PT 28 Sec 3 Q 17

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18414
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

PT 28 Sec 3 Q 17

Postby bk1 » Sat May 15, 2010 2:09 am

I narrowed it to A and B. B is the right answer but it seems to assume that after 10 years the reporters are no longer gaining valuable training through their assignments. I do not see why this should be assumed, it could be possible they are still getting valuable training.

Mainly I feel this question has no valid answer because the assumption leap for B is not justified.

uchicago
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: PT 28 Sec 3 Q 17

Postby uchicago » Thu May 27, 2010 6:17 pm

hi..

i narrow down between b and c, and i chose C in this problem, i think it is can be justified if the newspaper no longer generate profits, so they would say the traning is good...

can anyone explain why c is wrong and b is right?

User avatar
odoylerules
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 9:34 am

Re: PT 28 Sec 3 Q 17

Postby odoylerules » Fri Aug 20, 2010 3:08 am

10 years is way too long for training to still be valuable... I think that is a reasonable assumption. Would you still be working at the same place, for a lower salary, because you are still receiving valuable training?? So B is right.

C is wrong because it doesn't respond to the executive's justification, which argues that the employees are paid less because they receive valuable training. That the circulation has reached a plateau in no way undermines the justification offered.

Now... can anyone can explain Q12 in the same test and section, about roaches and vexone? I'm at a loss...

User avatar
Nulli Secundus
Posts: 2625
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:19 am

Re: PT 28 Sec 3 Q 17

Postby Nulli Secundus » Fri Aug 20, 2010 3:50 am

odoylerules wrote:10 years is way too long for training to still be valuable... I think that is a reasonable assumption. Would you still be working at the same place, for a lower salary, because you are still receiving valuable training?? So B is right.

C is wrong because it doesn't respond to the executive's justification, which argues that the employees are paid less because they receive valuable training. That the circulation has reached a plateau in no way undermines the justification offered.

Now... can anyone can explain Q12 in the same test and section, about roaches and vexone? I'm at a loss...


Um, that was kinda easy.

A,B,D,E - All say the same thing, vexone is not effective against all types of cockroaches that infest North America.

A - Only two species vs more than 4000.
B - Not all of major species vs every.
D - Not including every vs every.
E - Exactly 4000 vs more than 4000.

While C says every species can be controlled, hence the right answer.

User avatar
odoylerules
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 9:34 am

Re: PT 28 Sec 3 Q 17

Postby odoylerules » Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:26 am

I'm not sure why this question is giving me such a hard time, and while I can see that C clearly says states something different than the others, I can't figure out how some of the other answers exactly conflict with the letter writer.

B talks about Roach Ender, and not vexone. Just because Roach Ender contains vexone, why does that mean that it will be as effective as other uses of vexone?
E says Roach Ender was tested against 4000 species. Why couldn't it? All it says is that studies have shown that vexone was effective against all N. American cockroaches, not how many species Roach Ender was tested against.

Basically, why does Roach Ender = Vexone?

User avatar
Nulli Secundus
Posts: 2625
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:19 am

Re: PT 28 Sec 3 Q 17

Postby Nulli Secundus » Fri Aug 20, 2010 8:19 am

Think of it like a drug, there is an active chemical but many pharmaceutical companies sell it under different brands by patenting minimally different versions. Roach Ender is this firm's manufacture, which has in it, as the active ingredient, vexone. So just like how you cannot say "Why would a drug containing penicillin kill germs, it is not penicillin, it is a drug", you cannot say Roach Ender, in fact, does not end roaches. HTH. (Unless you can provide evidence that Roach Ender's other ingredients decrease the effectiveness of vexone, which you cannot -not with the data at hand-, for all intents and purposes Roach Ender = Vexone)

User avatar
AverageTutoring
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:18 pm

Re: PT 28 Sec 3 Q 17

Postby AverageTutoring » Fri Aug 20, 2010 9:58 am

My approach for Qs 12 and 17

Question 12

Notes: We can infer that vexone is effective against more then 4,000 cockroaches.

Answers:

(A) This is in direct conflict with our noted inference.

(B) Vexone is effective against more then 4,000 cockroaches (all North American species) and Roach Ender contains vexone. Therefore, the statement that Roach Ender is not effective against many North American species of cockroach is in direct conflict with the letter.

(C) Not only is this not in conflict, this answer choice is repeating exactly what the 3rd sentence of the stimulus says: vexone is effective against every type of cockroach in North America.

(D) If the studies of Roach Ender confirm that vexone is effective against more then 4000 species of cockroach (which includes every North American species of cockroach) it must be because that Roach Ender was tested against every cockroach species in North America (more then 4000).

(E) If the studies of Roach Ender confirm that vexone is effective against more then 4000 species of cockroach it must be because that Roach Ender was tested against more then 4000 species of cockroach.

Question 17

Executive’s Conclusion: The lower salaries are justified since reporters are compensated by the valuable training they receive.

Notes:Let us note that we don't know if the training received by reporters is supposed to offset lower compensation by being intrinsically valuable or by giving the reporters skills that will result in higher paying jobs in the future. Oddly enough, if you consider both scenarios, the same thing must happen.

Scenario 1:

If the training received by reporters at the executive’s newspaper is to offset lower financial compensation in a financial sense, it must be true that the training will help reporters garner higher paying jobs in future.

However, in order for this to be true reporters must eventually move on from the executive’s newspaper to other jobs. Or else the training will be of no financial benefit.

Scenario 2:

If the training received by reporters at the executive’s newspaper is to offset lower financial compensation in a non-financial sense, the reporters will eventually have to leave the company. That is, there is only so much "new" and intrinsically valuable training that one can receive after being with a company for so long; at a certain point (oh..i dont know, say 10 years?) the training would start to become not so new and not so valuable.

In order for the reporters to receive value from their training they must eventually move on from the executive's newspaper.

Answers:

(A) The argument says that “any shortfall that might exist” will make up for the difference in compensation. Thus, it is not inconsistent with the executive’s reasoning if some senior reporters are paid as much as their counterparts at other agencies because no such shortfall would exist.

(B) This absolutely undermines the executive’s reasoning. As we noted above, the training received through assignments is only financially/intrinsically beneficial to reporters if they go on to work at other newspapers/companies; however, if most of the newspaper’s reporters have worked their for 10 years then most of the newspaper’s reporters have not moved on to other newspapers/companies and are therefore, they are not receiving any financial/intrinsic benefit from their training.

(C) The popularity of the newspaper doesn’t speak to the salaries of reporters.

(D) The Union of the newspaper doesn’t speak to the salaries of reporters.

(E) The popularity of the newspaper doesn’t speak to the salaries of reporters.

petrovovitch@
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: PT 28 Sec 3 Q 17

Postby petrovovitch@ » Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:24 pm

q17

the argument is: training compensates employees for shortfall in wage.

flaw: eventually you're fully trained

a. almost irrelevant. if anything it would strengthen the executives position, though not his argument, because he could say that not all employees are poorly compensated.

b. if most people have worked for more than 10 years then most people will have already thoroughly absorbed as much training as was possible and after a certain point weren't benefiting from said training anymore. hence not being fully compensated.

c. if you believed that salary should be correlated with circulation i can imagine this being an excuse for why average reporter's salaries are low but that's beyond scope.

d. blame it on the union!

e. no clue? maybe you would pick this if you thought that since they're more widely syndicated they have higher expenses and are therefore justified in lower salaries?

q 12

i would say the only 2 possible choices are c and e and while there's nothing in the passage the precludes e from being right c is definitely right. i disagree with averagetutoring because we don't know that vexone's efficacy was confirmed by only the roach ender studies.

edit woops on a second reading it does that it was through the roach ender studies that they've confirmed vexone's efficacy. anyway c is ridiculously obvious.

User avatar
AverageTutoring
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:18 pm

Re: PT 28 Sec 3 Q 17

Postby AverageTutoring » Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:31 pm

petrovovitch@ wrote:q17

the argument is: training compensates employees for shortfall in wage.

flaw: eventually you're fully trained

a. almost irrelevant. if anything it would strengthen the executives position, though not his argument, because he could say that not all employees are poorly compensated.

b. if most people have worked for more than 10 years then most people will have already thoroughly absorbed as much training as was possible and after a certain point weren't benefiting from said training anymore. hence not being fully compensated.

c. if you believed that salary should be correlated with circulation i can imagine this being an excuse for why average reporter's salaries are low but that's beyond scope.

d. blame it on the union!

e. no clue? maybe you would pick this if you thought that since they're more widely syndicated they have higher expenses and are therefore justified in lower salaries?

q 12

i would say the only 2 possible choices are c and e and while there's nothing in the passage the precludes e from being right c is definitely right. i disagree with averagetutoring because we don't know that vexone's efficacy was confirmed by only the roach ender studies.

edit woops on a second reading it does that it was through the roach ender studies that they've confirmed vexone's efficacy. anyway c is ridiculously obvious.


That is correct. We don't know if vexone has been proven to be effective via studies that do not contain Roach Ender. We do know however, that vexone was confirmed to be effective against more then 4000 North American species of cockroaches via studies of Roach Ender.

The stimulus explicitly says that "in our testing of Roach Ender...we have conducted studies that prove this fact." The fact that the argument is refering to is that vexone is effective against more then 4000 North American species of cockroaches. So we definately know that the testing of Roach Ender by itself, proves that vexone is effective against more then 4000 North American species of cockroaches; which means it must have been tested on more then 4000 species.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bearedman8, Earlskies, Frump367, Greenteachurro, Kaziende, mrgstephe, Tazewell, ThatOneAfrican, theboringest and 13 guests