Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: PT-24-2-18 reconcile question  (Read 344 times)

mbstuff

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
PT-24-2-18 reconcile question
« on: May 27, 2010, 06:15:21 AM »
Hopefully this time, I read the answer key correctly before asking.   ;D

For Preptest 24, section 2 (logical reasoning), question #18 from December 1997:

I'm having trouble with the correct answer choice E and answer choice B. The qualifier phrase at the beginning of answer choice E seems to me weaken the answer, since that qualifier negates the effect of past funding being close to nothing. At the same time for answer choice B, if you need to pay higher wages above and beyond inflation, that would help explain the disparity between higher rate of funding increase compared to the rate of increase of the area.

What am I missing?  Thank you for the help in advance.

Cambridge LSAT

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
    • Cambridge LSAT
    • Email
Re: PT-24-2-18 reconcile question
« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2010, 02:25:20 PM »
Choice B does not connect the conclusion to the evidence. It does provide a reason for the sixfold increase in funding, but it doesn't tell us why the funding is still inadequate. Choice E explains why a sixfold increase would still fall short of the required level of funding. If the funding ten years ago was almost nonexistent, such an increase would not likely represent a large number. The wetlands area, on the other hand, was already large ten years ago (stimulus). Thus, although the rate of funding increase is outpacing the rate of size increase, such an initial disparity between the levels explains how the level of funding could still be inadequate.

Jeffort

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 214
  • LSAT Tutor
    • View Profile
    • LSAT Discussion - Free LSAT Logical Reasoning Question Type Finder Utility
    • Email
Re: PT-24-2-18 reconcile question
« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2010, 05:56:51 PM »

To make it easy to see the discrepancy and how (E) resolves it, image that 10 years ago the funding was $1.  A six fold increase would give you $6.  Not much $$$ overall because the figure being multiplied is very small. 

mbstuff

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: PT-24-2-18 reconcile question
« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2010, 06:55:51 PM »
Thank you both for the replies. I'm very appreciative that people are around on these forums spending their time to help.

I do have an additional question.  How much effect does the "unlike today" qualifier have on answer choice E?  I interpreted that phrase to mean that today, funding is significant (as opposed to almost nothing in the past). That qualifier is what made me have problems with answer choice E. It seems to give that answer choice an internal inconsistency. Using the $1 to $6 example, I get that 6 times an almost non-existent amount of a dollar is still a relatively small amount (even if it's $1 million to $6 million in the scope of a large wetlands preservation project), but doesn't the "unlike today" qualifier conflict with that inference?