PT 32 Section 1 (LR) #11, 15

innocent_se
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 7:01 pm

PT 32 Section 1 (LR) #11, 15

Postby innocent_se » Thu May 06, 2010 9:16 pm

Why can't #11 be d?
Why can't #15 be e?

User avatar
matt@atlaslsat
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: PT 32 Section 1 (LR) #11, 15

Postby matt@atlaslsat » Fri May 07, 2010 12:57 am

#11
This question asks us to infer what must be true based on the information in the stimulus. There are three claims being made here.

1. Some presidents and prime ministers who had very successful foreign policies had no prior experience.
2. Anyone with an acute political sense, a disciplined temperament, and a highly developed ability to absorb and retain information can learn to conduct a successful foreign policy.
3. Prior experience is of little value to conducting a successful foreign policy.

(A) is not necessarily true. We do not know who has more experience. No comparison is made in the stimulus.
(B) must be true. We know that prior experience is not a sufficient condition for conducting a successful foreign policy from the last sentence, and we know that it's not a necessary condition from the first sentence.
(C) is contradicted by the stimulus. We know that prior experience is NOT a necessary condition for conducting a successful foreign policy.
(D) has two issues. The word "anyone" in the second claim ensures that those three elements are collectively sufficient. This answer choice states that they are individually necessary.
(E) is not supported by the stimulus. The first sentence says that prior experience is not necessary, the last that prior experience is not sufficient for conducting a successful foreign policy. It wouldn't make sense then that we should be able to say that a president who has more experience would thereby have more success.

#15
The conclusion of the argument is that "seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature due to global warming eventually result in declines in fish and seabird populations."

The evidence for this is that a rise in temperature restricts the upwelling that brings phytoplankton to zooplankton. and that zooplankton is the source of food for the rest of the food chain.

We are asked to describe the role of the claim that zooplankton feed upon phytoplankton. This is evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument.

(A) misrepresents the role of the claim. The claim is evidence, whereas, this answer choice suggests that it serves as a conclusion - either intermediary or primary. But the claim from the question stem is not supported by any other claim in the argument.
(B) is not quite accurate. It is not an example of how vertical mixing of seawater affects feeding habits. For this answer choice to be correct, the claim from the question stem would need to be about a change in behavior of feeding habits based on differences in the vertical mixing of seawater.
(C) is correct. The claim does help support the conclusion of the argument, and the conclusion of the argument is that changes in sea temperature can affect larger sea animals.
(D) is way off track. This would require the additional assumption that the author actually wants us to take measures against global warming. This feeds off of our everyday common sense. Sure we want to curtail global warming, but that is not ever mentioned in the argument.
(E) is close but stretches it a bit too far when it says that "global warming poses a threat to all animals." We know this is true because zooplankton feed the rest of the food chain. But the conclusion of the argument is strictly about fish and seabird populations.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bigv, dontsaywhatyoumean, Lahtso Nuggin, Lawl_Schoolz, Pozzo, VMars and 10 guests