PT 52 LR 1 # 17 HELP

honestabe84
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:47 pm

PT 52 LR 1 # 17 HELP

Postby honestabe84 » Sat Apr 24, 2010 5:52 pm

I got this question right only because the other four answers were clearly wrong. However, I still don't know exactly why "e" is right. Could someone please explain. Thank you.

TLS1776
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 3:23 am

Re: PT 52 LR 1 # 17 HELP

Postby TLS1776 » Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:40 pm

The trick to this question is understanding that the behavior described in the second sentence is equivalent to appearing prudent.

So:

Conclusion: It is imprudent to appear prudent. In other words, if you appear prudent, then you are being imprudent. AP-->IMP

How "E" helps you get that conclusion:
1. Start off with the "if" in the conclusion (aka the antecedent): You appear prudent.
2. This is the same as doing the behavior in the second sentence (forming opinions of others only after...etc.).
3. From the second sentence, you know that this will make you generally resented.
4. From "E", you know that if you cause people to resent you, then you are being imprudent. And voila, you have the "then" part of the conclusion (aka the consequent).

honestabe84
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:47 pm

Re: PT 52 LR 1 # 17 HELP

Postby honestabe84 » Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:50 pm

TLS1776 wrote:The trick to this question is understanding that the behavior described in the second sentence is equivalent to appearing prudent.

So:

Conclusion: It is imprudent to appear prudent. In other words, if you appear prudent, then you are being imprudent. AP-->IMP

How "E" helps you get that conclusion:
1. Start off with the "if" in the conclusion (aka the antecedent): You appear prudent.
2. This is the same as doing the behavior in the second sentence (forming opinions of others only after...etc.).
3. From the second sentence, you know that this will make you generally resented.
4. From "E", you know that if you cause people to resent you, then you are being imprudent. And voila, you have the "then" part of the conclusion (aka the consequent).



Edit: Actually, will you please tell me if I'm understanding this right.

Basically, the second sentence is saying that if you're prudent then you're resented (P--->R)
The conclusion then says that if you're prudent then you're imprudent (P---->I)

So there is a clear gap and the author fills it in by should that P--->R---->I.

Is that right?

TLS1776
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 3:23 am

Re: PT 52 LR 1 # 17 HELP

Postby TLS1776 » Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:19 pm

Yep, that's right. I'd only advise you to be careful to keep things as detailed as you can: to appear prudent is not the same thing as to be prudent. The LSAT will very often try to trip you up with subtle distinctions like that (although it isn't an issue in this question).

honestabe84
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:47 pm

Re: PT 52 LR 1 # 17 HELP

Postby honestabe84 » Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:29 pm

TLS1776 wrote:Yep, that's right. I'd only advise you to be careful to keep things as detailed as you can: to appear prudent is not the same thing as to be prudent. The LSAT will very often try to trip you up with subtle distinctions like that (although it isn't an issue in this question).


Yeah, I know. I was just trying to quickly explain it quickly.

Anyway, thank you for the thorough explanation in your initial post. I appreciate it.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests