PT 29 Section 1 ( LR Questions)

roballen
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:34 am

PT 29 Section 1 ( LR Questions)

Postby roballen » Wed Aug 11, 2010 10:00 pm

can someone please explain the following questions, thanks...

# 8. Why is it D and not A?

15. I got right, but how would you use the negation technique that powerscore talks about to figure out this answer is correct?

18. Please explain how to break this down and arrive at answer

20. I got right, but I am not really sure how I arrived at that answer...

23. I selected E, but is that wrong bc the last sentence repeats the honest people but answer choice b changes adult to children and thats why its correct?

roballen
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:34 am

Re: PT 29 Section 1 ( LR Questions)

Postby roballen » Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:40 pm

anyone?

User avatar
CurbYourEnthusiasm
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: PT 29 Section 1 ( LR Questions)

Postby CurbYourEnthusiasm » Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:24 pm

8) Answer A is never explicitly stated. You probably assumed too much or incorrectly joined premises. Remember its a must be true question, so it HAS to be in the stimulus.

15) Take the answer choice you like and negate it, aka take the necessary component and put the opposite of whats there and if this weakens the conclusion than you have the correct answer. The correct answer states "the treatment for ordinary mountain sickness differs fro the treatment for cerebral edema." To negate it simply becomes "the treatment for ordinary mountain sickness DOES NOT DIFFER from the treatment for cerebral edema. This weakens the conclusion so it is the correct answer.

18) Pure conditional reasoning.

PMC <----> Financial Interests (SOME)
I'm pretty sure when it comes to SOME statements you can read them forwards and backwards, so if you read it backwards then then add the 'no one works in suburbs'--E is the correct answer
PMC----->S

20) Idk why but I loved this question. Really easy if you grasp the concept. The price of a full coach ticket is the same a year ago that it is today, BUT they are sold at a 90% discount. Remember though, they are still the same price because of inflation. Even if you don't get this, most of the answer choices are out of scope. A/D/E make little sense. C is the trick answer. One would select this if they overlook the discount/inflation part of the problem.

23) Tough problem, hate parallel problems. On review, try to match key words between the answer choices and stimulus. Parallel problems are hard to explain IMO, you have to grasp what excerpt in abstract terms.

Hope this helped.

User avatar
AverageTutoring
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:18 pm

Re: PT 29 Section 1 ( LR Questions)

Postby AverageTutoring » Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:47 am

roballen wrote:can someone please explain the following questions, thanks...

# 8. Why is it D and not A?

15. I got right, but how would you use the negation technique that powerscore talks about to figure out this answer is correct?

18. Please explain how to break this down and arrive at answer

20. I got right, but I am not really sure how I arrived at that answer...

23. I selected E, but is that wrong bc the last sentence repeats the honest people but answer choice b changes adult to children and thats why its correct?


Question 18

(A) The argument never says eating simple carbohydrates while on a low-fat diet leads to changes in the amount of energy the body requires.

(D) Eating simple carbohydrates induces the body to store some resulting by-products as fat. So no matter what eating simple carbohydrates leads to fat gain. Therefore, if one wants to reduce their level of fat they should restrict their intake of simple carbohydrates.

Question 15

The argument suggests that Cerebral edema will go untreated at the onset because its symptoms resemble those of ordinary mountain sickness. This assumes that the treatment for ordinary mountain sickness and Cerebral edema are not the same. If people treat ordinary mountain sickness at the onset, and the treatment for ordinary mountain sickness is the same as Cerebral edema, then people will be unknowingly be treating their Cerebral edema.

(A) This absolutely needs to be assumed because if we negate the answer it would become: the treatment for ordinary mountain sickness does not differ from that for cerebral edema, which would break down the argument.

(B) The argument doesn’t need to assume that there are effect s of Cerebral edema other than those mentioned in the stimulus.

(C) The effects of ordinary mountain sickness do not need to be assumed.

(D) The argument doesn’t need to assume that there are effect s of Cerebral edema other than those mentioned in the stimulus.

(E) Specialized treatment for ordinary mountain sickness wouldn’t help with treating Cerebral edema at the onset. This does not need to be assumed.

Question 18

(A) This doesn’t have to be true. There could be people not on the committee whose finances are directly affected by the planning committee’s decisions.

(B) This doesn’t have to be true. There could be people not on the committee who live in the suburbs whose finances are directly affected by the planning committee’s decisions.

(C) The only members of the committee who must have a significant financial interest in the committee’s decisions are those from the construction industry. What if every member on the committee works in the suburbs but those from the construction industry? This answer does not need to be true.

(D) There is no reason to suggest that all members of on the committee from the construction industry cannot work in the suburbs.

(E) Absolutely must be true. We know that no committee member lives in the suburbs and that some committee members have a financial interest in the committee’s decisions. Therefore, some committee members who have a financial interest in the committee’s decisions do not live in the suburbs.

Question 20

(A) The quality of service is not an issue.

(B) If the discounted ticket costs the same today as it did a year ago (in constant dollars) than we can definitely say that, on average, people are paying less for a Toronto-to-Dallas ticket on Breezeway Airlines.
If you still cannot see how B allows the conclusion to be drawn, consider the following illustration:

Last year

Number of ticket sales: 1000
Price of full-fare: 100
Price of discounted fare: 50

At a 50/50 split that would mean 500 people paid $100 for their ticket and 500 paid $50 for their ticket. The average price paid per ticket: $75

This year

Number of ticket sales: 500
Price of full-fare: 100
Price of discounted fare: 50

At a 90/10 split that would mean 50 people paid $100 for their ticket and 450 people paid for $50 for their ticket. The average price paid per ticket: $55

This most definitely shows that people, on average, paid less for their tickets this year than they did last year.

(C) We only care about the Toronto to Dallas tickets.

(D) The argument is talking about the average person buying a ticket. The total amount of people on the plane is irrelevant.

(E) The type of people who are eligible for discount tickets doesn’t change the fact that more people are receiving discounted tickets.

Question 23

Flaw: Just because some people who do not appreciate poetry are logical does not mean that some people who appreciate poetry are illogical.

Pre-Phrase: The argument proceeds by assigning a group a particular quality. The argument then goes on to say that the group does not like a particular thing; and uses this as evidence that at least some of the people who like that particular thing do not have that quality.

(A) The argument doesn’t proceed by assigning a group a particular quality. To be similar to the stimulus Ralph must have mentioned what he knows about experts in Biology as an expert in Biology. Further, this argument is logically sound. Since we are looking for a flawed argument, this is out.

(B) The argument proceeds by assigning fathers a particular outlook on children eating candy at bedtime (a quality). The argument then goes on to say that fathers are adults (a group) upon which it concludes that at least some of those who want children to eat candy at bedtime are children (not adults).

The structure of this argument is not exactly parallel to the stimulus but the flaw is exactly the same. Just because some people (adults) do not want children to eat candy at bedtime doesn’t mean that some people who want children to eat candy at bedtime are children (not adults).

(C) The argument doesn’t proceed by assigning a group a particular quality.

(D) The argument doesn’t proceed by assigning a group a particular quality.

(E) This is a tempting answer choice but the conclusion says that since most corporate executives are honest people, at least some people who like to pay taxes are honest people. It’s comparing honest to honest. To be similar to the stimulus the argument must conclude something about dishonest people (i.e. at least some of those who do not like paying taxes are dishonest people).

roballen
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:34 am

Re: PT 29 Section 1 ( LR Questions)

Postby roballen » Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:46 pm

Great, thanks for your help




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Instrumental and 10 guests