PT50 - Sec 4 - 16 (LR)

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

PT50 - Sec 4 - 16 (LR)

Postby ConsideringLawSchool » Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:22 pm

What is the answer? Thanks
Last edited by ConsideringLawSchool on Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: PT50 - Sec 2 - 13 (LR)

Postby ConsideringLawSchool » Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:27 pm

It must be B?

User avatar
s0ph1e2007
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:37 pm

Re: PT50 - Sec 2 - 13 (LR)

Postby s0ph1e2007 » Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:33 pm

Yes this one was a little tough

B is wrong because it does not address reducing the levels of carbon dioxide enough to halt global warming. This answer would be consistent wiht a .00001% decrease in emissions, which possibly isn't enough to halt global warming obviously.


D on the other hand allows that it is possible to reduce CO2 emissions to halt global warming and best supports the use of the analogy

User avatar
maks25
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: PT50 - Sec 4 - 16 (LR)

Postby maks25 » Fri Feb 05, 2010 1:13 pm

Am I missing something? The PT50 S4-16 I have is a different question, it's about shoppers not emissions.

The answer is C, although B is very tempting.

In terms of B the shopper bought many unnecessary items BUT they are still each 1/2 the cost of the items the shopping list person bought. In addition, who says that the shopping list guy didn't have unnecessary items on his list?

But if all the items were very expensive to begin with it makes sense that his basket as a whole could be worth more even with a 50% discount.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jjmkeng, PrezRand and 6 guests