PT 44, Section 1, #23; Section 2-#20

ConsideringLawSchool
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:18 pm

PT 44, Section 1, #23; Section 2-#20

Postby ConsideringLawSchool » Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:08 am

Just a couple questions that I'm somehow confused about from PT 44.

In the RC Section (1), Question #23:
To me, it seems that the author is more than unimpressed--he does seem exasperated. The words that indicate this exasperation include "ironic," "conveniently," "ignorance," "reluctant to admit," "honestly" (since he puts it in quotes), unrealistically, and unwillingness. How does this series of condescending, insulting ways of describing Modern Movement not show exasperation?

In the first LR Section (2), Question #20
A) Irrelevant--the issue is thrill-seeking, not impulsiveness when it comes to adults
B) I don't see how this is a strong answer. In every single study, you could challenge that the researcher was not accurately measuring the construct.
C) Since the study doesn't suggest that adult description was the research method, this fact wouldn't weaken the case
D) To me, this seems like a strong answer. The study is trying to explain adult thrill-seeking behavior; impulsiveness in childhood is just a construct that they have created to try to get at this behavior in adulthood. If thrill-seeking behavior in adulthood often does not grow out of impulsiveness in childhood, the study is not addressing thrill-seeking behavior in adulthood as it claims to be.
E) Irrelevant

Thanks so much!

skip james
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:53 am

Re: PT 44, Section 1, #23; Section 2-#20

Postby skip james » Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:46 am

RC: The author's tone is encapsulated by the term 'ironic'. only in the first paragraph do you get a direct line for the author and his view of the proponents. as for the other 'negative' words, you're taking them out of context. for example, 'unrealistic' is used to describe how much skill the ideals of the modern movement called for in their architect. this is a part of the earlier mentioned irony that 'the movement fostered ideology of design' that was at odds with the way buildings were actually built. if i were to choose a word for author's tone without looking at the answer choices, it'd be 'condescending', and the closest to that is not 'exasperated' which means 'frustrated', but pretty damn unimpressed.

LR: There is a causal relationship that the author is trying to establish between two things: 1 (thrill seeking behavior) and 2 (gene variant/dopamine). The evidence for this is results of research (in this case, a survey) which establishes a positive correlation between 1 and 2.

If 1 cannot be distinguished distinguished from other types of behavior then the results of the survey are invalid. How do you establish a correlation if you can't even determine 2 at all?

ConsideringLawSchool
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:18 pm

Re: PT 44, Section 1, #23; Section 2-#20

Postby ConsideringLawSchool » Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:11 pm

skip james wrote:RC: The author's tone is encapsulated by the term 'ironic'. only in the first paragraph do you get a direct line for the author and his view of the proponents. as for the other 'negative' words, you're taking them out of context. for example, 'unrealistic' is used to describe how much skill the ideals of the modern movement called for in their architect. this is a part of the earlier mentioned irony that 'the movement fostered ideology of design' that was at odds with the way buildings were actually built. if i were to choose a word for author's tone without looking at the answer choices, it'd be 'condescending', and the closest to that is not 'exasperated' which means 'frustrated', but pretty damn unimpressed.

LR: There is a causal relationship that the author is trying to establish between two things: 1 (thrill seeking behavior) and 2 (gene variant/dopamine). The evidence for this is results of research (in this case, a survey) which establishes a positive correlation between 1 and 2.

If 1 cannot be distinguished distinguished from other types of behavior then the results of the survey are invalid. How do you establish a correlation if you can't even determine 2 at all?


Thanks very much for the explanations... appreciate it.

I'm still not sure that all that frustration does not constitute exasperation though.. ;-(




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lahtso Nuggin, StopLawying, thrivinNstrivin and 9 guests