PT 59 Section 3 No. 3

mz253
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:18 pm

PT 59 Section 3 No. 3

Postby mz253 » Sun Jun 06, 2010 4:02 pm

I was choosing between A and C.

I crossed out C because I think they are comparing two different molecules. My uncerstanding is that for a specific molecule, say let's just name is A, it is more powerful to attract an additional oxygen if it has already attracted 3 compared to 1. but for two different molecules, i feel the comparison of attractiveness is not absolute.

However, C is the correct answer. i don't know why this is wrong with A. "probably?" i guess any molecule that has picked 3 oxygen is likely to pick up a 4th one, right?

Thanks!

also, in terms of frequency, can anyone help me explain the following in terms of "some" and "most" terminologies?
possible
likely
probably

mz253
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:18 pm

Re: PT 59 Section 3 No. 3

Postby mz253 » Sun Jun 06, 2010 5:20 pm

help help help.

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

Re: PT 59 Section 3 No. 3

Postby alphagamma » Sun Jun 06, 2010 6:13 pm

C is not talking about two different molecules. It's talking about the same hemoglobin molecules as the stimulus. Thus, C is the right answer.

A is incorrect because the stimulus says absolutely nothing about whether hemoglobin molecules are more likely to pick up additional oxygen molecules as they go--only that they are more effective at it.

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

Re: PT 59 Section 3 No. 3

Postby zworykin » Sun Jun 06, 2010 6:51 pm

The answer is clearly stated in sentence 2.

I crossed out C because I think they are comparing two different molecules. My uncerstanding is that for a specific molecule, say let's just name is A, it is more powerful to attract an additional oxygen if it has already attracted 3 compared to 1. but for two different molecules, i feel the comparison of attractiveness is not absolute.


I see what you've done here. Any two hemoglobin molecules are identical. There aren't some that are more effective than others regardless of how many molecules they've picked up; they're all equal.

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

Re: PT 59 Section 3 No. 3

Postby Philipsssssss » Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:40 pm

Here is my view:

PT 59 Section 3 No. 3

A) WRONG because THERE IS NO guarantee it WILL pick up a forth molecule. The paragraph never said H will pick up 1 2 3 and 4... just that it gets effective each time it DOES.

B) WRONG because "The only" ... Extreme... we have no such knowledge from the text

C) YES - 1>2>3>4 each time H picks up a molecule, it becomes more effective in it...So, of course and H3 is more effective then H1. Don't over-think about Hemog. and another Hemog. thinking they are "not comparable". All H's fall under the effectiveness rule.

D) We simply have no info to know such detail, we don't have a clue about H that didn't pick up ANY molecules.

E) Out of Scope!

mz253
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:18 pm

Re: PT 59 Section 3 No. 3

Postby mz253 » Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:46 pm

didn't A say "probably" will pick up a fourth element though?

Philipsssssss wrote:Here is my view:

PT 59 Section 3 No. 3

A) WRONG because THERE IS NO guarantee it WILL pick up a forth molecule. The paragraph never said H will pick up 1 2 3 and 4... just that it gets effective each time it DOES.

B) WRONG because "The only" ... Extreme... we have no such knowledge from the text

C) YES - 1>2>3>4 each time H picks up a molecule, it becomes more effective in it...So, of course and H3 is more effective then H1. Don't over-think about Hemog. and another Hemog. thinking they are "not comparable". All H's fall under the effectiveness rule.

D) We simply have no info to know such detail, we don't have a clue about H that didn't pick up ANY molecules.

E) Out of Scope!

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

Re: PT 59 Section 3 No. 3

Postby Philipsssssss » Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:51 pm

mz253 wrote:didn't A say "probably" will pick up a fourth element though?

Philipsssssss wrote:Here is my view:

PT 59 Section 3 No. 3

A) WRONG because THERE IS NO guarantee it WILL pick up a forth molecule. The paragraph never said H will pick up 1 2 3 and 4... just that it gets effective each time it DOES.

B) WRONG because "The only" ... Extreme... we have no such knowledge from the text

C) YES - 1>2>3>4 each time H picks up a molecule, it becomes more effective in it...So, of course and H3 is more effective then H1. Don't over-think about Hemog. and another Hemog. thinking they are "not comparable". All H's fall under the effectiveness rule.

D) We simply have no info to know such detail, we don't have a clue about H that didn't pick up ANY molecules.

E) Out of Scope!



Yes, BUT how do you know ... i mean, it is a MUST BE true question, i do not see anywhere any discussion about 'probabilities' this is a stretch.

If you read the paragraph closely, it is a SET OF FACTS...although 'probably' is a soft word...there is no place for it in this SET OF FACTS.

A) NOT necessarily true...it may be, maybe...maybe... (NOT GOOD ENOUGH)

C) Must be true, simply because it follows from the FACTS (No Argument)


You must decide between 2 choices, and never choose something that is out of scope...

We all make mistakes, but you must read this question again and see why 'probably', no matter how 'soft' it sounds, does;t follow.

mz253
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:18 pm

Re: PT 59 Section 3 No. 3

Postby mz253 » Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:56 pm

so in must be true question, everything with probabilistic is wrong?

it cannot be PROBABLY MUST BE TRUE?

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

Re: PT 59 Section 3 No. 3

Postby zworykin » Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:05 pm

Correct. There's no such thing as "probably must be true." Must, or must not; there is no probably.

mz253
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:18 pm

Re: PT 59 Section 3 No. 3

Postby mz253 » Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:10 pm

oh, sorry sorry. i guess i want to make it clear. so if an answer choice has "probably", it is definitely wrong?

or to make it easier for me to understand...

I am a citizen of Japan but I was probably born in Korea. So this cannot be a MUST BE TRUE? there's nothing must be true about I was "probably" born in korea?

zworykin wrote:Correct. There's no such thing as "probably must be true." Must, or must not; there is no probably.

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

Re: PT 59 Section 3 No. 3

Postby Philipsssssss » Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:11 pm

mz253 wrote:so in must be true question, everything with probabilistic is wrong?

it cannot be PROBABLY MUST BE TRUE?


Well, basically, in a must be true question (look i'm not perfect in them but getting there), you must not bring any info or assumptions, words, or twists which are not supported by the passage.

If the text didn't even talk about probabilities, you can't bring it in there.

Usually, almost always, in a MUST BE TRUE question, it is a SET of facts.

1) If set of facts talk about present.... DO NO choose answers that has "will"...future feel

2) If set of facts talks about the past, DO NOT CHOOSE present or futuristic answers

3) If talks about numbers, i don't see a reason to choose percentages

Overall, stick to the text.

ALSO,

Usually, in a must be true question, not all the text is relevant... If you notice in this question, they could give you an answer about a shape...but they gave you a wrong twist answer. Stick to the facts, do not deviate...

here is an example with a twist...

Hemoglobin ALWAYS picks up a a forth molecule and turns red after the H picks up a third molecule..

WHAT MUST BE TRUE?


A) After picking up a third molecule, H will turn red... Notice that although i didn't say H will pick up a 4th molecule, turning RED follows from the facts given.

B) NO - H will turn green ...

C) NO - H will pick up a 5th molecule...

^ you got my point...

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

Re: PT 59 Section 3 No. 3

Postby MissLucky » Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:39 pm

Philipsssssss wrote:Here is my view:

PT 59 Section 3 No. 3

A) WRONG because THERE IS NO guarantee it WILL pick up a forth molecule. The paragraph never said H will pick up 1 2 3 and 4... just that it gets effective each time it DOES.

B) WRONG because "The only" ... Extreme... we have no such knowledge from the text

C) YES - 1>2>3>4 each time H picks up a molecule, it becomes more effective in it...So, of course and H3 is more effective then H1. Don't over-think about Hemog. and another Hemog. thinking they are "not comparable". All H's fall under the effectiveness rule.

D) We simply have no info to know such detail, we don't have a clue about H that didn't pick up ANY molecules.

E) Out of Scope!


I did pick (C) with what I thought was relative ease until reading this thread and beginning to latch on to some other answer choices (haha - rather ironic). Anyways, can you help me undersatnd how is (E) out of scope?! Doesn't it follow from the first 2 sentences? Also, I get the whole idea of not going beyond the text in these Must be True questions, but based on the correct answer choice (C) even, wouldn't (A) be correct? If a hemoglobin molecule that has picked up more oxygen molecules is more effective than one that picked up fewer oxygen molecules, then if one has already picked up 3, it is quite probable that it is going to pick up another one, since it is easier than it was the previous 3 times. what is wrong with equating increased effectiveness with increased likelihood, here?

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

Re: PT 59 Section 3 No. 3

Postby MissLucky » Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:40 pm

zworykin wrote:The answer is clearly stated in sentence 2.

I crossed out C because I think they are comparing two different molecules. My uncerstanding is that for a specific molecule, say let's just name is A, it is more powerful to attract an additional oxygen if it has already attracted 3 compared to 1. but for two different molecules, i feel the comparison of attractiveness is not absolute.


I see what you've done here. Any two hemoglobin molecules are identical. There aren't some that are more effective than others regardless of how many molecules they've picked up; they're all equal.


how do you just know that?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests