Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: PT 22 & PT23 How?  (Read 563 times)

nooyyllib

  • Guest
PT 22 & PT23 How?
« on: August 23, 2008, 12:48:52 PM »
Hey guys,

In PT 22, section 2(LR)-for number 18, what is the difference between choice B and C? I narrowed it down to those two but can't really figure out why B is the correct answer and why C can't be the correct answer. 

In the same section, same PT, I am slightly confused about number 22.  Please clarify?

In PT 23, section 1(LG)-how do you approach the second game? I'm unclear about that game. In addition, for the third game,how do you prove #16?

In section 2(LR), number 25, what is the difference between choice B and D? I chose D and I'm not sure why B is correct.

In section 3(LR), number 9 and 10, please clarify the logic in the stimulus-I'm confused. Please do explain why correct answers for 9 and 10 are correct as well.  Number 18, why is E incorrect and C correct?  Lastly, number 20-again, I'm confused.

Thank you for helping me out guys.  It just seems to me that I'm always 50/50 - 2 choices left - in LR.  Unfortunately, I seem to choose the wrong answer more than the correct answer.

Thanks!

ssilver0210

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 212
    • View Profile
    • Silverman Bar Preparation
    • Email
Re: PT 22 & PT23 How?
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2008, 02:40:41 PM »
For the LR sections:

22-2-18:  Originality and far reaching influence are necessary for greatness. However, we do not know whether they are sufficient for greatness. Perhaps something more is needed for greatness, but at a minimum we need originality and far reaching influence.  Choice C says that because we have originality and far reaching influence, we have greatness. Choice B says that because we do not have far reaching influence, we do not have greatness. In other words, according to choice B, the minimum requirement for greatness has not been met.

22-2-22:  We're told that the only kind of evolutionary pressure that can reduce the size of the members of the larger goat population would be if small goats achieved greater reproductive success than larger goats. This is because the reproductive success of a trait influences its frequency in a population.

We're also told that the evolutionary pressure to ensure a diverse gene pool will not reduce the average size of the members of the large goat population.

If the evolutionary pressure to ensure a diverse gene pool did have the effect of increasing the frequency of a gene for small size, then based on the above statements, that would effect the greater number of small goats found in the island population. (The reproductive success of the trait would have influenced the population). But we're told in the passage that the evolutionary pressure to ensure a diverse gene pool did not have the effect of increasing the number of small goats, so it must be true that the evolutionary pressure to ensure a diverse gene pool did not have the effect of increasing the frequency of a gene for small size. (choice D)

23-2-25:

Choice D says that to be famous you have to have your own record company, and if you have your own record company you will receive company profits above your royalties. We know nothing about the size of the royalties, though, so the conclusion in choice D does not follow logically from the statements provided.

The prompt tells us that efficient allocation of resources is a necessary condition for achieving a national debt of less than 5 percent of the GDP.  No centrally planned economic system meets this necessary condition, and therefore no centrally planned economic system efficiently allocates its resources.

Choice B tells us that a necessary condition of major air pollution is a large concentration of automobiles. This necessary condition is lacking in rural districts, and therefore rural districts do not have major air pollution.

The logic in choice B is most similar to the logic in the prompt.

I'll get the rest later, if they're not already answered.

Hope these make some sense.

--Sean

I provide tutoring both for the LSAT and the MBE at very reasonable rates.  I provide a free hour to all students to try out the tutoring.  Feel free to contact me at silvermanbarprep@gmail.com for tutoring inquires or to set up a free lesson. Visit my blog @ http://www.mbetutorial.blogspot.com

nooyyllib

  • Guest
Re: PT 22 & PT23 How?
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2008, 09:42:52 PM »
Sean,

Those explanations helped a lot.  It would be wonderful if you can reply to the rest of them.  I appreciate your help.

Thanks.

ssilver0210

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 212
    • View Profile
    • Silverman Bar Preparation
    • Email
Re: PT 22 & PT23 How?
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2008, 12:05:30 AM »
23-3-9:

We're told a few things:  First, if a person chooses to walk, rather than drive, there will be one less vehicle emitting air pollution. Therefore, according to the passage, if people would walk whenever feasible, pollution will be greatly reduced.

Air pollution will only be reduced if at least one person who normally drives, chooses to walk. Assume that people always would have walked when feasible.  If people always would have walked when it was feasible to do so, then walking when feasible will not reduce the number of drivers (the number of drivers being zero in that case, because people were walking anyway), and therefore walking when feasible will not reduce pollution.

Or, put another way, walking when feasible will reduce pollution only if people sometimes drive when it is feasible to walk instead (choice E).

23-3-10:

Choice B most strengthens the argument because it provides a reason why walking rather than driving will reduce air pollution.  If more people drive, the more likely it is there will be congestion on the road, and even though non-moving vehicles emit less pollution than moving vehicles, the number of vehicles on the road will still lead to pollution which could be prevented by people choosing to walk rather than drive.

23-3-18
In the passage we're told that the date claimed by the announcer of the concert is incorrect, because the musician was definitely Armstrong, but Armstrong had died prior to 1989, the date claimed by the announcer.

Similarly, in choice E it is incorrect to claim that Lebrun painted the portrait because the painting was definitely acrylic, but Lebrun had died prior to the development of acrylic.

The same pattern of reasoning is used to show that the date of the concert is incorrect, and that it is incorrect to claim that Lebrun painted the portrait.

23-3-20:

We're told that the the application of a rule to a particular case involves a decision on whether the facts of that case fall within relevant categories mentioned in the rule. We're then told that the decision as to whether the facts of the case fall within the relevant categories mentioned in the rule, determines the legal effect of what happened, rather than determining any matter of fact.

If the decision on whether the facts of the case fall within the relevant categories mentioned in the rule is itself a matter of fact, then it would not be true that legal decisions do not establish any matter of fact. (Because the legal decision, in establishing whether the facts of a case fall within the relevant category of the rule, would have itself established a matter of fact.)

So, in order for it to be true that legal decisions do not establish any matter of fact, it must be true that whether the facts of a case fall within the relevant categories of a rule is not itself a matter of fact. (Choice E).

Hope that last one made sense, as the wording in that question was pretty confusing.
I provide tutoring both for the LSAT and the MBE at very reasonable rates.  I provide a free hour to all students to try out the tutoring.  Feel free to contact me at silvermanbarprep@gmail.com for tutoring inquires or to set up a free lesson. Visit my blog @ http://www.mbetutorial.blogspot.com