Can anyone explain PT 59 LR2 #19 and #22 (Section 3)

User avatar
Philipsssssss
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:57 pm

Can anyone explain PT 59 LR2 #19 and #22 (Section 3)

Postby Philipsssssss » Sat Jun 05, 2010 8:41 pm

Can anyone explain PT 59 LR2 #19 and #22 (Section 3)

Any input will be appreciated.

Thanks.

User avatar
Atlas LSAT Teacher
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 10:18 am

Re: Can anyone explain PT 59 LR2 #19 and #22 (Section 3)

Postby Atlas LSAT Teacher » Sat Jun 05, 2010 8:50 pm

Those are both explained here: http://www.atlaslsat.com/forums/preptes ... -f139.html Hope that's helpful.

User avatar
zworykin
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 4:18 am

Re: Can anyone explain PT 59 LR2 #19 and #22 (Section 3)

Postby zworykin » Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:09 pm

59.3.19)

If understanding a word = knowing definition, understanding word = understanding all the words in its definition. But some people say words without knowing their definitions.

Logically, then:


Remember here that the passage starts with an "If," because that's very important. It doesn't have to be true!

A) Babies could understand their words if the conditional sentence is false. No.
B) People could not understand words without knowing the definitions if the conditional is true. No.
C) Babies could be saying things without understanding them, regardless of the conditional in the stimulus or in the answer choice. This answer choice makes the unjustified assumption that saying a word = understanding it. No.
D) This isn't necessarily the case. Just because you can understand a word without knowing its dictionary definition doesn't mean you can understand it without knowing any other words. This option takes away the iron-clad requirement to know specific other words, but doesn't imply that you don't have to know any words. No.
E) All babies say things they don't know the definition of, per the stimulus. If any baby understand all the words he/she says, then the conditional in the stimulus has to be false--which is what this answer says. So, yes.



5.3.22)

The stimulus goes astray in the first sentence where it says that if you agree to something you're obligated to do it, and therefore if you're obligated to do something you must have agreed to do it. This is clearly flawed in that you could be obligated to do something without ever having agreed to it, for instance because you were convicted and sentenced to jail time despite pleading innocent.

Answer D gets right to this flaw--it says that it treats a condition that's sufficient to make something an obligation (i.e. agreeing to do it) as also a requirement for something to be an obligation. In other words, it treats agreement as not only a sufficient condition to create an obligation, but also a necessary one. If agreement is a necessary condition for something to be an obligation, then obligation would in fact imply agreement, as the stimulus mistakenly assumed.

The second part of D is a bit more complicated in that you have to look at it in the light of the first half. So we have the assumption that agreement is a necessary condition for obligation. The stimulus says "calling it a legal obligation is the same as saying one has to fulfill his agreement to do it." "The same as" is the key here. Saying one has to fulfill his agreement, in light of the assumption that agreement is necessary and sufficient for obligation, is saying one has an obligation. Saying one has a legal obligation, then, is "the same as" saying one has an obligation. Thus, all obligations are legal obligations, because saying one is "the same as" saying the other.


To be honest, I just figured out the second part right now. I had even started to type out how I thought the second half was crap when it finally hit me.

User avatar
Philipsssssss
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:57 pm

Re: Can anyone explain PT 59 LR2 #19 and #22 (Section 3)

Postby Philipsssssss » Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:13 pm

Thanks for the above 2 posts!

:D




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baby Gaga, bearedman8, BOSStongrl, cherrygalore, circle.the.wagons, Devblev, dj9i27, Google [Bot], grades??, Instrumental, Micdiddy, potus, shotgunheist, smile0751, Smortensen, ughhhh and 40 guests