Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: PT 49 LR Help in sections 2 & 4  (Read 421 times)

sumsunshine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
PT 49 LR Help in sections 2 & 4
« on: May 05, 2008, 07:31:14 PM »
Please help me!

OK for Section 2: #s 10, 19

10. I chose A. After going through the problem, I can see why it is incorrect and why E is the correct choice. However, I can also see D being true. Can someone explain why D is wrong?

19. I chose C and crossed off D. I am totally confused on this one. ??? 

Section 4: 6, 12, 22, 23

6. I chose D and crossed off B and E. I thought D was correct..

12. Even after going back and reviewing this one, I can still see the truth in D.

22. I chose B.

23. I chose C.

Thank you in advance!! =)

armada

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 191
  • I have people to go and places to see!
    • View Profile
Re: PT 49 LR Help in sections 2 & 4
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2008, 08:38:34 PM »
Please help me!

OK for Section 2: #s 10, 19

10. I chose A. After going through the problem, I can see why it is incorrect and why E is the correct choice. However, I can also see D being true. Can someone explain why D is wrong?

19. I chose C and crossed off D. I am totally confused on this one. ??? 

Section 4: 6, 12, 22, 23

6. I chose D and crossed off B and E. I thought D was correct..

12. Even after going back and reviewing this one, I can still see the truth in D.

22. I chose B.

23. I chose C.

Thank you in advance!! =)

Section 2;
10.  Wouldn't have picked D because neither one of them was talking about the rationality of pursuing wealth.
19. I don't really know how to effectively explain how D is the correct answer. You should look at the logical reasoning bible, it discusses these kinds of problems in detail or maybe someone else here can.

Section 4:  I don't have the answers to these with me so I could be wrong
6. I'd pick A. The argument already adresses that the myths developed independently and I don't see how any further demnostration would be relevant to the argument.  As for the fear of horses in the conclusion, the argument doesn't establish that the creature truly represents the horse in ppl's minds after all, if it's half man and half horse, it could represent man or something else all together.

12. A. Read the stimulus a bit more closesly.  There is evidence/proof that the oil industry does not have the highest profits so D cannot be the answer

22. C.  The conclusion says that the division does not increase barriers because the new small countries are not self-sufficient so the economist must be assuming that you have to be self-sufficent in order to put up barriers to free trade.

23. I would pick A but I'm not confident about it so I can't really explain.

Hope all that made sense.

LSAT All Star

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Keeping it simple
    • View Profile
    • All Star Test Prep
Re: PT 49 LR Help in sections 2 & 4
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2008, 11:57:19 PM »
Please help me!

OK for Section 2: #s 10, 19

10. I chose A. After going through the problem, I can see why it is incorrect and why E is the correct choice. However, I can also see D being true. Can someone explain why D is wrong?

19. I chose C and crossed off D. I am totally confused on this one. ??? 

Section 4: 6, 12, 22, 23

6. I chose D and crossed off B and E. I thought D was correct..

12. Even after going back and reviewing this one, I can still see the truth in D.

22. I chose B.

23. I chose C.

Thank you in advance!! =)

PT 49 - 2/10

The first key to the what do they disagree about questions is that the participants, before they can be alleged to disagree on a point, must have an opinion on that point.  There are two ways you can be sure they have an opinion about a point.  The first is if they express one.  The second is if the point, although unexpressed, is a necessary assumption of their argument.  If they do not show an opinion on a point, you cannot state they disagree about it.

When going through the response options, the first thing you want to do is eliminate any proposed points on which both parties did not express or imply a position.  Only then, if there is more than one response option remaining, will we look to see if they disagreed on a point.

Choice A?  Megan expressly stated an opinion on this point (“people pursue wealth beyond . . . basic needs . . . .”).  However, Channen did not disagree.  She just provided an alternate explanation for the phenomenon.

Choices B, C and D are all wrong for the same reason.  Nobody even discussed whether the alleged acts were rational.  And, whether they were or not is not a necessary assumption of any conclusion they reached.  If they did not discuss it, you cannot know whether they disagree about it.

Choice E?  Megan says it is not.  Channen provides an example of when it is.  That is a disagreement.

PT 49 - 2/19

The argument starts with Vanwilligan stating a third party claim (pro’s salaries are unfairly high).  Then he recites facts about why they are that high.  In the end, he concludes the salaries are fair.  However, he never really discussed the issue of fairness.  He must just assume that the facts he presented imply fairness.

Choice A?  No.  There is nothing in the argument about what is fairest.  Only whether these salaries are fair.

Choice B?  No.  This is a red herring.  Even if it is true, it does not address the issue of fairness.

Choice C?  No.  This just repeats the facts.  It does not include the needed assumption that salaries determined this way are fair.

Choice D?  This does the trick.  It relates the way the salaries are determined to the conclusion that is fair if done that way.

Choice E?  No.  This is backward.  We are not discussing if it is fair when these facts are met.  The assumption is that it is fair because these facts are met.

PT 49 - 4/6

First, understand the false logic:

All A (centaurs) are B (myth)
Many (some) B are C (express unconscious thoughts)
therefore
All A are C.

Obviously, just because all A are B and many B are C does not mean that all (or even any) A are C.  [There could be 1000 myths, two about centaurs and the other 998 about something else.  The other 998 could all express unconscious thought while the two about centaurs do not.  All the statements would still be true - All A are B and Many B are C.  But the conclusion still be false -  no A are C].

Next, look for the response option which points this out.

Choice A?  This is exactly what is wrong with the argument.  It fails to show that which it claims - A are C.

Choice B?  No.  Reasons for fear are not part of the argument.  The argument is about whether the myths are a reflection of that fear.

Choice C?  No.  This does not even talk about a comparison between expressed and suppressed fears.

Choice D?  No.  While the argument does fail to demonstrate this, it is not a logical flaw.  In fact, it is irrelevant.  The argument even states this may be true (“apparently independent”).

Choice E?  No. Again, the argument is not about why.  The argument is about “if.”

Visit us at allstartestprep.com

LSAT All Star

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Keeping it simple
    • View Profile
    • All Star Test Prep
Re: PT 49 LR Help in sections 2 & 4
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2008, 11:58:03 PM »
PT 49 - 4/12

Q.  Even after going back and reviewing this one, I can still see the truth in D.

A.  If you do not understand why Choice D is wrong, you have no understanding of this question.  Let’s start at the beginning.

Suspicion:  Huge profits therefore need reg tightening.
But:  If not too tight, then sufficient profit
Fact:  Oil Co profits are not the highest
Conclusion:  regs are too tight

It is easy to see what is wrong with this argument.  The politician has concluded the reg effect on oil companies is “excessive” (too tight already).  Yet, the only fact he has given to support when regs are too tight is if not sufficient profit then too tight (the contrapositive of the statement after “But”).  Then, he did not state whether the oil companies met this profit standard or not.  He stated they did not meet a different standard (“not the highest”).  The response option which points this out will be the correct response.

Choice A?  There are different ways to look at a gap in an argument.  First, it is a weakness.  Or, the gap could not really be a gap.  It could be an assumption the claimant must have intended because his conclusion depends on it.  In this question, we identified the gap (the required fact - sufficiency of profit -was not the provided fact - highest profit) which is what LSAC asked us to do.  But now, they have hidden it in this response option.  If you read this response option carefully, it says the gap is not really a gap (sufficient profit must be highest profit).  Simultaneously, it claims the argument is weak for failing to justify this implied fact.  This is the weakness/flaw we noted.  LSAC just used a few more words than were necessary to get to it.

Choice B?  No.  There is no character attack.

Choice C?  No.  Two correlated events - Enforcement and Profit.  While the argument does make this presumption (cause and effect between enforcement and profit) and it does not explicitly justify it, this lapse is not even in the same category as the other.  The conclusion is self-obvious from the statement to a person of average knowledge.  It does not need justification nearly as much as the other logical jump (sufficient profit must be highest profit).

Choice D?  No.  It does none of this.  First of all, we do not know if that conclusion (highest profit) is reached from an absence of evidence or from affirmative evidence.  Second, what would be wrong with reaching it from an absence of evidence?  It is an either/or proposition and it is evidence.  Even if the argument does this, it does not effect the conclusion.

Choice E?  No.  It draws a general conclusion (excessive oil company regulation) from a general example (talking about the effect of oil regs in general) and there is no reason to think the example is atypical.  It is asserted to be industry-wide (needed for future exploration).

PT 49 - 4/22

When you read this argument, you have to recognize there is more than a gap; there is a chasm.  Let’s find it specifically.

Some People:

Conclusion: If A (split countries remainders) then B (increased barriers)
because
Explicit Premise: If A then C (increased number of tariffs);
and
Implicit Premise (If C then B).

Economist:

Small countries (A) do not think of themselves as D, (self-sufficient).

Therefore:

A is not sufficient for B.

There does not appear to be any connection between the economist’s fact and her conclusion.  However, one must be assumed if he conclusion is properly drawn.  What is it?  Well, we know why it is purported that A is sufficient for B - because if A then C and if C then B.  Therefore, the economist must either presume his fact stands for the proposition that Not if A then C or Not if C then B.  We have to see what response options LSAC gives us.

Choice A?  No.  There is nothing in the argument about rights.  It is about effects.

Choice B?  No.  This may be a consequence of the fact the economist is right, but it is not the assumption which makes her right.  Like the argument itself, it assumes either Not if A then C or Not if C then B. In addition, it is just too broad.  It is about god or bad for the economy while the economists conclusion only goes as far as what will increase trade barriers.

Choice C?  This claims the fact asserted by the economist [A are not D (self-sufficient)] argues against if A then C because A are not D and All C are D.  That assumption works.

Choice D?  No.  Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. It is beyond the conclusion.  The conclusion goes up to the point of being about trade barriers.  This potential assumption is about harm to the world economy.

Choice E?  No.  This is not a comparison in the argument.

PT 49 - 4/23

Look at the argument:

If A (compares to those with more) then B (self-disparagement)
If C (Compares to those with less) then D (dismissive).
Therefore
If Not A and Not C (among other things) then most likely to be Not B and Not D.

This is clearly a false argument.  Just because A is sufficient for B and C is sufficient for D does not mean that A is necessary for B nor that C is necessary for D.  Yet, the argument concludes as though they were (if Not A and Not C then most likely Not B and Not D).

Choice A?  No.  Although the argument does not deal with this possibility, it does not reach any conclusion about this pattern.

Choice B?  No.  Same as Choice A - no included in the facts but also not included in the conclusion.

Choice C?  Assumes if D and B then Not not B and Not not D.  Yes.  Probably assumes this.  So what?  It is true.

Choice D?  Yes.  Like we said, the argument overlooks the possibility that A is not necessary for B and that C is not necessary for D.

Choice E?  No.  It does not take for granted this happens.  It merely comments on the result when it does happen.
Visit us at allstartestprep.com