PT 41

User avatar
TheLuckyOne
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:00 pm

PT 41

Postby TheLuckyOne » Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:51 am

RC #15

I narrowed down to A and E, and chose E since the passage clearly supports the idea of long-term functioning being necessary for successfully implementing alternative sources of energy. In addition, I figured that A is off with its "previous". I would agree if it was "some" instead, but "previous"? Really? When? and what, not anymore?

Anyway, I need someone to point out why E is clearly wrong and why A with its "previous" is a better choice.

Thanks.

User avatar
TheLuckyOne
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:00 pm

Re: PT 41

Postby TheLuckyOne » Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:01 pm

I know RC is everyone's favorite section, but I really need help with this question.

Atlas LSAT Brian
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:12 pm

Re: PT 41

Postby Atlas LSAT Brian » Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:16 pm

Hi. I'll give it a shot.

Knowing that the question is a "most likely to agree" question, I know that I need to stick very closely to what's written, and make reasonable baby-steps away from what's written only if I have to.

So the question essentially asks "Where does the author stand on solar power?"

This is mostly discussed in the 2nd paragraph, and a little in the first. The author seems to think it's a good idea, along with other renewables (paragraph 1), and cites the Brazil example to show that the implementation of renewables isn't always good.

Nice job narrowing it down to (A) and (E)

(B) clearly the author does not think solar is impractical
(C) the author makes no comparison between rural and dense areas
(D) the author makes no comparison between solar and wind

now for (A) and (E)

(A) "previous difficulties" refers to the second paragraph -- Brazil, 1992. And it seems reasonable that the author would agree that solar can be profitably implemented. True, we don't have a clear statement to support "many countries," but we have no evidence against it, either. So far this is the best choice in the pool. The "cream of the crap," you might say.

(E) we have no evidence that the author thinks solar is not viable. In fact, based on paragraph 1 the author seems to have a good opinion about the viability of various renewables. And as for paragraph 2, well it's the implementation that the author found fault with, not the technology itself.

Hope that helps!

User avatar
TheLuckyOne
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:00 pm

Re: PT 41

Postby TheLuckyOne » Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:40 pm

Atlas LSAT Brian wrote:Hi. I'll give it a shot.

Knowing that the question is a "most likely to agree" question, I know that I need to stick very closely to what's written, and make reasonable baby-steps away from what's written only if I have to.

So the question essentially asks "Where does the author stand on solar power?"

This is mostly discussed in the 2nd paragraph, and a little in the first. The author seems to think it's a good idea, along with other renewables (paragraph 1), and cites the Brazil example to show that the implementation of renewables isn't always good.

Nice job narrowing it down to (A) and (E)

(B) clearly the author does not think solar is impractical
(C) the author makes no comparison between rural and dense areas
(D) the author makes no comparison between solar and wind

now for (A) and (E)

(A) "previous difficulties" refers to the second paragraph -- Brazil, 1992. And it seems reasonable that the author would agree that solar can be profitably implemented. True, we don't have a clear statement to support "many countries," but we have no evidence against it, either. So far this is the best choice in the pool. The "cream of the crap," you might say.

(E) we have no evidence that the author thinks solar is not viable. In fact, based on paragraph 1 the author seems to have a good opinion about the viability of various renewables. And as for paragraph 2, well it's the implementation that the author found fault with, not the technology itself.

Hope that helps!



well, yeah, it's the implementation at fault, but if I grab my American 110V laptop to Europe, it will not be a viable solution unless I find a converter, you know, even if my laptop is in perfect condition. Here, the author claims that involment at all levels (which ensures it's long-term functionality) is necessary for this technology to have a shot.

And "previous" in A is way off. These "difficulties" still exist and will exist.... unless E. :P

I don't get it :cry:

Atlas LSAT Brian
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:12 pm

Re: PT 41

Postby Atlas LSAT Brian » Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:55 pm

Actually, "previous" is not off at all. :) Brazil, 1992. Solar was unable to implemented. That's a difficulty, and it occurred in the past. No evidence whatsoever is given that those same, very specific "difficulties" (project directors rejecting high bids) will continue.

As for the part about "involvement" that you quoted... The author says, in the context of the Danish wind-turbine example, that because the Danish recognized the importance of local involvement at all levels, the wind-turbine project has a good chance... The author does not claim this "involvement" is "necessary," as you said, just that it helped in this case. There's a difference, I think.

I think you're not thinking about this in the proper way. It's basically an inference question, which means you really need to be able to prove an answer choice with information from the passage.

(E) "Until the long-term functioning of these systems is demonstrated..."

There is no proof that the author believes that solar systems have not demonstrated long-term functioning.

Furthermore, look at lines 19-21. Long-term exploitation of renewables isn't always successful. This implies that sometimes it is.

User avatar
TheLuckyOne
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:00 pm

Re: PT 41

Postby TheLuckyOne » Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:05 pm

Atlas LSAT Brian wrote:Actually, "previous" is not off at all. :) Brazil, 1992. Solar was unable to implemented. That's a difficulty, and it occurred in the past. No evidence whatsoever is given that those same, very specific "difficulties" (project directors rejecting high bids) will continue.

As for the part about "involvement" that you quoted... The author says, in the context of the Danish wind-turbine example, that because the Danish recognized the importance of local involvement at all levels, the wind-turbine project has a good chance... The author does not tie this idea to long-term functioning, nor does the author say this "involvement" is "necessary" for such.

I think you're not thinking about this in the proper way. It's basically an inference question, which means you really need to be able to prove an answer choice with information from the passage.

(E) "Until the long-term functioning of these systems is demonstrated..."

There is no proof that the author believes that solar systems have not demonstrated long-term functioning?


Ahem.. ok. Line 35-45: talks about shortsightedness of Brazilians and, hence, a failure. Line 58-62: because they avoided that mistake in lines 35-45, implementation was successful.

I'm definitely missing something in my reasoning, the questions is what? I just don't consider shortsightedness and stupidity, a difficulty. Actually, even if we classify it as "difficulty", this difficulty was present at a later project as well - Indian/Danish. It's the "despite previous difficulties" that is throwing me off + I can't find as good of a reason to eliminate E as I've found to eliminate A :?

User avatar
TheLuckyOne
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:00 pm

Re: PT 41

Postby TheLuckyOne » Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:23 pm

I think it's just clicked!!!!

The problem is with "demonstrated". It WAS demostrated and, hence, proven viable, now it's the problem with whether we apply that knowledge, and that's where A comes into play. Since before we were assholes and didn't really know how it works, we couldn't get it work, then we figured the way out and can be certain that if we follow it, everyhthing will be perfect.

Thank you do much!!! :mrgreen:

BTW, I still don't like the wording in A... :wink:
You know, I still think E is quite tricky. If we think globally it's incorrect, however, if we apply it to any given FUTURE case, the author would agree. Sort of like, if I want to start using solar energy, I've got to prove that I've met all the necessary requirements for it's successful functioning, in other words, that I've proven it's long-term functioning, if I want to consider it viable.

Horrible question!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bearedman8, bns212, cherrygalore, dg1090, eageragnostic, laqueredup, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 16 guests