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 - Barnum
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 33
« on: April 11, 2009, 05:01:06 PM »
Per capita means the average per person. This means you take the total amount of money brought in from all students and then divide by the number of students to calculate the per capita.
The paragraph tells you that the people from outside pay twice as much as the people from inside and account for at least 2/3 of the students. That means the are really bringing up the average.
The paragraph tells you though that the percentage of students from outside Markland only make up 40% now. That means that there are not as large a percentage to bring up the average cost per student.
In answer choice E, you have to consider the "if" portion of the answer as an additional piece of information. In this case the "if" portion is that somehow the average income from each student has remained the same. If this is the case despite have a smaller percentage of the people who pay more money to go there, it is only possible if the tuition itself has increased.
« on: January 06, 2009, 05:12:42 PM »
In your two scenarios for choice E you listed
MQKL and MQKP
However, MQKL wouldn't work because the second rule of the game states that you must select either N or P. Since MQKL has neither N nor P it would not be acceptable. This would leave you only MQKP.
Pretty much you are not going to find flawed questions in the released LSAT material so make sure when you are studying and get something wrong you try to figure out where you made a mistake.
« on: December 05, 2008, 04:55:36 PM »
Ok, so I see you are working really hard on getting these games from this test down well. So you started off with a good idea to write out the different scenarios that are possible if there are four messages and you got them correct
Where you went wrong was stopping there. You thought there would be too many scenarios if you did the 5 or 6 slot options, but actually they too are quite easy to do. If you did them up front then you would be done drawing for the entire game, which would make the questions go even faster.
Use the HJ block to start off the two scenarios in each case because the HJ block will always have to be first or last.
For five slots you get
H J L J/L H or
J L/H L/H H J (you do have to remember that at least one of the L/H must be L, but that should not be too hard)
And for six slots
H J L L/J J/L H or
J L/H L/H L/H H J (again simply remember that of the L/H's two are Ls and one is H)
That's it, all done. Try that and it should work quite nicely for. Good try though!
« on: November 25, 2008, 08:53:18 AM »
I don't have the game in front of me so I can't quote it exactly, but one of the rules gives us that both Productions must come after both Lightings. This means that you can't have both lighting and production on Wednesday because then they would be at the same time. Once you know that Production is on Wednesday, to get both lightings before it, you must put lighting on Monday and Tuesday.
« on: November 20, 2008, 09:13:44 AM »
Ok, so it appears that your problem is you misunderstood the stimulus. They didn't just say "trade goods with the urban population" You oversimplified. It says that they will trade the goods produced by the urban population to get the agricultural products. In other words, the argument tells us that we have a problem because too many of our farmers are moving to the cities. Its solution is rather than try to block the farmers from moving, we'll just trade what the city makes to get the farm products we no longer make. Granted this assumes that the real problem with farmers moving to city is a loss of agriculture (as opposed to overcrowding). This is why the answer strengthens the argument.
« on: November 14, 2008, 09:09:29 AM »
It is not the "much" vs. the "most" that is really the issue. The conclusion states that it had much influence on "a great number" of readers. This is based on the fact that it was second in the survey. To evaluate whether it was a "great" number, it would be helpful to know how many people actually voted for 1984. It could be second because the Bible got 990 votes, 1984 got 2 votes, and the rest of the books got 1 vote. With only two votes, you wouldn't conclude that it affected a great number of readers, even though it got the second most votes.
The answer is kind of tricky, but if you know how many people out of a thousand chose books other than 1984, then via basic subtraction, you would be able to figure out the actual number of people who did choose 1984. The actual number who voted for it would be better than simply knowing it ranked second. For example, if 600 people chose books other than 1984, then you would now know that 400 chose 1984 and could conclude that it was in fact chosen by a great number of people. On the other hand if 998 people chose books other than 1984, then that means only 2 people chose 1984, and you would not conclude that it had affected a "great" number of the readers.
« on: October 15, 2008, 01:58:13 PM »
No it's not real. LSATinator is trying to write his own.
LSATinator - if I can give you some editorial notes to make this more like a real LSAT game. First off, don't use A through E as your variables. LSAT used to do this years ago, but stopped doing it on any test within the last ten years.
Also, the LSAT almost always puts their answers in alphabetical order. So for example on question 1 the order of the answers should be A,C,D,E,B. Granted if you follow the previous advice about changing the variables, you'll have to deal with it according to your new variables. Ultimately, all your answer choices fail to meet this pattern.
Third, in the rule that states that F must come before A, the LSAT would have said that F must come AT SOME TIME before A. The lack of the words some time, would be ambiguous as to whether you meant immediately before or anywhere before.
In question 1 you should include the words "from first to last"
In question 3, it should read which ONE of the following...
In question 5, you should replace the word restriction with the word condition (or vice versa in the original paragraph) for consistency.
Also in question 5 you should again include the words "at some time" when giving the new condition.
Not bad for a first game. Ultimately though, it is all these little things that most writers don't realize the LSAT follows consistently that make fake games that can be found in bookstores really bad for practice because they have too many things that stray from the actual LSAT games and potentially can lead to misunderstandings about the real material.
« on: August 29, 2008, 08:00:35 PM »
My father-in-law this afternoon:
The 55mph restriction for semi trucks does not actually reduce fuel comsumption for semi-trucks. I know this because I was an accountant at a trucking company and during the year the restriction was first put into effect, the amount of money the company spent on fuel rose 20 percent.
Each of the following is a logical flaw in my father-in-law's argument EXCEPT:
(A) he assumes that what is true of a single trucking company is representative of trucking companies in general
(B) he overlooks the possibiliy that the rise in fuel cost may account for the noted increase
(C) he fails to consider whether the higher amount spent on fuel might be due to a larger volume of driving during that year.
(D) he makes the unwarranted assumption that an inreased amount of money spent on fuel implies a rise in the rate at which the company's tucks are using the fuel.
(E) With my father-in-law in the back seat, this is the longest ride to New Jersey ever.
« on: August 26, 2008, 09:37:41 AM »
« on: July 23, 2008, 09:28:16 PM »
It's the very top stickied thread
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 33