couple questions from PT58 section 4 (LR2)

User avatar
malfurion
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:40 pm

couple questions from PT58 section 4 (LR2)

Postby malfurion » Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:31 pm

9 - python question
I narrowed it down to A and B, initially was leaning towards A but then talked myself out of it and chose B. They both still seem valid to me. Since the passage says "a much greater proportion of African-hatched pythons have it", then how can B not be true? I talked myself out of A with the logic that "well, if the few NA pythons that had it already died, then A is not necessarily true". I know that's shaky, but I can't come up with any better reason for B to be false. If you reverse it and say "they are not more susceptible" then that violates the premise that a much greater proportion of them have it, right? I gotta be missing something obvious.

12 - art subsidizing question
I chose A, and got it right, because the other 4 choices were clearly wrong, but I wasn't happy with A either. The answer says "implicit" but it's not implicit, it's explicit, because Sahira says "artists ... have to produce work ... instead of their best work".

Soda Mixer
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: couple questions from PT58 section 4 (LR2)

Postby Soda Mixer » Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:37 pm

I don't have a satisfactory explanation for 12, but for 9, increased susceptibility to the disease is not the only plausible explanation for the fact that African snakes are more likely to get it. It could simply be that the disease is more prevalent in Africa than in North America.

nycparalegal
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:26 am

Re: couple questions from PT58 section 4 (LR2)

Postby nycparalegal » Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:42 pm

Question Nine is a Must be True question without an argument. It is a fact set.

Many (=some) pythons hatched in Africa are afflicted with a deadly liver disease.

A few (=some) phythons recently hatched in North America are afflicted with a deadly liver disease.

A greater portion of African-hatched pythons have this deadly liver disease.

All of the pythons with this deadly liver disease die within six months and it is difficult to detect in the early stages.

So, we can infer the following:

1. Some pythons hatched in Africa are afflicted with a deadly liver disease, will die within six months and it is difficult to detect in the early stages.

2. Some phythons recently hatched in North America are afflicted with a deadly liver disease, will die within six months and it is difficult to detect in the early stages.

A) Restates 2

B) We cannot infer this because we don't know anything about the susceptibility of the North American vs African. We just know a greater portion have it but you would have to take a leap from saying lots of African snakes have it more than US snakes to African snakes are more likely to get the disease than US snakes.

nycparalegal
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:26 am

Re: couple questions from PT58 section 4 (LR2)

Postby nycparalegal » Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:52 pm

12 is tricky but here I go:

Sahira stimulus begins with a conditional which is and I am a paraphrasing: If great artists want to make a living from their art, they are required to produce work that would gain widespread acclaim and not their best work.

Rahima states that here argument depends on the following claim : if you want widespread popular acclaim, you must produce something other than your best work.

Rahima closes a gap in Sahira's conditional statement. She then denies that this is true.

Which is why it is A.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: couple questions from PT58 section 4 (LR2)

Postby d34d9823 » Fri Jun 04, 2010 11:41 am

nycparalegal wrote:Question Nine is a Must be True question without an argument. It is a fact set.

Many (=some) pythons hatched in Africa are afflicted with a deadly liver disease.

A few (=some) phythons recently hatched in North America are afflicted with a deadly liver disease.

A greater portion of African-hatched pythons have this deadly liver disease.

All of the pythons with this deadly liver disease die within six months and it is difficult to detect in the early stages.

So, we can infer the following:

1. Some pythons hatched in Africa are afflicted with a deadly liver disease, will die within six months and it is difficult to detect in the early stages.

2. Some phythons recently hatched in North America are afflicted with a deadly liver disease, will die within six months and it is difficult to detect in the early stages.

A) Restates 2

B) We cannot infer this because we don't know anything about the susceptibility of the North American vs African. We just know a greater portion have it but you would have to take a leap from saying lots of African snakes have it more than US snakes to African snakes are more likely to get the disease than US snakes.

This. LSAC loves these questions that test your ability to distinguish whether a possible cause is the only possible cause. In this case, there are many other causes besides higher susceptibility that could cause a higher disease rate in the African pythons. A few that come to mind are: climate, typical habitat, existence of other carriers of the disease in their habitat, a higher pre-existing level of disease, etc.

afLSAT
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 10:42 pm

Re: couple questions from PT58 section 4 (LR2)

Postby afLSAT » Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:54 pm

I've got a few more questions for PT58 LR. If anyone could help, I'd appreciate it. Details below.

Thanks!

_____________________
LR1, #25:
I struggled with this one three or four times during review after getting it wrong during the PT.

How the hell should I set it up? I finally ended up with,

"Handmade Components --> Made-to-Measure --> Medium-to-Expensive Price Price Range --> Human Hair --> Dry-Clean."

That yielded me the right answer, but I still don't think I understand it. It seems to be a justify question based on conditional reasoning -- Am I totally confused?


______________________
LR2, #15:
How did you go about setting this one up? The first time I did it, I graphed

"High Degree Certainty --> Verify Human"

and I ended up getting it wrong. (Picked D, I think). Then I returned to it and started with,

"Verify Human ---> High Degree Cert"

and ended up getting it right. I don't really understand it, though. The stimulus seems to indicate that the former conditional would be correct, not the latter.

_______________________


LR2, #16:

I got this wrong at first, and then returned to review it, starting with the expression,

"Industrialists simply --> Oversimplification in Farming ---> Problems in farming."

This yielded me the right answer, but I only got there because I got it wrong in the first place. How did you approach this?


________________________

User avatar
Dany
Posts: 11580
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm

Re: couple questions from PT58 section 4 (LR2)

Postby Dany » Sun Jun 06, 2010 2:20 am

afLSAT wrote:LR1, #25:
I struggled with this one three or four times during review after getting it wrong during the PT.

How the hell should I set it up? I finally ended up with,

"Handmade Components --> Made-to-Measure --> Medium-to-Expensive Price Price Range --> Human Hair --> Dry-Clean."

That yielded me the right answer, but I still don't think I understand it. It seems to be a justify question based on conditional reasoning -- Am I totally confused?

Yep, it's conditional reasoning. The conclusion goes from made-to-measure to dry-cleaned, and the answer choice needs to close that gap. From the question, you have two separate logical chains:

made-to-measure ---> medium-to-expensive

and handmade foundation ---> human hair ---> dry-cleaned

And you need the answer choice which will connect the two (to make it all flow logically) and A is the only one which does this.

afLSAT wrote:LR2, #15:
How did you go about setting this one up? The first time I did it, I graphed

"High Degree Certainty --> Verify Human"

and I ended up getting it wrong. (Picked D, I think). Then I returned to it and started with,

"Verify Human ---> High Degree Cert"

and ended up getting it right. I don't really understand it, though. The stimulus seems to indicate that the former conditional would be correct, not the latter.

There's really no need to diagram this. The second sentence says "Human cognition alone CANNOT VERIFY comp. dependent proofs; such proofs can NEVER provide the degree of certainty that [we can get concerning simple arithmetical facts]" [bracketed is paraphrased.] Reworded, it essentially means we can never be sure these proofs are correct, simply because humans can't verify them, which is what (B) says.

afLSAT wrote:LR2, #16:

I got this wrong at first, and then returned to review it, starting with the expression,

"Industrialists simply --> Oversimplification in Farming ---> Problems in farming."

This yielded me the right answer, but I only got there because I got it wrong in the first place. How did you approach this?

Again, no need to diagram. It states that industrialists' methods lead to oversimplifying farming, which causes problems, so you should view farming problems with all their complexity since oversimplifying them makes matters worse.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think some of your problem is that you're spending too much time trying to diagram every problem, when simply reading closely then thinking for a second about what you just read really means will help you to choose the correct answer. Pure conditional reasoning statements, like the wig problem, can be diagrammed (although it's not necessary), but the last two aren't really suited for diagrams. Instead, you should be focusing on what implications the arguments have, and what their wording implies.

Good luck!

User avatar
Dany
Posts: 11580
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm

Re: couple questions from PT58 section 4 (LR2)

Postby Dany » Sun Jun 06, 2010 2:27 am

malfurion wrote:12 - art subsidizing question
I chose A, and got it right, because the other 4 choices were clearly wrong, but I wasn't happy with A either. The answer says "implicit" but it's not implicit, it's explicit, because Sahira says "artists ... have to produce work ... instead of their best work".

I thought that was odd wording, too; thank goodness the other four answers sucked. What I finally came up with is that there's sort of an implicit assumption that work that gains widespread popular acclaim cannot be an artist's best work. Rahima disputes this by saying that's not necessarily true.

afLSAT
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 10:42 pm

Re: couple questions from PT58 section 4 (LR2)

Postby afLSAT » Sun Jun 06, 2010 6:02 am

eskimo wrote:
afLSAT wrote:
I think some of your problem is that you're spending too much time trying to diagram every problem, when simply reading closely then thinking for a second about what you just read really means will help you to choose the correct answer. Pure conditional reasoning statements, like the wig problem, can be diagrammed (although it's not necessary), but the last two aren't really suited for diagrams. Instead, you should be focusing on what implications the arguments have, and what their wording implies.

Good luck!



You are 100% correct on that. . . My problem is that I wasn't able to start studying intensively until 3 weeks ago (wen I finished up classes for grad school). On my diagnostic and every subsequent test, I would blow the games, get -2 or 3 onr RC, and -1 to - 3 on each LR, usually ending up with a 166 or so.

Two weeks into studying, which consisted of taking PTs and drilling LG with slow improvement, I scored a 177 on PT 10 by getting something like -1 LR, -0 RC, and -6 on LG because of divine luck and good guessing. So I figured what I really oughta be doing is trying to master LR and get no more than -1, to hit my goal of 173 on test day.

So I've spent the last two days cramming the Powerscore LRB. Before the book I never diagrammed anything, but I figured that not diagramming the complicated questions is what was keeping me from scoring perfectly on those sections. Now I'm so exhausted from staying up all night studying for a week that I don't know my ass from my elbow, and I'm still stuck in the mid-high 160s. (Its 6 am and I just scored 166 on PT 57.)

I'm really hoping that taking tomorrow off (oops, now it's today) will somehow make all this nonsense congeal in my head so I can break 171 on monday . . . if not, I guess i'll just have to take again in the fall, but good lord, I'd like for this to be over . . .

Seeing as I am now drinking beer fast and hoping for encouragement, please don't hate me for crossposting this in te main thread about the June test, which I will attempt to do now.

Thanks again for tose explanations. You were right on target.

MissLucky
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:48 pm

Re: couple questions from PT58 section 4 (LR2)

Postby MissLucky » Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:11 pm

d34dluk3 wrote:
nycparalegal wrote:Question Nine is a Must be True question without an argument. It is a fact set.

Many (=some) pythons hatched in Africa are afflicted with a deadly liver disease.

A few (=some) phythons recently hatched in North America are afflicted with a deadly liver disease.

A greater portion of African-hatched pythons have this deadly liver disease.

All of the pythons with this deadly liver disease die within six months and it is difficult to detect in the early stages.

So, we can infer the following:

1. Some pythons hatched in Africa are afflicted with a deadly liver disease, will die within six months and it is difficult to detect in the early stages.

2. Some phythons recently hatched in North America are afflicted with a deadly liver disease, will die within six months and it is difficult to detect in the early stages.

A) Restates 2

B) We cannot infer this because we don't know anything about the susceptibility of the North American vs African. We just know a greater portion have it but you would have to take a leap from saying lots of African snakes have it more than US snakes to African snakes are more likely to get the disease than US snakes.

This. LSAC loves these questions that test your ability to distinguish whether a possible cause is the only possible cause. In this case, there are many other causes besides higher susceptibility that could cause a higher disease rate in the African pythons. A few that come to mind are: climate, typical habitat, existence of other carriers of the disease in their habitat, a higher pre-existing level of disease, etc.


this may end up coming down to definitions of "susceptibility"...but in my mind, by definition, even if the pythons in Africa are not born with some predetermined, innate attraction to the disease, being IN africa, IN an environment that we know for a fact has a greater proportion of pythons with the disease, whatever the cause may be (whether climate, habitat, etc.,), makes the pythons in Africa BY definition more susceptible - by virtue of BEING in Africa, the pythons are more exposed to whatever causal factors might be producing a larger proportion of diseased pythons and thereby, the pythons in africa are by definition more susceptible than pythons in North America...right?

that was horribly worded, if you don't understand i can try and clarify further...

thanks!

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: couple questions from PT58 section 4 (LR2)

Postby d34d9823 » Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:19 pm

MissLucky wrote:this may end up coming down to definitions of "susceptibility"...but in my mind, by definition, even if the pythons in Africa are not born with some predetermined, innate attraction to the disease, being IN africa, IN an environment that we know for a fact has a greater proportion of pythons with the disease, whatever the cause may be (whether climate, habitat, etc.,), makes the pythons in Africa BY definition more susceptible - by virtue of BEING in Africa, the pythons are more exposed to whatever causal factors might be producing a larger proportion of diseased pythons and thereby, the pythons in africa are by definition more susceptible than pythons in North America...right?

that was horribly worded, if you don't understand i can try and clarify further...

thanks!

That's not what susceptible means though. It strictly refers to innate vulnerability to something.

Also, since we can't post the real question, who knows what it said in the first place (I seem to have lost my copy of that test).

loptimist
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:24 am

Re: couple questions from PT58 section 4 (LR2)

Postby loptimist » Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:31 pm

MissLucky wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:
nycparalegal wrote:Question Nine is a Must be True question without an argument. It is a fact set.

Many (=some) pythons hatched in Africa are afflicted with a deadly liver disease.

A few (=some) phythons recently hatched in North America are afflicted with a deadly liver disease.

A greater portion of African-hatched pythons have this deadly liver disease.

All of the pythons with this deadly liver disease die within six months and it is difficult to detect in the early stages.

So, we can infer the following:

1. Some pythons hatched in Africa are afflicted with a deadly liver disease, will die within six months and it is difficult to detect in the early stages.

2. Some phythons recently hatched in North America are afflicted with a deadly liver disease, will die within six months and it is difficult to detect in the early stages.

A) Restates 2

B) We cannot infer this because we don't know anything about the susceptibility of the North American vs African. We just know a greater portion have it but you would have to take a leap from saying lots of African snakes have it more than US snakes to African snakes are more likely to get the disease than US snakes.

This. LSAC loves these questions that test your ability to distinguish whether a possible cause is the only possible cause. In this case, there are many other causes besides higher susceptibility that could cause a higher disease rate in the African pythons. A few that come to mind are: climate, typical habitat, existence of other carriers of the disease in their habitat, a higher pre-existing level of disease, etc.


this may end up coming down to definitions of "susceptibility"...but in my mind, by definition, even if the pythons in Africa are not born with some predetermined, innate attraction to the disease, being IN africa, IN an environment that we know for a fact has a greater proportion of pythons with the disease, whatever the cause may be (whether climate, habitat, etc.,), makes the pythons in Africa BY definition more susceptible - by virtue of BEING in Africa, the pythons are more exposed to whatever causal factors might be producing a larger proportion of diseased pythons and thereby, the pythons in africa are by definition more susceptible than pythons in North America...right?

that was horribly worded, if you don't understand i can try and clarify further...

thanks!



you do not know that pythons are more susceptible based on the stimulus given.

it is possible that the disease itself is more prevalent in africa so thus more pythons (with same or even better susceptibility) are afflicted with the disease.

and there is your assumption not warranted by the stimulus.

susceptibility is innate characteristic.

MissLucky
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:48 pm

Re: couple questions from PT58 section 4 (LR2)

Postby MissLucky » Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:50 pm

thanks SO much for the helpful response! with the knowledge that that is the real meaning of susceptibility, it's clear that B cannot be credited (and indeed it was my initial inkling that the term 'susceptibility' referred to something innate that led me to choose A instead) But when my paranoid self does a quick online dictionary look-up of the word 'susceptibility', all I really get is "liable to be afflicted by" or "yielding readily to" (and this definition could make B plausible) - nowhere does the dictionary suggest that susceptibility relates to something "innate" (it was a very brief entry). how did you just confidently know this? i'm still just finding it hard to very technically and strictly establish that susceptibility refers to sth "innate" and that therefore B is way off course.

thanks again!

loptimist
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:24 am

Re: couple questions from PT58 section 4 (LR2)

Postby loptimist » Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:56 pm

MissLucky wrote:thanks SO much for the helpful response! with the knowledge that that is the real meaning of susceptibility, it's clear that B cannot be credited (and indeed it was my initial inkling that the term 'susceptibility' referred to something innate that led me to choose A instead) But when my paranoid self does a quick online dictionary look-up of the word 'susceptibility', all I really get is "liable to be afflicted by" or "yielding readily to" (and this definition could make B plausible) - nowhere does the dictionary suggest that susceptibility relates to something "innate" (it was a very brief entry). how did you just confidently know this? i'm still just finding it hard to very technically and strictly establish that susceptibility refers to sth "innate" and that therefore B is way off course.

thanks again!



-ability

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: couple questions from PT58 section 4 (LR2)

Postby d34d9823 » Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:59 pm

Definition of SUSCEPTIBLE from Merriam-Webster

1: capable of submitting to an action, process, or operation <a theory susceptible to proof>
2: open, subject, or unresistant to some stimulus, influence, or agency <susceptible to pneumonia>
3: impressionable, responsive <a susceptible mind>

2 is the applicable meaning. As you can see, "susceptible" refers specifically to a lack of resistance to stimuli, not to the presence or absence of the stimuli.

loptimist
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:24 am

Re: couple questions from PT58 section 4 (LR2)

Postby loptimist » Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:03 pm

btw. you cannot generalize susceptibility of some to all.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tazewell, tuesdayninja and 5 guests