Pt 23, LR

User avatar
robotdreams
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:30 pm

Pt 23, LR

Postby robotdreams » Sat May 22, 2010 11:09 am

I have hit a freaking huge road block and cannot figure out why some of the answers are right, so help would be really appreciated!

Sec 2,
#18- Correct answer (b), I don't see why answer (a) would not be correct. If the number of violent shows are low it would correlate with the low homicide rates?

Sec 3,
#14- Correct answer (d), okay in general I hate these types of question, I often get them wrong :( I chose (b) since any tax reduction that would force the library to discontinue stroy hours would cause parents inconvenience

#25- correct answer (c), I can't even figure a way to approach a question like this. Would diagramming be of any help, the values and relations out?

Any help please. I feel like ramming my head against the table :?

User avatar
alphagamma
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:16 pm

Re: Pt 23, LR

Postby alphagamma » Sat May 22, 2010 12:25 pm

Sec 2, #18 - Okay, the question asks which answer most supports the argument. You could say that A supports the argument by building a stronger correlation between violence and violent TV, but B goes one step further by proving that violent TV is a cause of violence, not an effect. In other words, answer A could be taken either way. Places with low violence could be that way because they have less violent TV, but they could also have less violent TV because they have low violence. Answer B gets rid of that uncertainty.

Sec 3, #14 - This question says that the tax reduction package will cut story hours, which will inconvenience parents. Therefore, it will not be adopted. But why won't it be adopted? Because it would inconvenience parents, you say? But the argument doesn't say that, does it? So that's probably the assumption answer. And, in fact, D says just that (that no tax plan will be adopted if it inconveniences parents). B is wrong because it is not an assumption required by the argument. The argument already states that cutting story hours will inconvenience children.

Sec 3, #25 - Yeah, this question is written to confuse. But it's only asking for the conclusion. So even if everything sounds convoluted, if you can pinpoint the conclusion, then nothing else matters. Paraphrasing might help in this case. What is the argument trying to prove? It says that the end of an action is the intended outcome, not the byproducts. It then says that some ends are not good enough, etc., but nothing besides an end will justify the action. The last part is the conclusion. It's what the whole argument is working up to. C restates the conclusion in slightly different terms, so it's correct.

User avatar
robotdreams
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:30 pm

Re: Pt 23, LR

Postby robotdreams » Sat May 22, 2010 8:33 pm

ahh okay that makes sense XD
And now I see where I'm going wrong with the questions like the second one.
Thanks so much for the help alphagamma :D




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BobBoblaw, cianchetta0, Instrumental and 7 guests