In your point made at 4:50, would a weakening questions answer choice that you stated be correct if the passage had read something along the lines of: “most people think that THE MOST effective online teaching requires the instructor to show his or her face on screen.” To me this seems like it is now talking about the quality of the teaching being done and therefore this would be weakening, or, is this still out of scope and doesn’t matter? I suppose one could then retort “what measurements are used for “EFFECTIVE teaching?” I suppose i’m having trouble wrapping my mind around how a counter argument stating that “teachers who show their face produced better scores and aided in student development better” doesn’t pertain to the conclusion or what is being argued. Are the only things capable of being weakened here subject matter to do with teaching in person vs teaching online, and has nothing to do with what that teaching might look like? Thank you for all your videos, they have helped me a great deal! I’ve been studying for almost a month and just got a 171 on a practice test today!
I think you're right that if the conclusion were now "The MOST effective online teaching does *NOT* require the instructor to show his/her face", then an answer showing that the ones who show their face produce better scores WOULD be relevant. Because now we have evidence that showing your face seems to be more effective - calling into question whether something that doesn't show the face could be the most effective. It's true that the author could quibble with the proper measurement of effectiveness, or could come back at us with an explanation that the teachers who aren't showing their face aren't using the best non-face methods or are otherwise starting off unequal to the ones who do show their face, but we've still weakened their argument. We've shown that they need to come back with better evidence or explain away the statistic we're bringing up, because it calls into question what's the "most" effective. If the conclusion, however, were "Effective online teaching does NOT require face ..." (as in the original example), then the stat about face-teachers having better results wouldn't weaken, because it's not inconsistent with the author's position, and doesn't obligate the author to explain anything. The disparity in results does speak to relative levels of effectiveness, but not the distinction between effective vs. ineffective nor what is required to be effective. Apologies if that was unclear -- I didn't mean to suggest in the video that evidence of results has nothing to do with effectiveness.
@@LuminateLSAT Okay. This is clear to me. I am unsure why this line of reasoning was giving me some difficulty. To make things absolutely clear in my mind I have a parallel relationship: Usain Bolt is the fastest runner. Him and I raced and he beat me very badly. A sufficient conclusion would not be to say that I am slow, because that is not what is clearly said. It is only apparent that I am slowER, not slow. Just like in this example when just because face teaching is possibly more efficient, it does not then mean that non-face teaching is ineffective. Sure it could mean that face is MORE effective on the “effective scale,” but this is not to then conclude that non-face teaching is wholly ineffective. Thank you for bearing with me on this, it is greatly appreciated.
![Five Tips for Necessary Assumption Questions [LSAT Logical Reasoning]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pA7uv4gItGs/mqdefault.jpg)
![Five Tips for Necessary Assumption Questions [LSAT Logical Reasoning]](/img/tr.png)
Thanks for the video.. perfect timing! Working on LR now and it's giving me trouble. This helps!
In your point made at 4:50, would a weakening questions answer choice that you stated be correct if the passage had read something along the lines of:
“most people think that THE MOST effective online teaching requires the instructor to show his or her face on screen.”
To me this seems like it is now talking about the quality of the teaching being done and therefore this would be weakening, or, is this still out of scope and doesn’t matter?
I suppose one could then retort “what measurements are used for “EFFECTIVE teaching?”
I suppose i’m having trouble wrapping my mind around how a counter argument stating that “teachers who show their face produced better scores and aided in student development better” doesn’t pertain to the conclusion or what is being argued.
Are the only things capable of being weakened here subject matter to do with teaching in person vs teaching online, and has nothing to do with what that teaching might look like?
Thank you for all your videos, they have helped me a great deal!
I’ve been studying for almost a month and just got a 171 on a practice test today!
I think you're right that if the conclusion were now "The MOST effective online teaching does *NOT* require the instructor to show his/her face", then an answer showing that the ones who show their face produce better scores WOULD be relevant. Because now we have evidence that showing your face seems to be more effective - calling into question whether something that doesn't show the face could be the most effective. It's true that the author could quibble with the proper measurement of effectiveness, or could come back at us with an explanation that the teachers who aren't showing their face aren't using the best non-face methods or are otherwise starting off unequal to the ones who do show their face, but we've still weakened their argument. We've shown that they need to come back with better evidence or explain away the statistic we're bringing up, because it calls into question what's the "most" effective.
If the conclusion, however, were "Effective online teaching does NOT require face ..." (as in the original example), then the stat about face-teachers having better results wouldn't weaken, because it's not inconsistent with the author's position, and doesn't obligate the author to explain anything. The disparity in results does speak to relative levels of effectiveness, but not the distinction between effective vs. ineffective nor what is required to be effective. Apologies if that was unclear -- I didn't mean to suggest in the video that evidence of results has nothing to do with effectiveness.
@@LuminateLSAT
Okay. This is clear to me. I am unsure why this line of reasoning was giving me some difficulty. To make things absolutely clear in my mind I have a parallel relationship:
Usain Bolt is the fastest runner. Him and I raced and he beat me very badly.
A sufficient conclusion would not be to say that I am slow, because that is not what is clearly said. It is only apparent that I am slowER, not slow.
Just like in this example when just because face teaching is possibly more efficient, it does not then mean that non-face teaching is ineffective. Sure it could mean that face is MORE effective on the “effective scale,” but this is not to then conclude that non-face teaching is wholly ineffective.
Thank you for bearing with me on this, it is greatly appreciated.