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 - Visual Dictionary
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31  33 34 35
« on: August 31, 2007, 05:46:39 PM »
This difference is germane for a hard LRB question, which I'll paraphrase:
Nutritionist: Because humans haven't evolved since the advent of agriculture, it is clear that humans are still biologically content with a diet of wild foods, consisting of raw fruits and meat, and seafood. Straying from this diet has often resulted in nasty illness and other physical maladies. Thus, the more our diet consists of wild foods, the healthier we'll be.
The claim that humans are still biologically content with a diet of wild foods plays which one of the following roles in the nutritionst's argument?
B) It's a premise for which no justification is provided, but which is used to support the argument's main conclusion.
D) It's a sub-conclusion for which one claim is offered as support, and which is used in turn to support the main conclusion.
I thought it was "B" for sure, although the answer is the latter.
How can you tell?!
« on: August 31, 2007, 11:39:59 AM »
I know that "either/or" means one or the other or both
, but I'm absolutely befuddled by PrepTest 24, Section II, Question 11.
Although I wrote it out several times, I still don't understand why "E" is the correct answer.
« on: August 31, 2007, 11:27:46 AM »
I'll paraphrase it for the forum lummox:
Bridges 1950-1960 -> need serious rehabilitation
Bridges 1950-1960 -> (Some) bad engineering design
need serious rehabilitation -> (some) not suspension bridges
Why isn't the answer "A"? Couldn't you reverse the last statement and make it "A"?
I can't see why "C" is an improvement over it.
« on: August 30, 2007, 08:38:08 PM »
I don't know about my forum cohorts, but test ennui is starting to get the best of me. I'm scoring above 167 on a consistent basis, but it's becoming tough to pick up the PrepTest book.
Although it's only one more month, I don't know how much mettle I'm willing to muster. Any tips?
« on: August 29, 2007, 10:23:59 PM »
There's exactly one month
until the Sept. 29 LSAT, and I took the Feb. 1996 PrepTest today, scoring a "167."
But where are you
in your studies? I want to hear your resolution.
What will students that have taken it recommend doing in the last month?
Do you have a month-long plan?
Have you visited your test center?
Any last requests, last book orders, or PrepTests on the way?
As for me, I want to be consistently scoring above 170 by Sept. 20. I usually score between 167-172 - with a median of 170 - and I hope to score 170 or above on the real exam. More parallel reasoning, flawed-reasoning, formal logic, and assumption questions, as well as more games and RC sections, are on my agenda. I want to put everything together.
« on: August 29, 2007, 05:35:02 PM »
In the D building, most of the third-floor offices are larger than any second-floor office. The fourth-floor offices are all larger than any office on the second-floor. Yet all the second-floor offices are larger than any first-floor office.
third floor -> (M) second floor
second floor -> first
fourth -> second
But where do I go from here? The answers are tricky, and this problem is #24, which means that time is of the essence.
A) Some first-floor rooms are as large as the smallest fourth-floor rooms.
B) Some first-floor rooms are as large as the smallest third-floor rooms.
C) Some third-floor rooms are not as large as the largest first-floor rooms.
D) Some third-floor rooms are not as large as the smallest fourth-floor rooms.
E) Some fourth-floor rooms are not as large as the largest third-floor rooms.
« on: August 28, 2007, 02:44:38 PM »
I'll paraphrase the question for those that don't want to open a new browser and find "LSAC":
If the price for coffee beans increases, the Coffee Shoppe will have to increase its prices. If so, either the Coffee Shoppe will start selling noncoffee items or its coffee sales will decrease. But selling noncoffee items will decrease the shop's overall profits. Furthermore, the shop can avoid a decrease in profits only if its coffee sales don't decrease.
Increased bean prices -> increased shop prices ->
noncoffee items (or, meaning maybe both) decreased coffee sales
Noncoffee items -> decreased profits avoided ->
decreased coffee sales
Ouch. Give me some sugar. And why is "C" the correct answer?
If increased bean prices -> decreased profits
Wouldn't you be able to avoid that snag somewhere?
« on: August 27, 2007, 03:38:47 PM »
I'll paraphrase it for all you couch-bound web surfers:
Most people modify their wills every once in a while, in response to changes in their circumstances. This practice can be problematic for executors when people don't date their wills, meaning that the executor doesn't know which will is most recent or whether another exists. Thus, people should not only date their wills but also write in the new will which will it modifies; that would mean there would not be a problem to begin with.
The reasoning is flawed because:
A) Treats a partial solution as though it were complete.
C) Proposes a solution to the problem that doesn't solve the problem but makes someone else responsible for it.
I thought the answer was "C" because the new will still wouldn't say if it was the most recent (only note, ex post facto, what wills it overrules), and couldn't say it was the most recent (perhaps the will's writer dates it two days before his death, but he wrote another one day before his death). This would be messy for an executor.
On the other hand, "A" seems suspect because the prompt doesn't state that the problem is completely eliminated.
« on: August 27, 2007, 03:27:25 PM »
I've been taking sample PrepTests for a while, and I always try to add an unrelated section in order to simulate "real" conditions.
Usually I perform well on the first three or four sections, but the fifth is always an extra challenge, especially if it's a mind-consuming section like RC.
Does anyone have any advice? I'm thinking that more complex carbs for breakfast might help.
« on: August 26, 2007, 03:58:12 PM »
Once in a while I come upon an Assumption question that negation can't tackle, and this is one of them.
Even though "C" seems like the right answer because it contradicts and therefore weakens the conclusion, "A" is actually the right choice, driving me nuts.
I'll paraphrase it for those of you desirous of a challenge:
Newspaper: Law enforcement, as well as many citizens, have recognized that prohibitions against gambling are flawed: they're impossible to enforce. Ethics notwithstanding, when a law isn't effective, it shouldn't be a law. That's why there shouldn't be a prohibition against gambling.
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31  33 34 35