Law School Discussion

10 More Actual, Official LSAT PTs


10 More Actual, Official LSAT PTs
« on: March 02, 2009, 09:16:11 PM »
Hey all,

Because of my paranoia of running out of PTs after saving about 8 for the final push I went over all my incorrect questions from 10 more actual book (PT19-28) - looking at why the correct answer is correct and why the wrong was wrong.  From this I have 12 questions I'm stuck on and would greatly appreciate it (once again) if you guys can help me better understand them.  All of them are logical reasoning.

PT 21: section 2

#19: The components listed in the stimulus says "in order of decreasing abundance" in the atmosphere. I am confused about this because initially, I thought the stimulus was saying there was least methane in the atmosphere and the most nitrogen in the atmosphere.  But looking at the answer choice (C) I can tell that it was saying there was least nitrogen in the atmosphere and the most methane in the atmosphere - thus the assumption of methane vaporizing the easiest and carbon monoxide hardest.  But in this case, how can I surely figure out which order the stimulus is saying?

PT 22: section 2

#18: I understand why (B) is the answer because it only meets the originality while the influence is only minor therefore cannot be considered truly great.  However, I am not quite understanding why (C) is incorrect.  It says like the drumming practiced in Africa has tremendous originality and also profound impact on musicians everywhere, therefore it is great.  Please show me why (C) is incorrect.

#25: Is the sufficient condition being "indicted" and required condition "only if they are convicted"? I'm slightly confused.

PT 23: section 2

#25: I think the reasoning pattern is basically "this will only produce this result" - centrally planned allocation will result in at least 5% debt - (B) - pollution occurs only where there is a lot of cars.  I chose (D) originally.  But (D) is incorrect because of mistaken reversal? - being a famous rock star is a necessary condition to receive large regular loyalties - and owning their recording companies is just a side fact?

       section 3

#25: Can anyone put the stimulus in clear terms? Slightly confused.

PT 28: section 1

#19: I understand why the answer can be (A) but can an argument based on "belief" be considered a flaw?

#20: Is the answer (A) because investment decreasing is a completely different aspect from the causal condition given at the beginning of the stimulus? Because the stimulus clearly says "investment is not decreasing"? So, (A) which says "...investment is decreasing" is the answer? If this method is wrong please show me the right logic.

       section 3

#16: So, people think venereal disease caused Beethoven's deafness.  People during his time used mercury to treat VD so if they find mercury in his hair, the hypothesis is correct.  So, how does assuming (B) is correct?

Thanks a lot guys!


Re: 10 More Actual, Official LSAT PTs
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2009, 09:18:09 PM »
*edit 8 questions.


  • ****
  • 275
  • Clint Dempsey FTW
    • View Profile
Re: 10 More Actual, Official LSAT PTs
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2009, 09:26:47 PM »
*edit 8 questions.
there's a modify button


Re: 10 More Actual, Official LSAT PTs
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2009, 01:07:47 PM »


Re: 10 More Actual, Official LSAT PTs
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2009, 10:04:53 AM »

Re: 10 More Actual, Official LSAT PTs
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2009, 10:48:36 PM »
Now we have a difficult choice between (B) and (C). This is a good time to discuss necessary and
sufficient pre-conditions. The passage states that the two elements are necessary before the work can be
truly great. But, just have these two necessary elements is not sufficient to make the work great. With that
in mind, look at (C) again. Note the use of the word enough, this implies that there need be no third
element in place to make a work truly great. I.e. these two are sufficient. The passage states the two
element are necessary, but doesn’t say they are sufficient. Answer (B) says that since this art lacks the
second element, it cannot be great, avoiding the issue about the possible existence of a third element. This
one was a tough call.


Re: 10 More Actual, Official LSAT PTs
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2009, 10:56:17 PM »
Thanks, along with LSAT all star's explanation and that one, i completely understood that question.