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 - giveme170
Pages: 1 2 3 4  6 7 8 9 10 ... 32
« on: October 09, 2007, 10:44:57 PM »
Sigh. All the logics you learned would not be of any use if you do not know how to put them into a comprehensible and plausable statement. LSAT isn't all that difficultly worded(except few triple Whoppers we often see, of course) It just requires you to understand and remember multiple facts and play around with them to deduce additional facts or assumptions.
« on: October 09, 2007, 08:49:15 PM »
1. Not allowed to communicate at OUR OWN EXPENSE
or --> censorship exists
Not permitted access at THEIR OWN EXPENSE
Conclusion: Public unwillingness to provide funds for activies -> No censorship
We do not know if the public is unwilling to provide funds at THEIR OWN EXPENSE, therefore this does not match either of the SC mentioned. Now, sufficient condition didnt exist, does that mean NC doesnt? No. It is a Mistaken Negation.
A) Risk one's own LIFE to benefit another -> Heroic deed
Risk ONLY ONE's REPUTATION -> Not a heroic deed
When there isn't SC, NC still could exist. Even if we know that one didn't risk her life to benefit another, it could still be heroic deed.
« on: October 09, 2007, 08:23:36 PM »
My neck hurt too. I think the muscle on your upper back also hurts because you have to focus for so long. During the diagnostic exam, my head was literally having some sort of numbnuss. I guess that is because this is one of the few times I used my brain so much without taking breaks in between. lol
« on: October 07, 2007, 11:04:28 PM »
I don't think I am looking for the wrong thing. An assumption is an unstated premise and there may be millions of different assumptions for one argument. As for this problem, the argument is pretty sound, given that all we know about pollution, cars, recession are what is in the stimulus. When we face an argument question which has pretty straightforward and sound argument, we need to find an answer choice that strengthens the argument by preventing any possibilites that may weaken the argument. Choice D) does just that. IT strengthens the argument by ruling out the possibility that some other cause than the cars CANNOT offset the decrease of pollution caused by less cars driven. I completely understand why each and every answer here is wrong and that is because all of the other answer choices DO NOT HAVE TO BE TRUE in order for the argument TO BE TRUE. Assumption, based on its definition, is supposed to be an UNSTATED, NECESSARY premise for the CONCLUSION to be true. If D) is negated, then it DOES weaken the argument and that is why D) is necessary in order for the argument to stay sound.
« on: October 07, 2007, 09:26:44 PM »
During recession, there is less air pollution because less people commute to work by cars. (Less people drive cars because they all got fired!) We used to have 10 people driving, which caused a LOT of CO2 out there, but now we only have 5 people driving, which decreased the amount of CO2.
The Conclusion: Repression -> less air pollution.
B) is wrong simply because it is NOT REQUIRED for the conclusion to be true. Simply negate the sentence.
Most pollution is NOT caused by the cars driven by workers to commute to work.
So what if MOST of the pollution is NOT caused by cars? We already know that AT LEAST some pollution is caused by cars. So it doesnt do anything to the conclusion (Repression, then less air pollution, because AT LEAST some cars(that cause SOME air pollution) are still going to be unused because workers don't drive anymore.
Don't try to find gap here. Try to understand each answer choice as something that would strengthen the argument by blocking some possibility.
« on: October 07, 2007, 07:35:22 PM »
1. Recession -> unemployment rise
2. unemployment rise -> less people commute by cars -> less emission of air pollutants.
3. Conclusion: Recession -> Air pollution (due to cars)decreases.
D) eliminates a possibility that even though the air pollution decreases due to less people driving, some other cause may increase the pollution level, which weakens our conclusion: R -> less air pollution. If the increase of pollution by other cause is bigger than the one decreased by less cars driven, it will actually increase the overall pollution level.
E) proportion of people who drive getting unemployed does not matter because no matter how small the proportion, it is still going to decrease the overall pollution level. This does not affect the conclusion that overall air pollution level is going to decrease during recession.
D) had the word 'sue'. I didn't realize it was a typo and had to think real hard to understand what that meant.
« on: October 07, 2007, 03:07:54 AM »
I think what you mentioned is pretty much the basic strat most of people use. I think reading questions first is dependent on personal preference. If one does summarize the main point for each paragraph, then she would have a solid idea of where the author is going. Do you have any ideas about how to approach application questions? That is one of the biggest problems I have with RC section.
« on: October 07, 2007, 01:49:05 AM »
Just curious. Do you feel really comfortable with all the sections now that you have done everything?
« on: October 07, 2007, 01:45:46 AM »
RC is really kicking my behind right now. LR is not all that intimidating anymore since I can pretty much get most of the questions correct if I don't make stupid mistakes. Logic games.... oh well I should review the LGB and start practicing more. I have been doing the RC for the past 2 weeks and I keep missing application questions and some detail questions. The problems I have with these types are:Application question:
When I look back at the passage and start reading the relevant parts, I can't determine if I should read the entire paragraph again or just read few lines regarding the subject. When I do the latter, I always get the question wrong because one part of the answer choice I chose does not match what was said in the passage. Reading the entire paragraph once again seems to be just too much and time consuming.Detail questions:
I cannot distinguish the subtle differences of words used by the answer choices. One answer choice seems to look pretty good, and when I choose it, it is wrong and some other less good looking choice is correct.
I guess I really do not have the basics down for RC. I do enjoy reading RC passages, no problems with that. I also like to summarize and understand the structure and main point. Overall, I really like doing this section. The problem is that I keep missing these types of questions and it is so frustrating because I don't seem to improve. Does anyone have some tips on these types of questions or RC in general? I would really appreciate your help.
« on: October 04, 2007, 10:22:52 PM »
I really don't understand why anyone would raise their kids in New York City.
I totally agree with you.
Pages: 1 2 3 4  6 7 8 9 10 ... 32