PT59 Questions

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

PT59 Questions

Postby ConsideringLawSchool » Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:54 pm

I'm guessing I'm not the only February LSAT-taker who is completing PT 59 right about now. :-)

I have a few questions that are baffling me--feel free to post your own and we can help one another.

Section 3 (LR) - #7
B, C, and D can clearly be eliminated as irrelevant or opposite answers. What am I missing in deciding between A and E?

Section 3 (LR) - #16
A, B, and C can clearly be eliminated. I am puzzled as to why E is better than D. Unless we know that folks without the mutation cannot get gum disease, then how will taking care of the deficiency "eliminate" gum disease? The stem only states that cathepsin C reduces the chance of getting gum disease--not that it makes it impossible to get gum disease.

Section 4 (RC) - #25
I'm a bit confused between A and D. How do we know whether the explanation advanced in the fourth paragraph is an existing interpretation or not?

Thanks!!

Edit: Edited for typo regarding the answer choices for #16.
Last edited by ConsideringLawSchool on Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

KaplanLSATInstructor
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:53 pm

Re: PT59 Questions

Postby KaplanLSATInstructor » Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:28 pm

I'll offer some thoughts on the LR. I'll leave the RC to somebody else unless I can take a look at it later.

#7.) The problem with (E) is that, even if they can vividly remember the pain of their bad habits, they'll also vividly experience the pain of trying to quit -- which might be worse.

Moreover, the success comes from getting over the pain of quitting. Having experienced pain in the past is irrelevant if you're trying to get over your pain now. What will make someone successful is, as (A) says, if that person can visualize the future benefit that will make the current pain worth enduring.

#16.) Check your answer sheet again. The correct answer IS E.

HTH

- Chris

KaplanLSATInstructor
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:53 pm

Re: PT59 Questions

Postby KaplanLSATInstructor » Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:34 pm

For the RC Q, I have a different viewpoint on the difference between (A) and (D).

(A) says "interpretations" while (D) says "explanation."

For me, an interpretation would be taking the results of the experiments and showing what they mean and how they apply beyond the experiment itself.

An explanation would discuss why the results happened the way they did.

In that case, the passage is more concerned with explaining the results (a term used multiple times in the passage) than interpreting them.

I'd be interested to see other feedback on this, as well.

- Chris

feblsat10
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:33 pm

Re: PT59 Questions

Postby feblsat10 » Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:38 pm

Anybody else having trouble with the following questions?

1st Section LR:

Question #7: Why E, not C?

Question #15: I can understand why A is right, but didn't get the question correct my first time around. How can I be sure when the question is asking about a 'kep term shifts illicitly during the course of the argument.'? Any tips? Is it b/c in the first sentence it said Anarchy was the absence of govt. and then it mentioned anarchy as a social philosophy?

Question #25: Still having trouble with this. The argument says that 3 billion years ago, the methane was higher than it is today. So why would question B weaken the argument? Wouldn't that strengthen the argument?


Help appreciated!

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

Re: PT59 Questions

Postby ConsideringLawSchool » Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:54 pm

feblsat10 wrote:Anybody else having trouble with the following questions?

1st Section LR:

Question #7: Why E, not C?

Question #15: I can understand why A is right, but didn't get the question correct my first time around. How can I be sure when the question is asking about a 'kep term shifts illicitly during the course of the argument.'? Any tips? Is it b/c in the first sentence it said Anarchy was the absence of govt. and then it mentioned anarchy as a social philosophy?

Question #25: Still having trouble with this. The argument says that 3 billion years ago, the methane was higher than it is today. So why would question B weaken the argument? Wouldn't that strengthen the argument?


Help appreciated!


Question 7:
This is a trick question in that the wording is meant to confuse you. You need to break down the stem carefully to get this one. The columnist starts by presenting an observed phenomenon (the relative richness of attending a musical performance when compared to listening to music on the radio). He then presents one proposed explanation of this phenomenon--the fact that we don't see the performers when we are listening on the radio. He goes on to discount this explanation by presenting an analogous situation in which this explanation is not appropriate.

Answer C says that the columnist is trying to explain the observed phenomenon. The columnist actually does not propose any explanation at all of the phenomenon--instead he discounts an explanation that someone else has proposed. Answer E is convoluted, but it identifies the phenomenon correctly as the phenomenon that is explained by a position that the columnist is trying to refute (the argument regarding being able to see the performer). Does that make sense?

Question 15:
When you read the stem, you notice that the author twice defines anarchy; he first defines at as "the absence of government." He later defines it as "chaos." Anytime that the author includes two definitions of a key term within a passage, I'd check carefully to see if the definitions match up and, if not, whether the change from one definition to another seems to serve the purposes of the author.

Question 25:
The stem leads us to believe that hydrogen and methane are equivalent with regard to their effect on trapping heat in the atmosphere. The stem states that the earth could have been prevented from freezing (a situation that we know from the stem to have been the case) only by levels of greenhouse gases higher than current levels. The stem then goes on to state the conclusion that there must have been more carbon dioxide. B weakens the argument by introducing an alternative--that there was more methane. Since methane is also a greenhouse gas that would have prevented freezing, the existence of higher levels of methane would explain the observed phenomenon without requiring elevated hydrogen levels.

Hope that helps!

User avatar
Atlas LSAT Teacher
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 10:18 am

Re: PT59 Questions

Postby Atlas LSAT Teacher » Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:55 pm

Here's an explanation for #15 - http://www.atlaslsat.com/forums/pt59-s2 ... -t599.html

and for #7 - http://www.atlaslsat.com/forums/pt-59-s ... -t596.html

for 25:

The conclusion of this argument is that the levels of carbon dioxide back then (3 billion years ago) we're probably quite high. Why? Because the oceans remained liquid, showing that the temperature was rather high, even though the sun was not as strong as it used to be. It's a fact, we're told, that the only way to bring about such a temperature back then would have been through a high level of greenhouse gases. . . So, there must have been a lot of CO2.

What's the gap? Why does it have to be CO2? Couldn't it have been methane?

(B) capitalizes on this assumption by suggesting that there used to be more methane (though it's a bit confusing since it seems to be discussing how much methane is in the atmosphere now).

(A) simply rules out another reason that might explain the heat -- if anything, this strengthens the argument.
(C) is irrelevant. The effect mentioned is not a possible alternate explanation.
(D) is out of scope as it relates the sun's strength with life forms.
(E) is also out of scope. We do not know what role increased radiation plays in this argument; furthermore, we don't know when this increase has reached a level that may or may not effect the earth's temperature as the increase is only limited to some time over the last 3 billion years.

I hope that helps.

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

Re: PT59 Questions

Postby ConsideringLawSchool » Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:56 pm

KaplanLSATInstructor wrote:For the RC Q, I have a different viewpoint on the difference between (A) and (D).

(A) says "interpretations" while (D) says "explanation."

For me, an interpretation would be taking the results of the experiments and showing what they mean and how they apply beyond the experiment itself.

An explanation would discuss why the results happened the way they did.

In that case, the passage is more concerned with explaining the results (a term used multiple times in the passage) than interpreting them.

I'd be interested to see other feedback on this, as well.

- Chris


Very interesting--makes a lot of sense to me.

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

Re: PT59 Questions

Postby ConsideringLawSchool » Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:57 pm

KaplanLSATInstructor wrote:I'll offer some thoughts on the LR. I'll leave the RC to somebody else unless I can take a look at it later.

#7.) The problem with (E) is that, even if they can vividly remember the pain of their bad habits, they'll also vividly experience the pain of trying to quit -- which might be worse.

Moreover, the success comes from getting over the pain of quitting. Having experienced pain in the past is irrelevant if you're trying to get over your pain now. What will make someone successful is, as (A) says, if that person can visualize the future benefit that will make the current pain worth enduring.

#16.) Check your answer sheet again. The correct answer IS E.

HTH

- Chris


Thanks, Chris. Appreciate it. Sorry--reversed the letters in my question. I mean why E and not D :-)

feblsat10
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:33 pm

Re: PT59 Questions

Postby feblsat10 » Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:14 pm

Got it! Thanks!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], brewpub16 and 15 guests