PT 19, section 2, Q 17 help please

gerbal
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 12:42 am

PT 19, section 2, Q 17 help please

Postby gerbal » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:55 pm

I'm having some difficulty with this one. Using Powerscore's method (sufficient->necessary), I diagrammed this as SNP->L (study natural process) ->leisure, RP->L (resources plentiful)->leisure, and Agriculture->SNP. I can't figure out what i did wrong cause with this, I'm not getting the answer. Thanks.

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

Re: PT 19, section 2, Q 17 help please

Postby zworykin » Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:05 pm

1. You can't study without leisure.
2. You can't have leisure without resources.
3. Some people say agriculture started in societies without resources, but the societies that created agriculture must first have discovered how plants reproduce. (Assumed: Agriculture requires knowledge of how plants reproduce)
4. These discoveries required active study (look back to point 1!).

The conclusion that the argument is leading toward, then, is that since the societies who created agriculture must have studied the plants at some earlier point, and since those studies required leisure, and since leisure requires resources, then those societies must have had resources at some earlier point.


That's a nasty question.

gerbal
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 12:42 am

Re: PT 19, section 2, Q 17 help please

Postby gerbal » Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:33 pm

Thanks for the help. I think I kind of get it. I can get to a conclusion "agriculture first began... in their history had resources" but not to the conclusion "agriculture first began....in their history had plenty of resources." Do I just assume the logical opposite of plentiful resources are scarce resources?

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

Re: PT 19, section 2, Q 17 help please

Postby zworykin » Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:22 pm

gerbal wrote:Thanks for the help. I think I kind of get it. I can get to a conclusion "agriculture first began... in their history had resources" but not to the conclusion "agriculture first began....in their history had plenty of resources." Do I just assume the logical opposite of plentiful resources are scarce resources?


The presented opposite of "when resources are scarce" is "when resources are plentiful" according to the question. So, yes to what you're asking about assuming, but no, you don't have to actually assume it--the question stated it outright.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BobBoblaw, DumbHollywoodActor, LarryFlint, MSNbot Media, Pozzo, SunDevil14 and 24 guests