PT 3. Section2. Question 3. Question posted in thread.

stl
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:34 am

PT 3. Section2. Question 3. Question posted in thread.

Postby stl » Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:02 pm

Would someone please critique my reasoning for the problem below. Not sure if I am missing something or totally approaching the problem incorrectly. Thanks.

Question: In Europe, schoolchildren devote time during each school day to calisthenics. North American schools rarely offer a daily calisthenics program. Tests prove that North American children are weaker, slower, and shorter winded than European children. We must conclude that North American children can be made physically fit only if they participate in school calisthenics on a daily basis.

Which one of the following is assumed by the passage?

Correct Answer: School calisthenics are an indispensible factor in European children’s superior physical fitness.

My reasoning: If you deny the correct answer, they would not need to participate in school calisthenics on a daily basis because its not the main reason for European children’s physical fitness. This would allow the sufficient condition to occur without the necessary condition. This cannot happen with conditional reasoning, showing that the necessary condition is in fact necessary for the conditional statement.

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

Re: PT 3. Section2. Question 3. Question posted in thread.

Postby Atlas LSAT Teacher » Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:17 am

Looks like you've got it.

If we do assume it, then we've got:

fit --> daily cal.

Without it, we just have two facts about schoolchildren, and we're not sure which causes which, or if there's any relationship at all. As for your explanation, the only thing I'd say is that there's no established conditional logic about the European kids, so the answer provides it -- it's not so much that it supports it.

On another note, I think it's easy to predict that the answer will be something like: There's no other way North American kids can become healthy. But, once again the LSAT defies prediction.\

Good luck!

User avatar
theZeigs
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:26 pm

Re: PT 3. Section2. Question 3. Question posted in thread.

Postby theZeigs » Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:43 pm

Out of curiosity, what were the other ACs?

I prephrased a different answer: Assumes that North American schoolchildren did not do calisthenics because it was not offered by their school. Also assumes that calisthenics are the only way for schoolchildren to get fit.

Thanks in advance...

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

Re: PT 3. Section2. Question 3. Question posted in thread.

Postby Atlas LSAT Teacher » Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:06 pm

I'm not sure what ACs' stand for. assumptive considerations? :)

Your second prephrase is similar to what the OP put as the correct answer.

The first one is not an assumption. It's irrelevant WHY U.S. kids don't do calisthenics. Look at this:

Butchers in Riverdale use rubber gloves. In Riverdale, there are no cases of meat poisoning. In Yonkers, butchers don't use rubber gloves, and there have been cases of food poisoning. So, the only way for the Yonkers butchers to reduce meat poisoning is by wearing rubber gloves.

Your assumption (about why the kids don't do calisthenics), would be like saying that an assumption of this argument is that the Yonkers butchers didn't use gloves because they are allergic to rubber.

If I can play the teacher for a sec: what would the analogous assumption for this argument be (vis-a-vis the question we were originally discussing)?

User avatar
theZeigs
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:26 pm

Re: PT 3. Section2. Question 3. Question posted in thread.

Postby theZeigs » Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:34 pm

Sorry, AC = answer choice. Not widely used on this site, I use it in my notes a lot and take it for granted, my b.

I think your analogy is a little off, let me rephrase it:

Butchers in Riverdale use rubber gloves sold by ABC Inc. In Riverdale, there are no cases of meat poisoning. In Yonkers, butchers don't use rubber gloves, and there have been cases of food poisoning. So, the only way for the Yonkers butchers to reduce meat poisoning is by wearing rubber gloves sold by ABC Inc.

This is the same kind of assumption as:

"In Europe, schoolchildren devote time during each school day to calisthenics. North American schools rarely offer a daily calisthenics program. Tests prove that North American children are weaker, slower, and shorter winded than European children. We must conclude that North American children can be made physically fit only if they participate in school calisthenics on a daily basis."


So perhaps North American children can be made fit by participating in e.g. extracurricular calisthenics (is the logical opposite of a school program an extracurricular program? haha if so then it would have to be extracurricular). What I'm saying is that there are two assumptions, a) that the calisthenics program is necessary and b) that an in-school (whatever) program is necessary. Which is why I was curious if (b) was one of the responses, because that would be crazy confusing.

Maybe this clears it up?

stl
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:34 am

Re: PT 3. Section2. Question 3. Question posted in thread.

Postby stl » Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:54 pm

I will post the other answer choices later tonight when I have them handy. Thanks for the insights!

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

Re: PT 3. Section2. Question 3. Question posted in thread.

Postby Atlas LSAT Teacher » Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:55 pm

Close reading! Maybe the rubber in rubber gloves serves that purpose.

User avatar
theZeigs
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:26 pm

Re: PT 3. Section2. Question 3. Question posted in thread.

Postby theZeigs » Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:40 pm

Atlas LSAT Teacher wrote:Close reading! Maybe the rubber in rubber gloves serves that purpose.


Nice, I like that. So two assumptions are a) you have to wear gloves and b) gloves have to be rubber.

I grouped "rubber gloves" as a single object, but obv. the gloves could be nitrile, plastic, etc.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, addie1412 and 7 guests