Glad it was helpful.
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
We are told that whether or not a work of art represents something is relevant to our aesthetic appreciation of the art. In other words, representation is an aesthetically relevant property.
Context determines whether or not a work of art represents something, but the problem is that there is no clear way to determine whether context-dependent properties are present.
All we know, at this point, is that it might be difficult to determine whether the aesthetically relevant property of representation is present within a work of art, because making that determination is based on context, and there is no clear way for determining context.
But it's still possible that something other than representation might be an aesthetically relevant property of art. If that's the case, then context might not come into play (because context merely helps to determine whether a work of art represents anything), and if context doesn't come into play, then the fact that there is no clear criteria for determining context is no longer relevant.
The fact that we can not determine whether or not a work of art possesses the aesthetically relevant property of representation simply tells us that we can not determine whether an object is a work of art by using that specific property. There may very well be other properties that we can use to make the determination.
In other words, aesthetically relevant properties other than representation can determine whether an object is a work of art. (choice C).
The key here is to understand that we were never told within the passage that representation is the only aesthetically relevant property.
I don't think it's a bad idea at all to be reading all the material that you're reading to try to improve your reading comprehension skills. I think you're doing what a lot of people do not do, which is working on the endurance aspect of the exam.
In terms of which practice questions to use, I'd say it is not at all in your best interest to be practicing with any exam other than the LSAT. Keep reading those newspapers each day, and practice LSAT reading passages using released exams. There's a lot of material out there, and if by chance you run though it all, then there are other prep books available as well.
But only practice LSAT problems. That's the test you'll be taking, and that is the test you should be focusing on while studying.
« on: January 31, 2009, 11:34:34 PM »
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 that amount 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).
The same analysis would not work for choice A. You could negate choice A, and it would state that the technology needed for preventive medicine is not cheaper than the technology needed for curative medicine. Even if this were true, though, it might still be true that insufficient time is being spent teaching preventive medicine. In other words, negating choice A does not in any way make the conclusion of the argument less likely, and therefore the statement in choice A is not one in which the argument depends.
« on: January 28, 2009, 02:40:02 PM »
Choices B-E, directly address some aspect of a student's life, which could then have the potential to effect the student's ability to pay.
B: The courses for which the student is required to enroll have increased.
C: The cost of living for the student has risen.
D: The number of scholarships awarded to the students has decreased
E: The number of jobs available to students has decreased.
Choice A, on the other hand, is directed towards a situation involving the faculty. You're correct, you can take what is stated and stretch it accordingly so that the effect trickles down to the students, but certainly out of the five choices it is the odd one out, in that it does not speak directly to a situation in which the student is most likely to be affected.
I also think the word "slightly" was placed in choice A to weaken the possibility that the increase in teacher salaries would have any significant effect on the students.
We know that anyone who supports the new tax plan has no chance of being elected. We're then told that anyone who understands economics would not support the new tax plan.
We're only given information about people who understand economics. We're not given any information about people who do not understand economics, so you have to be careful not to make conclusions based on insufficient information.
As an example take a guy named Jim. Let's say Jim does not support the new tax plan. If Jim does not support the new tax plan, then we can not conclude, based on the info provided, that Jim has no chance of being elected.
But we don't know whether or not Jim understands economics. It's true that if you understand economics you will not support the plan, but it's not true that only those who understand economics will not support the plan. It's possible that Jim does not understand economics, even though he does not support the plan.
That's basically what choice D tells us. It's possible to not support the plan, and to not understand economics.
I agree with all comments to your question. Also, I really don't think this test lends itself to skimming. Of course, you want to figure out a way to get through the questions in an amount of time that will allow you to answer them all, but skimming is likely the wrong approach. The questions test details, which can easily be missed if you gloss over the stimulus too quickly.
With that said, you can reach a point where you can look over the wrong answer choices very quickly. Ideally, you will look them all over (very quickly) just to be certain that you've not only chosen the right answer, but that there is something wrong with all the other answers. You're on the right track when you're reading the stimulus and before even approaching the choices, you've noticed the flaw in the logic. If, instead, you're moving on to the answer choices before having a pretty definitive reason as to why the logic is flawed in the stimulus, then I'd say that you are not where you want to be in terms of doing your best on the exam.
Once you get to that point, where you are noticing the flaw in logic within the stimulus, you'll see a decrease in the time it takes for you to answer each question. I think where you may be going wrong based on my reading of your approach is that you're searching for shortcuts, whereas the only way to improve speed and accuracy on this test is through persistence and hard work. As others have said, you're trying to train your brain to think in the way that is required for this test; that in itself takes time.
« on: January 21, 2009, 10:49:09 AM »
For example, if someone told the occupants in a room that some men there killed John, one might assume that someone in that room did not kill John. ]
« on: January 21, 2009, 01:07:05 AM »
I'm a bit confused by the Powerscore numbers as well. Would like some feedback if I am off here, but this is how I see it:
Let's say you had 20 friends. You go somewhere where all 20 friends are present. It would be valid for you to tell someone that all of your friends are present. It would also be valid for you to tell someone that some of your friends are present. If all (20) are present, then some (1-20) have to be present. This is because there are zero numbers within the category of "some" which fall outside the category of "all."
But, if you were to say that some (1-20) are present, it would not be valid to conclude that all (20) are present. Some can be any number 1-20. Nineteen numbers within the category of "some" do not fall within the category of "all." Though it's possible that all are present, we can not state with certainty that all are present.
Same idea, but this time you go somewhere where all (20) of your friends are not present. It would be valid for you to say that all (20) of your friends are not present, and it would also be valid for you to say that some (1-20) of your friends are not present. There are no numbers within the category of "some," which fall outside the category of "all."
But if you were to say that some (any number 1-20) of your friends are not present, it would not be valid to conclude that all (20) of your friends are not present, for the same reason stated above. Any number 1-19 of your friends might not be present, and each of those numbers would fall outside the category of "all."
Same idea with "most" vs "all." Anytime all are present, it's also valid to claim that most are present, but by saying that most are present, you can not conclude that all are present.
It's also the same idea with "most" vs "some." If most (let's say 11-20) are present, then it's valid to claim that some (1-20) are present, because even if only 11 are present, that still falls within the category of "some" because 11 falls within 1-20. In other words, all numbers within the category of "most" also fall within the category of "some."
But if some are present, you can not conclude that most are present, because with "some" it's possible that less than 11 people are present, and any number less than 11 does not fall within the category of most (11-20).
This is my reasoning, and again, I'd be interested to hear from others.