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 - ssilver0210
Assume that there is a frozen substance on the surface of Pluto that vaporizes more readily than methane, but less readily than carbon monoxide. (the negation of answer choice C).
If there is a frozen substance on the surface of Pluto that vaporizes more readily than methane, but less readily than carbon monoxide, then that substance would fall between carbon monoxide and methane in a list of the components of Pluto's atmosphere in order of decreasing abundance (abundance being based on the rate of vaporization).
In other words, if there is a frozen substance on the surface of Pluto that vaporizes more readily than methane, but less readily than carbon monoxide, then the list would look as follows:
Nitrogen, Carbon Monoxide, Substance X, Methane.
But we are told that astronomers have concluded that the components of Pluto's atmosphere only consist of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and methane. For that to be true, it must be true that there is no frozen substance on the surface of Pluto that vaporizes more readily than methane, but less readily than carbon monoxide. (Choice C)
We are told that 2 elements will ensure a successful dinner party:
(2):Good things to eat and drink.
We're then told that the guests at Sylvia's party are congenial, and she has prepared plenty to eat. It's concluded that the dinner party will be successful. Note, however, that we have not been told that Sylvia has prepared good things to eat; we only know that she has prepared plenty to eat. So, the two elements listed above have not been satisfied (only one element has been satisfied), and therefore the conclusion that the dinner party will be successful is faulty.
Choice D tells us that there are two elements to ensure that soup will always be welcome at dinner.
(1): It must have a well-seasoned meat stock
(2): It must have fresh ingredients.
We're told that Arnold added fresh ingredients to his meat stock, and therefore it will be welcome at dinner. Just like in the example above, only one of the two elements has been satisfied (we do not know that Arnold's stock is well-seasoned). But, in choice D, it's concluded, based on the fact that one element has been satisfied, that the soup will be welcome at dinner. This is the same flaw in logic as above, which is why it's the correct response.
« on: June 20, 2009, 02:30:47 AM »
I have little to add to the excellent response, but just to address your last question, choice B says, and I'll paraphrase a bit, that Monroe's conclusion that the peppers caused him to become ill is faulty because Monroe failed to determine that eating the peppers happened before he became ill. In fact, had Monroe not determined that the eating of the peppers occurred before he became ill, then he most likely would not have concluded that the peppers caused the illness. People do not tend to think that one thing causes another, unless first they've determined that the cause had come before the effect.
The real problem here is that because he ascertained that A came before B, he assumed that A caused B. Of course, just because something precedes something else, does not allow us to assume that one caused the other. That is where Monroe has made his mistake. Anything other than that which he assumed caused his illness might have caused his illness, and therefore his reasoning was faulty when he eliminated all possibilities other than his assumption.
Your instructor's response did confuse what this question was getting at.
Understand the difference between the following:
A if B.
This means that if B occurs then A will occur. But it does not mean that if C occurs then A will not occur, or if D occurs then A will not occur, etc. In other words, it's possible for A to occur even if B does not occur.
A if, but only if, B.
This means that if B occurs then A will occur. In this situation, though, if C were to occur then A would not occur, and if D were to occur then A would not occur, etc. In other words, it is not possible for A to occur if B does not occur.
You're correct that a causal relationship is weakened once the possibility arises that something other than what was assumed might have caused the outcome actually caused the result. For example if it's stated that A caused C, but then it's shown that in fact B might have caused C, then the conclusion that A caused C has been weakened.
But in the June '99 test, Maurice claims that because violence predated television, the statement that television causes violence is incorrect. But what Maurice fails to realize is that although violence predated television (and therefore it is possible to have violence without television), that does not rule out the possibility that television can still cause violence.
In other words if someone were to make the conclusion that television, and only television, causes violence, then the statement that violence predated television would cause that conclusion to be factually incorrect. But the statement in the passage (made by Jane) is simply that television (but not only television) causes violence. The fact that violence predates television does not allow Maurice to claim that Jane is incorrect in her belief that television causes violence, yet that is exactly what he claims.
Choice C says that Maurice should not have ruled out the possibility that television causes violence, and that is the correct choice.
6: Choice B would actually strengthen the argument. Choice B tells us that there will be 400 milligrams of salt per liter of groundwater over the next few decades. We know that 250 milligrams of salt per liter of groundwater is unpalatable so 400 milligrams, which is greater than 250, would also be unpalatable.
In choice D, we're told that 20 years ago there were 90 milligrams of salt per liter in the groundwater, and we know from the passage, that currently there are 100 milligrams of salt per liter in the groundwater. That means, at the current rate, there will be 110 milligrams of salt per liter of groundwater 20 years from now. But the conclusion of the passage says that in a few decades the groundwater will be unpalatable because it will be above 250 milligrams of salt per liter of groundwater. That conclusion falls flat, however, if the rate is only an increase of 10 milligrams per 20 years.
25. We know that the taproot is always 1/2 the length of the plant. If plants receive 2x the average amount of rainfall, then the plant will be above average in height.
Choice B says that if a plant has a larger than average taproot then it is likely that there was 2x the average amount of rainfall. The problem here is that although it's true that 2x the average amount of rainfall will lead to an above average sized plant, nowhere were we told that 2x the average amount of rainfall is required for an above average sized plant to result. So when we see the large taproot, we know we have a large plant, but we do not know that it's likely we had more than 2x the average amount of rainfall, because we do not know the percentage of plants which grow to be above average without 2x the average amount of rainfall.
Choice E tells us that if there is 2x the average amount of rainfall, then the taproot of the plant will be above-average sized. We know that 2x the amount of rainfall will lead to an above average sized plant, and that above average sized plants have above average sized taproots (because taproots grow proportionately to the plants). So, if we have 2x the average amount of rainfall, then the taproot of the plant will be larger than that of an average sized plant, as Choice E indicates.
I tutor in NYC. Feel free to review my prior posts on this board, to help determine whether the way I teach the material matches best with how you learn. You can PM me (or e-mail) if interested; my fees are reasonable and references are available.
We know that for every ten hours of curative medicine taught in medical school, one hour of preventive medicine is taught. We also know that preventive medicine cuts down the cost of medical care. According to the argument, therefore, medical schools need to increase the number of hours of teaching preventive medicine in order to cut down on medical costs.
Assume that the amount of time that is currently used to teach preventive medicine in medical school is all that is required to teach it thoroughly. (This is the negation of choice E.)
If it's true that the amount of time that is currently used to teach preventive medicine is all that is required to teach it thoroughly, then increasing the amount of time used to teach it in medical school will not cut down on medical costs. In other words, the fact that doctors are not using preventive care in their practice (and therefore not cutting down on the cost of medical care,) can not be attributed to the time spent teaching preventive care to doctors in medical school, because the amount of time spent teaching preventive care to doctors is all that is required to teach it thoroughly.
But the conclusion states that increasing the amount of time spent teaching preventive care would cut down on medical costs. When you negate choice E, that conclusion falls flat. In order for the conclusion to be true, it must be true that the time required to teach preventative medicine thoroughly is greater than one hour for every ten hours needed to teach curative medicine. (Choice E).
Choice D is off topic. The conclusion says that med schools spend an insufficient amount of time teaching preventive medicine. Even if curative medicine would not increase overall medical costs (negation of choice D), it still might be true that med schools spend an insufficient time teaching preventive care. Because you can negate choice D, and still withstand the validity of the conclusion of the passage, Choice D is not an assumption upon which the argument depends.
In my book (Next 10 Actual Official LSATs), it says that this item has been removed from scoring. Not sure why, but perhaps there was a flaw in the question.