Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Cambridge LSAT

Pages: 1 [2] 3
Studying for the LSAT / Re: PT 48 Section 1/LR/#24
« on: February 19, 2010, 03:10:05 PM »
Section 1/#24: The speaker assumes that there is complete overlap between those who would like to join the party and those who would be willing to donate to it. In other words, if all 16 percent who were willing to donate to the party were among the 26 percent who would like to join it, the total percentage in support would be 26. To illustrate the validity of choice E, try some simple numbers:
100 people
26 would join (in total)
16 would donate (in total)
5 would both join and donate

Subtracting the 5 people who overlap both categories from the total of both categories (42), we have 37 people in total who would support the party. In summary, choice E points out that the 30-percent requirement could still be met with the percentages given.

Section 4/#17: You're reversing the chain of causation. Here's how it looks according to the stimulus:
large amount of rainfall (April/May) --> increase in the mosquito population --> increased risk of encephalitis

Thus, although a large amount of rainfall may be sufficient (note that the stimulus uses the qualifier "typically") to increase the risk of encephalitis, it isn't necessary for the general threat of encephalitis.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: PT 47 Section 1/LR/#22
« on: February 17, 2010, 06:53:47 PM »
The conclusion does imply that this practice is wrong, but the key is to focus on what it explicitly states. According to the speaker, "this practice greatly increases the health risk to U.S. consumers." In support of this statement, the speaker notes that the same pesticides are used on imported agricultural products. However, if other countries are manufacturing and exporting the same pesticides, how can we be sure that the imported products contain pesticides that were manufactured here?

Studying for the LSAT / Re: PT 55, Section 4 LG
« on: February 14, 2010, 02:39:52 PM »
One and the same. I don't tutor students, but we do have a number of tutors listed on our page:
LSAT tutors

Studying for the LSAT / Re: PT 55, Section 4 LG
« on: February 11, 2010, 07:42:51 PM »
It's easy to miss the additional condition towards the end of this question. Your hypothetical doesn't break any of the rules, but G must be the second one off the van for number twenty-two.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: logic games question wording
« on: February 04, 2010, 03:58:12 PM »
could be true EXCEPT = must be false/cannot be true

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Preptest 31, Sect I, LG #2, 4
« on: February 02, 2010, 05:05:08 PM »
For game #2, first get a handle on the conditions:
#1: PU; ~ON
#2: PN and PU --> SN and SU; ~SN or ~SU --> ~PN or ~PU (contrapositive)
#3: JN and JU --> ~RN and ~RU; RN or RU --> ~JN or ~JU (contrapositive)
#4: ~JN and ~JU --> PN; ~PN --> JN or JU (contrapositive)
#5: RN or RU --> ~SN and ~SU; SN or SU --> ~RN and ~RU (contrapositive)

A couple of the conditions can be simplified:
JN and JU <--|--> R (#3)
R <--|--> S (#5)

Combining the first two conditions, we know that if PN is on sale, then SN and SU are on sale. We can also link the fourth condition into the equation:
~JN and ~JU --> PN --> SN and SU

Here are explanations for a couple of the questions:
10. Starting with the first condition given in choice D, due to the fourth rule, new pop must be on sale. Since both types of pop are on sale, both types of soul must be on sale (second rule), which contradicts the second condition given in answer choice D.

11. From the fourth rule, we know that new pop is on sale. Since used pop is on sale (first rule), the second rule is triggered, and both types of soul must be on sale. Since rap and soul cannot both be on sale (fifth rule), we know that rap is not on sale. Thus, we can eliminate B, C, D, and E, and A is left as the correct answer. We cannot infer anything about used opera.

Here's a diagram for the fourth game:
PrepTest 31, Game 4

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Preptest help please
« on: January 09, 2010, 03:42:10 PM »
Yes, OP made a slight error in transcribing the question.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Preptest help please
« on: January 09, 2010, 01:29:49 PM »
Preptest 25, June 1998, Section 2, LR 21:
UPF = unpopular with the faculty
UPS = unpopular with the students
MP = modify the policy
NP = adopt a new policy

We can diagram this question as follows:
Premise 1: UPF --> MP
Premise 2: UPS --> NP
Premise 3: UPF --> UPS; UPS --> UPF

(E) UPF --> UPS --> NP
This is essentially P3 + P2.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Preptest help please
« on: January 09, 2010, 02:57:54 AM »
For the second game on PT 25, it helps to list the languages with the guides. You could also draw out three templates:
#1: K with V, and at least one of M and N with X
#2: K with X, and at least one of M and N with V
#3: M and N with V and X (not necessarily respectively), and K with one of Y and Z

Studying for the LSAT / Re: PT 32 Section 4 LR, #20
« on: December 12, 2009, 02:36:50 PM »
Since we're looking for a point of disagreement, strong wording doesn't necessarily rule out an answer choice.

(B) Dana would disagree with this based on her first sentence. Pat would agree with this. Since flexibility in working alone or with others is "invaluable" (stimulus), all children "should" (choice B) learn to adapt to different methods.

(E) Dana would agree with this. Pat might also agree with this. In saying "not always," he or she leaves open the possibility that it is sometimes desirable. If E stated that it is "always desirable," then Pat would disagree.

Pages: 1 [2] 3