Even if the airline is focused on giving better experiences for leisure travelers, right? | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So just because some business travelers make such decisions doesn't mean that this is going to be enough of them for us to be really focused on them. And then, you know, secondarily, just because they're going to make decisions based on whether they feel that a given airline values their business, they may still feel that way. Even if the airline is focused on giving better experiences for leisure travelers, right? They may already meet that minimum threshold that business travelers need, and any additional effort should actually maybe go into the leisure travelers. So there's a weakness here in answer choice A that we can use to get rid of it. Answer choice B says that some airlines have indicated that they will undertake alterations in the seating space throughout the entire passenger area of their planes in the near future. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
They may already meet that minimum threshold that business travelers need, and any additional effort should actually maybe go into the leisure travelers. So there's a weakness here in answer choice A that we can use to get rid of it. Answer choice B says that some airlines have indicated that they will undertake alterations in the seating space throughout the entire passenger area of their planes in the near future. So there's a couple of things going on with this answer choice, but the first thing is that it's talking about these alterations being made throughout the entire passenger area. The conclusion was to pay less attention to the business class people and more attention to the leisure travelers. Maybe that's what's happening in this answer choice, or maybe not. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
So there's a couple of things going on with this answer choice, but the first thing is that it's talking about these alterations being made throughout the entire passenger area. The conclusion was to pay less attention to the business class people and more attention to the leisure travelers. Maybe that's what's happening in this answer choice, or maybe not. It could be the case that if they're making alterations, that they're going to reduce the quality of care for the leisure travelers and increase the quality of care for the business travelers, but it could be the other way around. Without knowing that, we can't really use this answer choice to undermine the conclusion because it could be making changes in a way that is exactly in line with the conclusion. So we're going to call this one too weak. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
It could be the case that if they're making alterations, that they're going to reduce the quality of care for the leisure travelers and increase the quality of care for the business travelers, but it could be the other way around. Without knowing that, we can't really use this answer choice to undermine the conclusion because it could be making changes in a way that is exactly in line with the conclusion. So we're going to call this one too weak. Let's get rid of answer choice B. Answer choice C says that sleeping in comfort during long flights is not the primary concern of leisure travelers. Well, it's not the primary concern of leisure travelers, but it may still be a very important consideration. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Let's get rid of answer choice B. Answer choice C says that sleeping in comfort during long flights is not the primary concern of leisure travelers. Well, it's not the primary concern of leisure travelers, but it may still be a very important consideration. Furthermore, sleeping in comfort is not necessarily the same as the comfort of leisure travelers in general. It may be the case that answer choice C is simply talking about just one aspect of comfort, whereas the argument is talking about focusing on the comfort of leisure travelers in general. But the bigger point is that we're not talking about a primary concern, or even if it's not the primary concern, it may still be a very major concern. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Furthermore, sleeping in comfort is not necessarily the same as the comfort of leisure travelers in general. It may be the case that answer choice C is simply talking about just one aspect of comfort, whereas the argument is talking about focusing on the comfort of leisure travelers in general. But the bigger point is that we're not talking about a primary concern, or even if it's not the primary concern, it may still be a very major concern. This would not weaken the argument. Answer choice D says that a far greater proportion of an airline's revenues is derived from business travelers than from leisure travelers. This kind of gives us a reason to think that the business travelers are maybe really important. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
This would not weaken the argument. Answer choice D says that a far greater proportion of an airline's revenues is derived from business travelers than from leisure travelers. This kind of gives us a reason to think that the business travelers are maybe really important. Maybe we shouldn't be focused on the leisure travelers since a far greater proportion of revenues is coming from the business travelers. It suggests that maybe we should be actually focused on the business travelers. This seems to provide a reason to undermine the argument. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Maybe we shouldn't be focused on the leisure travelers since a far greater proportion of revenues is coming from the business travelers. It suggests that maybe we should be actually focused on the business travelers. This seems to provide a reason to undermine the argument. Notice that this answer choice is comparing business travelers with leisure travelers, giving us a way to judge the relative significance of something for both. This is the only answer choice that compares business travelers with leisure travelers. Notice that the nature of the answer choice itself is a comparison. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Notice that this answer choice is comparing business travelers with leisure travelers, giving us a way to judge the relative significance of something for both. This is the only answer choice that compares business travelers with leisure travelers. Notice that the nature of the answer choice itself is a comparison. Just like the argument is focused on comparing where the airlines should be focused, answer choice D is comparing the relative significance of each of these two travel groups in proportion to the airline's revenues. This looks like a good contender. Let's hold on to D. Answer choice E says that most leisure travelers buy airline tickets only when fares are discounted. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Just like the argument is focused on comparing where the airlines should be focused, answer choice D is comparing the relative significance of each of these two travel groups in proportion to the airline's revenues. This looks like a good contender. Let's hold on to D. Answer choice E says that most leisure travelers buy airline tickets only when fares are discounted. The beginning of this answer choice is not terrible. It's actually stronger than some of the other answer choices. Most leisure travelers, not all, but definitely most, they buy airline tickets only when fares are discounted. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
The beginning of this answer choice is not terrible. It's actually stronger than some of the other answer choices. Most leisure travelers, not all, but definitely most, they buy airline tickets only when fares are discounted. The question that pops into my mind is why. Why are they buying tickets only when fares are discounted? If they're buying fares at discounted prices because they don't care about comfort, they just want to get from point A to point B, and the most important thing is to them is price, then that would undermine the argument to focus on providing more comfort for these leisure travelers. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
The question that pops into my mind is why. Why are they buying tickets only when fares are discounted? If they're buying fares at discounted prices because they don't care about comfort, they just want to get from point A to point B, and the most important thing is to them is price, then that would undermine the argument to focus on providing more comfort for these leisure travelers. If it turns out that the reason why leisure travelers aren't willing to spend money on flights is because the seats themselves are very, very uncomfortable, that actually maybe indicates that there's a possibility we could increase or the airlines could increase the comfort of those seats, and maybe that would actually be really good for their bottom line. They could charge more money. The leisure travelers would now pay more money because they finally have a decent seat. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
If it turns out that the reason why leisure travelers aren't willing to spend money on flights is because the seats themselves are very, very uncomfortable, that actually maybe indicates that there's a possibility we could increase or the airlines could increase the comfort of those seats, and maybe that would actually be really good for their bottom line. They could charge more money. The leisure travelers would now pay more money because they finally have a decent seat. Because it could go either way, answer choice E is simply too weak to impact the argument. That leaves us with answer choice D as the right answer. Let's look at another example. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Because it could go either way, answer choice E is simply too weak to impact the argument. That leaves us with answer choice D as the right answer. Let's look at another example. This one is going to involve causation. Causation is a very important reasoning structure when it comes to weakening questions and strengthening questions and paradox questions. Causation is going to be really important that you understand. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
This one is going to involve causation. Causation is a very important reasoning structure when it comes to weakening questions and strengthening questions and paradox questions. Causation is going to be really important that you understand. Causation is a very strong type of relationship. A causes B. Causation is really hard to prove. You can get pretty close to statistical significance and correlate two events as being so closely connected that it's likely that one of them caused the other. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Causation is a very strong type of relationship. A causes B. Causation is really hard to prove. You can get pretty close to statistical significance and correlate two events as being so closely connected that it's likely that one of them caused the other. But it's going to be really hard to prove causation on the LSAT. You want to look out for conclusions that deal with causal relationships because when they start asserting a causal conclusion, that's a really good opportunity to attack the argument. When you go to weaken an argument that involves a causal conclusion, we're going to resort to some pretty tried and true tactics. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
But it's going to be really hard to prove causation on the LSAT. You want to look out for conclusions that deal with causal relationships because when they start asserting a causal conclusion, that's a really good opportunity to attack the argument. When you go to weaken an argument that involves a causal conclusion, we're going to resort to some pretty tried and true tactics. The idea of providing an alternative cause, so that maybe it's something else that is causing the thing to occur. Or provide an example of the presumed cause without the presumed effect. If we can find an example of the causal relationship, what's the presumed cause and what's the presumed effect? | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
The idea of providing an alternative cause, so that maybe it's something else that is causing the thing to occur. Or provide an example of the presumed cause without the presumed effect. If we can find an example of the causal relationship, what's the presumed cause and what's the presumed effect? Then find those terms in another situation where we have the cause occurring but the effect is not occurring. That weakens the idea that this thing causes that thing to occur. If we can find an example of having the effect without the cause, that would do the same. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Then find those terms in another situation where we have the cause occurring but the effect is not occurring. That weakens the idea that this thing causes that thing to occur. If we can find an example of having the effect without the cause, that would do the same. We're either going to be trying to attack the correlation between the two events or we're looking to provide an alternative cause in the right answer. Here's another example. Give this one a try on your own. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
We're either going to be trying to attack the correlation between the two events or we're looking to provide an alternative cause in the right answer. Here's another example. Give this one a try on your own. Hit pause. When you're ready to work this one through together, hit play again and we'll do it together. All right, welcome back. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Hit pause. When you're ready to work this one through together, hit play again and we'll do it together. All right, welcome back. In this one, we're looking for the conclusion again. Remember the first step in our process when we're working on weakening questions is to find the conclusion of the argument. As we look through this argument, one of the first structures that we see is this idea of first, second, and third. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
In this one, we're looking for the conclusion again. Remember the first step in our process when we're working on weakening questions is to find the conclusion of the argument. As we look through this argument, one of the first structures that we see is this idea of first, second, and third. We know that these last three sentences, the nature of the way in which they begin suggests that these are not supporting each other. What that means, the last three sentences are premises. The conclusion has got to be somewhere above that. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
We know that these last three sentences, the nature of the way in which they begin suggests that these are not supporting each other. What that means, the last three sentences are premises. The conclusion has got to be somewhere above that. If we look at the sentence right before, we see this word however. That however is very much like a pivot. It's harder to spot in this one because it doesn't begin the sentence. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
If we look at the sentence right before, we see this word however. That however is very much like a pivot. It's harder to spot in this one because it doesn't begin the sentence. It's crammed into the middle. However is the pivot. It tells us that we're moving it away from an opposing point and towards the author's point. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
It's crammed into the middle. However is the pivot. It tells us that we're moving it away from an opposing point and towards the author's point. We've got two sentences here. The claim that comes before the word however and the claim that comes after. Because we know that however is pivoting towards the author's view, we know that the second sentence here is the conclusion of the argument and that the first sentence before that is the opposing point. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
We've got two sentences here. The claim that comes before the word however and the claim that comes after. Because we know that however is pivoting towards the author's view, we know that the second sentence here is the conclusion of the argument and that the first sentence before that is the opposing point. In some countries, certain produce is routinely irradiated with gamma rays in order to extend shelf life. That's what others are doing. This one says that there are good reasons to avoid irradiated food. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
In some countries, certain produce is routinely irradiated with gamma rays in order to extend shelf life. That's what others are doing. This one says that there are good reasons to avoid irradiated food. It's bad. Stay away from it. So if we look at the conclusion, there are good reasons to avoid irradiated foods. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
It's bad. Stay away from it. So if we look at the conclusion, there are good reasons to avoid irradiated foods. Does that follow from the evidence that irradiated foods are exposed to radioactive substances that produce the gamma rays? Radiation can reduce the vitamin content of fresh foods leaving behind harmful chemical residues. Finally, that irradiation spawns unique radioactive products that cause serious health problems including cancer. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
If we look at that third point, irradiation spawns unique radiolytic products that cause serious health problems. There is a causal relationship in that premise. If we look at the first one, they are exposed to the radioactive substances that produce the gamma rays. So the radioactive substances produce gamma rays, and these fodes are being exposed to them. There is definitely a causal nature in there. Second, irradiation can reduce the vitamin content of fresh foods, leaving behind harmful chemical residues. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
So the radioactive substances produce gamma rays, and these fodes are being exposed to them. There is definitely a causal nature in there. Second, irradiation can reduce the vitamin content of fresh foods, leaving behind harmful chemical residues. Can reduce suggests a causal relationship, that it has the power to impact it. So the evidence already involves some nature of causation. And the conclusion is basically saying, that stuff is all real bad. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
Can reduce suggests a causal relationship, that it has the power to impact it. So the evidence already involves some nature of causation. And the conclusion is basically saying, that stuff is all real bad. There are good reasons to avoid irradiated foods. Irradiated foods will do those things to you. To weaken this argument, if we could find something else that was causing the bad things to happen, if we could find irradiated foods that weren't bad for you, or if we could find foods that were bad for you, but that weren't irradiated, maybe that would work as well. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
There are good reasons to avoid irradiated foods. Irradiated foods will do those things to you. To weaken this argument, if we could find something else that was causing the bad things to happen, if we could find irradiated foods that weren't bad for you, or if we could find foods that were bad for you, but that weren't irradiated, maybe that would work as well. So we want to be thinking about alternative cause, cause without effect, and effect without cause. What's strange in this question is that four of the answer choices are going to weaken the argument. We see more accept questions in strengthen and weaken in paradox, particularly in paradox questions, because there's a wide range of ways in which you could impact the argument. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
So we want to be thinking about alternative cause, cause without effect, and effect without cause. What's strange in this question is that four of the answer choices are going to weaken the argument. We see more accept questions in strengthen and weaken in paradox, particularly in paradox questions, because there's a wide range of ways in which you could impact the argument. Because they're asking for most weakens, or most supports, because they're asking for most weakens the argument, there's lots of ways you could weaken an argument. That's going to create more opportunities, make it a little bit harder to predict what the right answer is going to say, leading to more accept questions within this particular question type. So the question says that each of the following weakens the consumer advocates argument accept. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
Because they're asking for most weakens, or most supports, because they're asking for most weakens the argument, there's lots of ways you could weaken an argument. That's going to create more opportunities, make it a little bit harder to predict what the right answer is going to say, leading to more accept questions within this particular question type. So the question says that each of the following weakens the consumer advocates argument accept. That means that four of these answer choices are going to weaken the consumer advocates argument. The one that doesn't is our answer. Answer choice A says that unique radiolytic products have seldom been found in any irradiated food. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
That means that four of these answer choices are going to weaken the consumer advocates argument. The one that doesn't is our answer. Answer choice A says that unique radiolytic products have seldom been found in any irradiated food. So we have these radiolytic products, and they're seldom found in any irradiated food. So we've got the cause present, the irradiated food, but we don't have the effect, which is these radiolytic products. Cause without effect, let's get rid of answer choice A. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
So we have these radiolytic products, and they're seldom found in any irradiated food. So we've got the cause present, the irradiated food, but we don't have the effect, which is these radiolytic products. Cause without effect, let's get rid of answer choice A. This is actually going to weaken the argument. Answer choice B says that cancer and other serious health problems have many causes that are unrelated to radioactive substance and gamma rays. Cancer has many causes that are unrelated to radioactive substances. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
This is actually going to weaken the argument. Answer choice B says that cancer and other serious health problems have many causes that are unrelated to radioactive substance and gamma rays. Cancer has many causes that are unrelated to radioactive substances. At first glance, this looks like this might be weakening the argument by maybe bringing up possible alternative causes. But when you bring up an alternative cause, it should be a replacement to the one that was being suggested. It shouldn't be an additional one. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
At first glance, this looks like this might be weakening the argument by maybe bringing up possible alternative causes. But when you bring up an alternative cause, it should be a replacement to the one that was being suggested. It shouldn't be an additional one. And so B, while it is bringing up other things that cause cancer, it's not saying that they might be the real cause, and it's not irradiation. Answer choice B is suggesting that there are things unrelated to radioactive substances that cause cancer. So this does bring up alternative cause, but it's not strong enough to rule out the fact that irradiated food also causes cancer. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
And so B, while it is bringing up other things that cause cancer, it's not saying that they might be the real cause, and it's not irradiation. Answer choice B is suggesting that there are things unrelated to radioactive substances that cause cancer. So this does bring up alternative cause, but it's not strong enough to rule out the fact that irradiated food also causes cancer. These are other things that are causing cancer, but saying that other things cause cancer doesn't actually go so far as saying that this doesn't. So this one feels a little weak. Let's hold on to answer choice B. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
These are other things that are causing cancer, but saying that other things cause cancer doesn't actually go so far as saying that this doesn't. So this one feels a little weak. Let's hold on to answer choice B. Answer choice C says that a study showed that irradiation leaves the vitamin content of virtually all fruits and vegetables unchanged. So a really important characteristic of this answer choice is the degree. By being strong enough to be discussing all fruits and vegetables, that's more than what you need to be describing fresh fruits. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
Answer choice C says that a study showed that irradiation leaves the vitamin content of virtually all fruits and vegetables unchanged. So a really important characteristic of this answer choice is the degree. By being strong enough to be discussing all fruits and vegetables, that's more than what you need to be describing fresh fruits. So the scope of answer choice C is big enough. It undermines the second point in the argument. And so let's go ahead and get rid of answer choice C. Answer choice D says that the amount of harmful chemicals found in irradiated foods is less than the amount that occurs naturally in most kinds of foods. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
So the scope of answer choice C is big enough. It undermines the second point in the argument. And so let's go ahead and get rid of answer choice C. Answer choice D says that the amount of harmful chemicals found in irradiated foods is less than the amount that occurs naturally in most kinds of foods. So D is actually undermining the argument as well. It's saying that these harmful chemicals, really, there's not that many of them. So even if they're there, it's less than what we're typically exposed to, making it less likely that we should be avoiding irradiation because the negative things that it's spinning off aren't very significant. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
So D is actually undermining the argument as well. It's saying that these harmful chemicals, really, there's not that many of them. So even if they're there, it's less than what we're typically exposed to, making it less likely that we should be avoiding irradiation because the negative things that it's spinning off aren't very significant. There's not much of them. This weakens the argument. Let's go ahead and get rid of D. E says that a study showed that the cancer rate is no higher among people who eat irradiated food than among those who do not. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
There's not much of them. This weakens the argument. Let's go ahead and get rid of D. E says that a study showed that the cancer rate is no higher among people who eat irradiated food than among those who do not. So if irradiated food was really causing problems, we would expect it to be higher for those people. But it's not. This is like cause without effect. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
So if irradiated food was really causing problems, we would expect it to be higher for those people. But it's not. This is like cause without effect. Let's go ahead and get rid of answer choice E. It weakens the argument. And that leaves us with answer choice B as the right answer. On weaking questions, it's actually a really common characteristic that the right answer is new information, something that wasn't involved in the argument, because we're looking to have that impact. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
Let's go ahead and get rid of answer choice E. It weakens the argument. And that leaves us with answer choice B as the right answer. On weaking questions, it's actually a really common characteristic that the right answer is new information, something that wasn't involved in the argument, because we're looking to have that impact. So you want to give a little bit more consideration to answer choices that you think might be out of scope. Don't be a little less hasty to get rid of them. And think about whether or not they might be relevant in some way that you didn't consider initially. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
So you want to give a little bit more consideration to answer choices that you think might be out of scope. Don't be a little less hasty to get rid of them. And think about whether or not they might be relevant in some way that you didn't consider initially. And then when it comes to logic, we want to look out for answer choices that are doing the opposite of what we want. So if we're being asked to weaken the argument, look out for answer choices that are going to strengthen the argument. And that's going to be more tempting because they're relevant. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
And then when it comes to logic, we want to look out for answer choices that are doing the opposite of what we want. So if we're being asked to weaken the argument, look out for answer choices that are going to strengthen the argument. And that's going to be more tempting because they're relevant. It's going to use the right kinds of words. But it'll be wrong because it's moving the wrong argument in the wrong direction. Irrelevant relationships are ones in which the answer choice builds a comparison when we're dealing with conditional logic or a causation when we're dealing with conditional logic. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
It's going to use the right kinds of words. But it'll be wrong because it's moving the wrong argument in the wrong direction. Irrelevant relationships are ones in which the answer choice builds a comparison when we're dealing with conditional logic or a causation when we're dealing with conditional logic. Whenever you see a switch in the reasoning structure in the answer choice, that's a good sign that you might be dealing with an irrelevant relationship. Or if the answer is just building a relationship between two randomly grabbed terms from within the argument, they're there. So it's not going to be out of scope. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
Whenever you see a switch in the reasoning structure in the answer choice, that's a good sign that you might be dealing with an irrelevant relationship. Or if the answer is just building a relationship between two randomly grabbed terms from within the argument, they're there. So it's not going to be out of scope. It'll be a little harder to get rid of it. But that particular relationship might not have any impact on the argument. Term shifts are when one of the terms has been tweaked in such a way that it's no longer quite good enough. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
It'll be a little harder to get rid of it. But that particular relationship might not have any impact on the argument. Term shifts are when one of the terms has been tweaked in such a way that it's no longer quite good enough. Maybe it's too weak now. So before we were talking about all fruits and vegetables. Now we're talking about fresh fruits and vegetables. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
Maybe it's too weak now. So before we were talking about all fruits and vegetables. Now we're talking about fresh fruits and vegetables. So is there an overlap? Look out for them to potentially shift the term and make it such that they're either talking about something too small in the answer choice or maybe too big in the stimulus. And then when it comes to degree, you want to be on the lookout for answers that are simply too weak. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
So is there an overlap? Look out for them to potentially shift the term and make it such that they're either talking about something too small in the answer choice or maybe too big in the stimulus. And then when it comes to degree, you want to be on the lookout for answers that are simply too weak. Stronger is going to be preferred to weaker when you're on weak in questions. Look out for areas of weakness within the choice because those will be ways in which you can make quicker eliminations. Don't start by eliminating answer choices that are wrong because of degree. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
Stronger is going to be preferred to weaker when you're on weak in questions. Look out for areas of weakness within the choice because those will be ways in which you can make quicker eliminations. Don't start by eliminating answer choices that are wrong because of degree. I would definitely start by trying to get rid of anything that's out of scope first and kind of working my way from left to right using scope first, then logic, and then degree. I find that if you just eliminate based off a degree on that first pass, it really should be more of a tiebreaker than an absolute rule. So in summary for this lesson, you spot a weakened question with language in the question stem that gives you something like weakens, undermines, calls into question, casts doubt, and then be on the lookout for those except questions because you're going to see a lot of them. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
I would definitely start by trying to get rid of anything that's out of scope first and kind of working my way from left to right using scope first, then logic, and then degree. I find that if you just eliminate based off a degree on that first pass, it really should be more of a tiebreaker than an absolute rule. So in summary for this lesson, you spot a weakened question with language in the question stem that gives you something like weakens, undermines, calls into question, casts doubt, and then be on the lookout for those except questions because you're going to see a lot of them. The reasoning structures, in terms of their frequency, conditional logic almost entirely disappears when you're working on weakened questions. And primarily, you're dealing with comparison and causation. The trap answers you want to be on the lookout for out of scope, those that do the opposite are strengthening the argument. | Weaken LSAT Logical Reasoning_segment1.mp3 |
This question asks us, which one of the following, if true, most undermines the argument? So we're looking at a weakened question. The answer will hurt the argument if we assume the answer to be true. The four wrong choices will either strengthen the argument or do nothing at all to the argument if we assume them to be true. So pause your video now if you'd like to try this question on your own, otherwise let's move on to the explanation. All right, we're going to read the stimulus together and for weakened questions, it helps to read actively for the conclusion and the support. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
The four wrong choices will either strengthen the argument or do nothing at all to the argument if we assume them to be true. So pause your video now if you'd like to try this question on your own, otherwise let's move on to the explanation. All right, we're going to read the stimulus together and for weakened questions, it helps to read actively for the conclusion and the support. And that's because the connection between those two parts is what we're going to be looking to weaken. So the passage reads, the Kiffer Forest Preserve in the northernmost part of the Abimac Valley is where most of the bears in the valley reside. During the eight years that the main road through the preserve has been closed, the preserve's bear population has nearly doubled. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
And that's because the connection between those two parts is what we're going to be looking to weaken. So the passage reads, the Kiffer Forest Preserve in the northernmost part of the Abimac Valley is where most of the bears in the valley reside. During the eight years that the main road through the preserve has been closed, the preserve's bear population has nearly doubled. Thus, the valley's bear population will increase if the road is kept closed. All right, there are a lot of pieces to pay attention to here because sometimes, students rush through a question like this and they misunderstand the parameters that are given. First of all, what's the conclusion? | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
Thus, the valley's bear population will increase if the road is kept closed. All right, there are a lot of pieces to pay attention to here because sometimes, students rush through a question like this and they misunderstand the parameters that are given. First of all, what's the conclusion? Well, it's pretty safe for us to identify the last sentence as the conclusion. Since it starts with thus, it's a prediction and the rest of the passage looks exactly like it's giving information as support. So our conclusion is that the valley's bear population will increase if the road is kept closed. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
Well, it's pretty safe for us to identify the last sentence as the conclusion. Since it starts with thus, it's a prediction and the rest of the passage looks exactly like it's giving information as support. So our conclusion is that the valley's bear population will increase if the road is kept closed. This is a conditional prediction. If we keep the road closed, the valley will have more bears. All right, now why does the arguer think this is true? | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
This is a conditional prediction. If we keep the road closed, the valley will have more bears. All right, now why does the arguer think this is true? The evidence gives us some context and relationships so it's important to get the information straight. There's a preserve which is in a valley and most of the bears in the valley are in that preserve. For the last eight years, the road through the preserve has been closed and the preserve's bear population has almost doubled. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
The evidence gives us some context and relationships so it's important to get the information straight. There's a preserve which is in a valley and most of the bears in the valley are in that preserve. For the last eight years, the road through the preserve has been closed and the preserve's bear population has almost doubled. There are a few places that could be difficult for us if we don't pay special attention to them and it's completely okay to draw a picture for ourselves on test day. So let's say this is the Abermack Valley. And at the northernmost part, we have the Kiffer Forest Preserve. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
There are a few places that could be difficult for us if we don't pay special attention to them and it's completely okay to draw a picture for ourselves on test day. So let's say this is the Abermack Valley. And at the northernmost part, we have the Kiffer Forest Preserve. We're told that most of the bears in the valley reside in the preserve and over the last eight years, while the road was closed, the bears population has almost doubled. Now, for weakening questions, it's usually the case that there are lots of different specific ways to weaken that argument. So a specific prediction isn't necessary or even recommended. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
We're told that most of the bears in the valley reside in the preserve and over the last eight years, while the road was closed, the bears population has almost doubled. Now, for weakening questions, it's usually the case that there are lots of different specific ways to weaken that argument. So a specific prediction isn't necessary or even recommended. What we can do to help ourselves is look for any gaps between the evidence and the conclusion. One thing that might stand out here is that we learn things about the preserve's bear population and the evidence, but the conclusion is actually all about what? The valley's bear population. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
What we can do to help ourselves is look for any gaps between the evidence and the conclusion. One thing that might stand out here is that we learn things about the preserve's bear population and the evidence, but the conclusion is actually all about what? The valley's bear population. Now, that's a gap. The arguer must be assuming that what happens in the preserve is representative of what happens in the valley itself. So if we find a choice that attacks that assumption, we would have a weakener. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
Now, that's a gap. The arguer must be assuming that what happens in the preserve is representative of what happens in the valley itself. So if we find a choice that attacks that assumption, we would have a weakener. The arguer is also assuming that it's not just a coincidence that the road was closed at the same time that the bear population doubled. So the answer could attack that assumption as well. So to rephrase our task, we're looking for something that makes it less likely that the valley's bear population will increase if the road is kept closed, even though the preserve's bear population has nearly doubled while the road was closed over the last eight years. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
The arguer is also assuming that it's not just a coincidence that the road was closed at the same time that the bear population doubled. So the answer could attack that assumption as well. So to rephrase our task, we're looking for something that makes it less likely that the valley's bear population will increase if the road is kept closed, even though the preserve's bear population has nearly doubled while the road was closed over the last eight years. And we'll keep an eye out for any choice that shows that what happens in the preserve isn't representative of what happens in the valley, or that there's some other reason that the bear population doubled besides the road being closed, or something that the road being closed would affect. Now that we know what we're trying to accomplish, let's evaluate the choices. A, most of the increase in the preserve's bear population over the past eight years is due to migration. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
And we'll keep an eye out for any choice that shows that what happens in the preserve isn't representative of what happens in the valley, or that there's some other reason that the bear population doubled besides the road being closed, or something that the road being closed would affect. Now that we know what we're trying to accomplish, let's evaluate the choices. A, most of the increase in the preserve's bear population over the past eight years is due to migration. This could be tempting, but it doesn't actually hurt the argument. If we learned that there are more bears in the preserve because a bunch of bears migrated from other parts in the valley, then that would weaken the argument, since bears just moved from one part of the valley to the other and didn't actually increase the valley's population. But we could also learn from this choice that there are more bears in the preserve because a bunch of bears migrated from outside of the valley and then that wouldn't weaken the argument at all, and it might even strengthen it. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
This could be tempting, but it doesn't actually hurt the argument. If we learned that there are more bears in the preserve because a bunch of bears migrated from other parts in the valley, then that would weaken the argument, since bears just moved from one part of the valley to the other and didn't actually increase the valley's population. But we could also learn from this choice that there are more bears in the preserve because a bunch of bears migrated from outside of the valley and then that wouldn't weaken the argument at all, and it might even strengthen it. So we can eliminate this choice. It doesn't give us enough information. B, only some of the increase in the preserve's bear population over the past eight years is due to migration of bears from other parts of the Appomack Valley. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
So we can eliminate this choice. It doesn't give us enough information. B, only some of the increase in the preserve's bear population over the past eight years is due to migration of bears from other parts of the Appomack Valley. This choice could actually strengthen the argument. Just like we saw in choice A, there's a possibility here that a large part of the population increase is due to migration from outside of the valley, or lots of the bears in the preserve's making baby bears because the road is closed. That would help the arguer's case that the valley's bear population will increase if the road is kept closed. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
This choice could actually strengthen the argument. Just like we saw in choice A, there's a possibility here that a large part of the population increase is due to migration from outside of the valley, or lots of the bears in the preserve's making baby bears because the road is closed. That would help the arguer's case that the valley's bear population will increase if the road is kept closed. C sounds really similar to B. Only some of the increase in the preserve's bear population over the past eight years is due to migration of bears from outside the Appomack Valley. Okay, this choice doesn't weaken the argument either, because even if only some of the increase is due to bears migrating from outside the valley, it's still possible that the road being closed is what sparked that migration. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
C sounds really similar to B. Only some of the increase in the preserve's bear population over the past eight years is due to migration of bears from outside the Appomack Valley. Okay, this choice doesn't weaken the argument either, because even if only some of the increase is due to bears migrating from outside the valley, it's still possible that the road being closed is what sparked that migration. And so if the road stays closed, it's completely possible that the valley's bear population will increase, and that helps the argument. D, the bear population in areas of the Appomack Valley outside the Kiffer Forest Preserve has decreased over the past eight years. Hmm, tempting, but this information by itself doesn't affect the argument. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
And so if the road stays closed, it's completely possible that the valley's bear population will increase, and that helps the argument. D, the bear population in areas of the Appomack Valley outside the Kiffer Forest Preserve has decreased over the past eight years. Hmm, tempting, but this information by itself doesn't affect the argument. Let's say the bear population in the area outside the preserve decreased, but only by one bear. Well, if the preserve gained 100 bears in the same time, then this choice doesn't hurt the argument. So we are missing information in this choice about exactly how much the bear population in the valley decreased in comparison to how much the preserve population increased. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
Let's say the bear population in the area outside the preserve decreased, but only by one bear. Well, if the preserve gained 100 bears in the same time, then this choice doesn't hurt the argument. So we are missing information in this choice about exactly how much the bear population in the valley decreased in comparison to how much the preserve population increased. We're getting there, choice E, the bear population in the Appomack Valley has remained about the same over the past eight years. This weakens the argument, and not just because every other choice was wrong. This choice very subtly states the same thing we were looking for, which is that what happens with the bear population in the preserve isn't matched by what happens with the bear population in the valley. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
We're getting there, choice E, the bear population in the Appomack Valley has remained about the same over the past eight years. This weakens the argument, and not just because every other choice was wrong. This choice very subtly states the same thing we were looking for, which is that what happens with the bear population in the preserve isn't matched by what happens with the bear population in the valley. If that's a little confusing to you, let's go back to our drawing. All right, let's see how adding choice E to the argument weakens the argument, because that's essentially what you're doing with the weakener strength in question. You're adding this information to the argument and asking yourself, okay, what happened to the argument when I did that? | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
If that's a little confusing to you, let's go back to our drawing. All right, let's see how adding choice E to the argument weakens the argument, because that's essentially what you're doing with the weakener strength in question. You're adding this information to the argument and asking yourself, okay, what happened to the argument when I did that? First fact, most of the bears in the valley reside in the preserve. So let's make six bears in the preserve and five bears in the rest of the valley. There, six of the 11 bears, and that's most, are in the preserve. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
First fact, most of the bears in the valley reside in the preserve. So let's make six bears in the preserve and five bears in the rest of the valley. There, six of the 11 bears, and that's most, are in the preserve. Two, we know the preserve's bear population has almost doubled. All right, let's add five little bears to the preserve. So here's five more little bears, which almost doubles the preserve's population. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
Two, we know the preserve's bear population has almost doubled. All right, let's add five little bears to the preserve. So here's five more little bears, which almost doubles the preserve's population. But wait, we also know from choice E, which we're testing, that the bear population has remained the same for the last eight years. So for that to be true, at the same time that the preserve's bear population has almost doubled, we would need to get rid of about five of these valley bears. So either these five valley bears left the valley, or they're the ones who went to the preserve, or maybe they went to bear heaven. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
But wait, we also know from choice E, which we're testing, that the bear population has remained the same for the last eight years. So for that to be true, at the same time that the preserve's bear population has almost doubled, we would need to get rid of about five of these valley bears. So either these five valley bears left the valley, or they're the ones who went to the preserve, or maybe they went to bear heaven. Either way, the argument is now weakened because we can't say that the valley's bear population will increase. Make sense? This is our answer because it shows that even though the preserve's bear population doubled, the valley's bear population stayed the same overall. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
Either way, the argument is now weakened because we can't say that the valley's bear population will increase. Make sense? This is our answer because it shows that even though the preserve's bear population doubled, the valley's bear population stayed the same overall. So to recap, for weak in questions, you're finding the choice that hurts the link between the evidence and the conclusion. It really helps to separate the evidence from the conclusion by seeing the evidence as information that we're given, and then seeing the conclusion as an opinion that the arguer makes based on that information. So in weak in questions, we wanna drive the two pieces farther apart. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
So to recap, for weak in questions, you're finding the choice that hurts the link between the evidence and the conclusion. It really helps to separate the evidence from the conclusion by seeing the evidence as information that we're given, and then seeing the conclusion as an opinion that the arguer makes based on that information. So in weak in questions, we wanna drive the two pieces farther apart. We wanna make it less likely for the conclusion to happen based on the evidence that was provided. It can also help to pretend that you're adding each choice to the argument and then seeing which way the argument moves in terms of quality. So look for any gaps in the argument, like where the evidence is addressing one thing, and then the conclusion addresses a different thing. | Weakener Video lesson Logical reasoning LSAT Khan Academy_segment0.mp3 |
We actually haven't even mentioned the title yet. So we should do that. The loophole in LSAT logical reasoning. Also, I'm hoping people just call it the loophole in logical reasoning, but you gotta put LSAT in the title. Yeah, yeah. What is that loophole? | What is the LSAT Loophole in Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Also, I'm hoping people just call it the loophole in logical reasoning, but you gotta put LSAT in the title. Yeah, yeah. What is that loophole? What do you say the loophole is? What is the loophole? Okay, this title took me about two years to come up with. | What is the LSAT Loophole in Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
What do you say the loophole is? What is the loophole? Okay, this title took me about two years to come up with. Let's go into the discourses of this title. And so the way I do LR, a lot of it comes down to reading the stimulus and coming up with the loophole. And I do this independent of question type. | What is the LSAT Loophole in Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Let's go into the discourses of this title. And so the way I do LR, a lot of it comes down to reading the stimulus and coming up with the loophole. And I do this independent of question type. It's really about the stimulus type. But on any argument, I come up with the loophole. And what the loophole is, is what if something. | What is the LSAT Loophole in Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
It's really about the stimulus type. But on any argument, I come up with the loophole. And what the loophole is, is what if something. And that thing is what would destroy the conclusion if it were true. So you're finding like the loophole in the argument. The thing that if it were true, the conclusion just falls apart. | What is the LSAT Loophole in Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
And that thing is what would destroy the conclusion if it were true. So you're finding like the loophole in the argument. The thing that if it were true, the conclusion just falls apart. And a valid argument isn't susceptible to loopholes. But lucky for us, the vast majority of arguments on the LSAT are invalid. And even it's actually kind of a fun exercise to try and find a loophole in a valid argument, because you start to really get a sense of the difference in validity. | What is the LSAT Loophole in Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
And a valid argument isn't susceptible to loopholes. But lucky for us, the vast majority of arguments on the LSAT are invalid. And even it's actually kind of a fun exercise to try and find a loophole in a valid argument, because you start to really get a sense of the difference in validity. And so the title, the loophole in logical reasoning, is both referring to discussing the literal loopholes that we are going to be finding in these logical reasoning stimuli. And the fact that the loophole itself is the loophole in the logical reasoning section. Because once you actually get really good at finding the loopholes in these arguments, the section really starts to like flow through your fingertips like water. | What is the LSAT Loophole in Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
And so the title, the loophole in logical reasoning, is both referring to discussing the literal loopholes that we are going to be finding in these logical reasoning stimuli. And the fact that the loophole itself is the loophole in the logical reasoning section. Because once you actually get really good at finding the loopholes in these arguments, the section really starts to like flow through your fingertips like water. Like it becomes much more fun. You become much more in control. And really just in charge of your own destiny. | What is the LSAT Loophole in Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Like it becomes much more fun. You become much more in control. And really just in charge of your own destiny. You aren't as susceptible to, oh, you know, I just always miss Weekend. That type of stuff. Because you're the one in control of the stimulus. | What is the LSAT Loophole in Logical Reasoning_segment0.mp3 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.