Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Prep test 30 section 2 LR Help  (Read 552 times)

nooyyllib

  • Guest
Prep test 30 section 2 LR Help
« on: January 18, 2009, 01:48:52 AM »
Help please,

Prep test 30 section 2 LR.

#11: answer choice is D and says some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones. The stimulus says "so even if you promised jeanne that you would tell me...,you should not tell me that...".  I feel like that is the main part of the stimulus I should focus on.  But do i just automatically assume the promise between jeanne is implicit because of the "conversation" about "you would tell teacher she is home sick"? Please clarify.  I chose C.

#17: i can't quite figure out the difference the answer(B) is trying to portray.  the % of people from the service profession who serve on the boards v. %of the members of these boards who are from the service professions. Those two sound the same to me.  Please clarify.

#20: this stimulus is basically saying if one is able to indicate how the public will benefit then, the continued funding is justified.  also, "there would not be public support for the project..." so this project that is receiving or trying to receive funding is not able to indicate the benefits? Why is the answer E? Please clarify.

#22: the stimulus says that if the rattle is not brittle one can figure out the age of the snake.  The stimulus concludes that "one could determine the age simply from the number of sections in the rattle because one new section is formed every time the snake molts.  So I thought the assumption should have been the snake molts exactly once a year (A). By molting exactly once a year, there is going to be one indicating section on the rattle per year, being able to figure out the age of the snake.  However, the real answer choice makes slight sense as well.  (E); the molt's frequency is same when food is scarce or plenty.  this assumption shows that the snake molts no matter what its environment is like, making molting a unhindered process - there for allowing the age to be found effectively/accurately.  So how do i distinguish between these two choices? Why is E right and not A?

#26: I limited the answer choices down to B and C. I unfortunately chose C.  the correct answer was B.  I'm just really confused with this stimulus.  Please clarify.

Thanks,  also, hopefully from this post, people who were trying to help me with my other post "HOW?..frustration.." can see how I am thinking through the LR questions....

Thanks again!

LSAT All Star

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Keeping it simple
    • View Profile
    • All Star Test Prep
Re: Prep test 30 section 2 LR Help
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2009, 03:17:21 PM »
Help please,

Prep test 30 section 2 LR.

#11: answer choice is D and says some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones. The stimulus says "so even if you promised jeanne that you would tell me...,you should not tell me that...".  I feel like that is the main part of the stimulus I should focus on.  But do i just automatically assume the promise between jeanne is implicit because of the "conversation" about "you would tell teacher she is home sick"? Please clarify.  I chose C.


I think you have muttled this whole argument.  The student made an explicit promise to Jeanne to lie to the teacher for her.  The teacher claims the student also has made an implicit promise to tell the truth to the teacher (if he says anything at all).  The teacher than concludes she should be told the truth.

If the teacher is correct about the studentís implicit promise, then either way, the student has to break a promise to someone (either the implicit promise to tell the truth when speaking to the teacher or the explicit promise to Jeanne.) Looking at this dichotomy, the teacher concludes she should be told the truth.  To support that conclusion, the teacher must be assuming, for some reason, the promise made to her takes precedence over the promise to Jeanne.  Which response option would lead to (or justify) that conclusion?  Choice D.
Visit us at allstartestprep.com

LSAT All Star

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Keeping it simple
    • View Profile
    • All Star Test Prep
Re: Prep test 30 section 2 LR Help
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2009, 03:19:33 PM »
Help please,

Prep test 30 section 2 LR.

#17: i can't quite figure out the difference the answer(B) is trying to portray.  the % of people from the service profession who serve on the boards v. %of the members of these boards who are from the service professions. Those two sound the same to me.  Please clarify.


I call these question types "Fun with Numbers."  This is a statistical trick - an apples to oranges comparison.  The premise is about the percentage of the total service professionals who serve on Boards.  The conclusion is about the percentage of Boards made up by service professionals.  Choice B explicitly exposes this dichotomy. 

Letís look at some numbers.  Say for example, there are 10 million service professionals (out of 50 million professionals overall).  And, also for example, there are an average of 10 people per board (therefore a total of 6000 board members).  Lets say the average board has 4 service professionals.  That would mean there are 2400 service professional on Boards.  That would mean that only 0.024% of service professionals are on Boards.  This is consistent with the premise (ďa very small percentageĒ).  However, although service professionals are only 20% of the total professionals (10M out of 50M), they would constitute 40% of Board members (4 out of every ten).  That can hardly be considered under-representation. 
Visit us at allstartestprep.com

LSAT All Star

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Keeping it simple
    • View Profile
    • All Star Test Prep
Re: Prep test 30 section 2 LR Help
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2009, 03:22:29 PM »
Help please,

Prep test 30 section 2 LR.

#20: this stimulus is basically saying if one is able to indicate how the public will benefit then, the continued funding is justified.  also, "there would not be public support for the project..." so this project that is receiving or trying to receive funding is not able to indicate the benefits? Why is the answer E? Please clarify.

Thanks again!

First, understand the argument:

Some critics maintained the public funding is justified only if it can be indicated how the public will benefit.
The scientist counters, if these critics were right, there would not be tremendous public support.

The critics are claiming benefit indication is a necessary condition (only if) for justification.
The scientist is saying they are wrong.  But, what are they wrong about?  Are they wrong about the funding being justified or not?  No.  The critics never state whether it is or is not.  Therefore, the scientist must be claiming they are critics are wrong about benefit indication being a necessary condition for justification (which is all the critics have really claimed).

Choice A?  No.  The scientist does not necessarily say the benefits  are irrelevant.  Only that their indication is not a necessary condition.

Choice B?  No.  Again, the scientist does not state or even imply the funding is justified.  Only that benefit indication is not a necessary condition for justification.

Choice C?  No.  Again, the scientist does not tell us what is an indication of justification.  Only that benefit indication is not a necessary condition.

Choice D?  This is the trap answer.  If you misread and believed the scientist claimed there was justification (because you believed the critics claimed there was not and the scientist was countering them), then this would be a necessary assumption of the scientistís opposition (to make the necessary condition true).  However, as discussed, the critic never claimed it was not justified.  Therefore, it is not necessary to prove their alleged necessary condition to have been met. 

Choice E?  As discussed above, this is exactly the opposite of what the critics alleged.  Therefore, based on the scientists claim, this must be what he believes the public support proves to be untrue. 
Visit us at allstartestprep.com

LSAT All Star

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Keeping it simple
    • View Profile
    • All Star Test Prep
Re: Prep test 30 section 2 LR Help
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2009, 03:25:26 PM »
Help please,

Prep test 30 section 2 LR.

#22: the stimulus says that if the rattle is not brittle one can figure out the age of the snake.  The stimulus concludes that "one could determine the age simply from the number of sections in the rattle because one new section is formed every time the snake molts.  So I thought the assumption should have been the snake molts exactly once a year (A). By molting exactly once a year, there is going to be one indicating section on the rattle per year, being able to figure out the age of the snake.  However, the real answer choice makes slight sense as well.  (E); the molt's frequency is same when food is scarce or plenty.  this assumption shows that the snake molts no matter what its environment is like, making molting a unhindered process - there for allowing the age to be found effectively/accurately.  So how do i distinguish between these two choices? Why is E right and not A?


Another Fun with Numbers question.  The argument is claiming that if all the rattles were still there, a connection could be made between the number of rattles and age of the snake.  For that to be true, there has to be a known (or knowable) connection between rattle creation and chronological time. 

The question asks for a required assumption.  Letís take a look.

Choice A?  While this proposed assumption would allow us to reach the conclusion, it is not necessary for the conclusion.  What if snakes molted exactly twice per year?  Then, we could count the rings and divide by two and know how old the snake was.  Therefore, this proposed assumption is not required.  There are other potential assumptions which do the trick just as well.  Strike it.

Choice B?  No.  This is a red herring.  Whether the rattles are identical or different is irrelevant.  We are not comparing one species to another.  Strike it.

Choice C?  There is nothing in the argument which requires this to be true.  In fact, although we are dealing with the issue of frequency of molting, this makes it less likely we would know the exact frequency.  Strike it.

Choice D?  No.  We are not comparing brittleness with age.  The argument is based on an assumption of no brittleness.  Strike it.

Choice E?  This is the correct response and provides a good example of using the negation technique.  What if this were not true.  In other words, what if scarcity of food effected the regularity of molting?  Then, even if we counted the rings, we could still not know the age of the snake because we could not know how often it molted because we could not know when its food was scarce.  Therefore, for the conclusion to be true, this must be true. 
Visit us at allstartestprep.com

LSAT All Star

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Keeping it simple
    • View Profile
    • All Star Test Prep
Re: Prep test 30 section 2 LR Help
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2009, 03:32:06 PM »
Help please,

Prep test 30 section 2 LR.

#26: I limited the answer choices down to B and C. I unfortunately chose C.  the correct answer was B.  I'm just really confused with this stimulus.  Please clarify.


My first thought was that this sounds like an ad hominem argument - attacking a conclusion because of its source rather than anything logically or factually wrong with the conclusion itself.  Is that what LSAC is looking for?  Letís see.

Choice A?  No.  LSAC is trying to catch you with a mistaken reversal.  Even if this were relevant, just because sciences with unblemished origins are scientifically valuable would not mean those that have not are blemished.  .

Choice B?  Well, this is not the exact flaw I noticed, but it is similar.  Rather than stating the flaw was the ad hominem attack, this response option says the argument failed to consider whether they were still espousing the alchemy or whether current theories differ from those of the alchemists.  If they are not still espousing it, then it is irrelevant (The same way an ad hominem attack is irrelevant).  This is a solid criticism of the argument.

Choice C?  No.  It uses an example (chemistry) but to support the principle under consideration, not to contradict it.

Choice D?  No.  What may or may not be true of other disciplines because of their suspect origins has no relationship to this argument.  Strike it.

Choice E?  No ďdisciplineĒ is used in the same sense (a field of study) both times.  Strike it.
Visit us at allstartestprep.com

LSAT All Star

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Keeping it simple
    • View Profile
    • All Star Test Prep
Re: Prep test 30 section 2 LR Help
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2009, 03:33:58 PM »
Help please,

Thanks,  also, hopefully from this post, people who were trying to help me with my other post "HOW?..frustration.." can see how I am thinking through the LR questions....


You would like my prep materials.  Your difficulty is a major issue they were designed to deal with.  (Most of these replies come from my database). 
Visit us at allstartestprep.com