PT9 S2 Q12, PT9 S4 Q17

Shrimps
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:04 pm

PT9 S2 Q12, PT9 S4 Q17

Postby Shrimps » Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:45 pm

PT9 S2 Q12

I got this one right, since the choices (B)-(E) were just a wee bit TOO wrong/irrelevant, but (A) is also WRONG. "Potential dog owners who want to reduce the risk of costly medical bills" would still be advised to choose non-purebred dogs even if most genetically predetermined diseases did not affect a dog's general well-being.

I hate it when all the answer choices are wrong and you have to choose the least wrong one.

PT9 S4 Q17

I hate some of the LSAC wankers who make up such idiotic questions. There's logic neither in the accusation nor in the "support" offered.

Just venting..

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

Re: PT9 S2 Q12, PT9 S4 Q17

Postby Atlas LSAT Brian » Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:05 am

I don't think (A) is wrong. It's not the kind of answer one can predict after reading the argument, but that's what I've come to expect on weaken/strengthen questions - the correct answer is often a new piece of information that, at first, seems unrelated to the argument.

If most genetic diseases do not affect WELL-BEING, as (A) states, it most certainly weakens the conclusion that "to reduce risk of costly medical bills, potential dog owners would be well-advised to choose non-purebred dogs." If the diseases don't affect the dogs well-being, then there is considerably less "risk" involved.

That conclusion is based entirely on the premise that the "genetic abnormalities" can be corrected with expensive surgery. Well, if the abnormality does not affect the dogs well-being, then the surgery isn't necessary, is it? That's enough to weaken the conclusion.

As for the rest, I agree.
(B) non-genetic diseases -- irrelevant
(C) life span -- irrelevant
(D) price -- irrelevant
(E) offspring -- irrelevant

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

Re: PT9 S2 Q12, PT9 S4 Q17

Postby Atlas LSAT Brian » Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:12 am

As for your second question, I think it's rather straightforward, actually.

G says the exhibition was biased in favor of photographers.

(B) says the entry fee for photographs was 1/3 that of the other media.

That's a pretty clear-cut bias, isn't it?

Shrimps
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:04 pm

Re: PT9 S2 Q12, PT9 S4 Q17

Postby Shrimps » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:20 am

Well, the word "bias", in the way used, implies lack of objectivity, prejudice. There could be thoroughly objective reasons why photographs require a smaller fee to process - sculpture and paintings are bulkier, must he handled with far more care than photographs, etc. which adds to the cost of their processing, evaluation, installation. Making photographers subsidize the installation costs of the other artwork by making the fees equal would strike some as unfair.

I see no proof of bias in the evidence presented. The author of the question apparently did. That threw me off.

As for the first question, the claim was "to reduce risk of costly medical bills". The good news that the risk may be smaller than the author thought in no way affects the validity of his advice: one would still reduce the risk of costly medical bills by choosing a non-purebred.. I still think it's the instance of a "least wrong" question, despite the prep materials' preaching that there are no "least wrong" questions on the LSAT.

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

Re: PT9 S2 Q12, PT9 S4 Q17

Postby Atlas LSAT Brian » Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:44 am

Regarding the "purebred dog" question, I disagree with you.

The author's conclusion is entirely based on the idea that there is a risk of costly medical bills involving purebred dogs because they have genetic issues that sometimes need expensive surgeries.

By saying that those genetic issues don't affect the WELL-BEING of the dog, that conclusion is weakened. If (A) is true, then most of the time the surgery isn't necessary for well-being, so the conclusion now carries less force - considering only the evidence presented in the argument (which it's your job to do), we now have much less reason to believe that there is any greater risk of medical costs in owning a purebred dog.

Does (A) make the author look like an imbecile? No. Does it make the author's conclusion absolutely stupid? No.

Does it weaken it? Yes. It's not the "least wrong" answer at all. It's the most right! :)

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

Re: PT9 S2 Q12, PT9 S4 Q17

Postby Atlas LSAT Brian » Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:51 am

Regarding S4 Q17 -

Your task is to choose the answer that "most strongly supports" G's contention that the exhibit is biased toward photographers, not the answer that "provides impeccable and perfect evidence that the G is correct."

Different entry fees is an objective difference in the treatment of the various media, regardless of whether or not there are good reasons for it. The other 4 choices don't even come close to describing a difference in the selection criteria.

Therefore, (B) "most strongly supports."

Shrimps
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:04 pm

Re: PT9 S2 Q12, PT9 S4 Q17

Postby Shrimps » Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:04 pm

Thanks for the replies. Forget about the purebred dogs: at least I got this one correct.

As for the bias question, I, of course, agree with you. I'm just whining about my inability to deal with this question (and many other questions like this) on their own term. I attack what I think are weaknesses in reasoning that are perfectly beyond the scope of the question and then, obviously, am at a loss when I'm unable to find the answer choice that suits my own objections.

I dismissed out of hand as evidence of bias that the author could mention the 3-fold difference between the photography and sculpture/painting fees because I thought I could come up with a very reasonable, unbiased explanation why photography fees could be lower. It's this rejection of what in retrospect is the only obvious answer that the author himself could have given is just grating.

This inability to deal with questions and the arguments/reasoning/answer choices on their own terms is by far the biggest reason I haven't had two clean LR sections in a row yet (my combined LR+LR average on the last 10 tests was around -4, I suppose - with, and that's most annoying, no correlation between the graded difficulty of the questions and my own mistakes).

Any insights on how to be more open-minded when approaching LR questions and stop inserting my own irrelevant objections into my analysis? :)




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests