PT 36 LR (section 3) Qs 8, 10, 26

stargazin
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:20 pm

PT 36 LR (section 3) Qs 8, 10, 26

Postby stargazin » Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:48 pm

I have stared at these for an hour and can't figure them out. Thank you for any help!

8: The answer is A. What does it even mean?! It seems to me the objection isn't based on a belief about the reliability of the process, it's the essayist's defense against the objection which is based on the reliability ("we reject clairvoyance as knowledge because we don't believe it's a reliable process, but if we did we would accept it").

10: Why is the answer E and not A? Couldn't the answer also be A if you consider that Peter made two claims (insects prefer drought leaves; farmers should water crops only just enough...)

26: Why B and not A? If scientists didn't have the sophisticated equipment before, that would explain why the fifth force was not known or understood before.

User avatar
Hannibal
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

Re: PT 36 LR (section 3) Qs 8, 10, 26

Postby Hannibal » Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:03 pm

stargazin wrote:I have stared at these for an hour and can't figure them out. Thank you for any help!

8: The answer is A. What does it even mean?! It seems to me the objection isn't based on a belief about the reliability of the process, it's the essayist's defense against the objection which is based on the reliability ("we reject clairvoyance as knowledge because we don't believe it's a reliable process, but if we did we would accept it").

10: Why is the answer E and not A? Couldn't the answer also be A if you consider that Peter made two claims (insects prefer drought leaves; farmers should water crops only just enough...)

26: Why B and not A? If scientists didn't have the sophisticated equipment before, that would explain why the fifth force was not known or understood before.


8: His argument was saying that clairvoyance is a matter of opinion in regards to its reliability. If you consider clairvoyance a reliable process, the definition of knowledge is still intact.

10. It doesn't support each of the claims. The pesticide is a new claim. This new claim is considered new grounds.

26. I got this one wrong too, and I said A. If I had to guess, it's because the experiments aren't specifically after 1970.

Edit: According to Atlas:

"(A) is irrelevant. We don't care why it took them so long to discover the difference between predicted and gravitational forces."

I think it means since the phenomenon is not under contention, only the cause, it doesn't matter when we know.

petrovovitch@
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: PT 36 LR (section 3) Qs 8, 10, 26

Postby petrovovitch@ » Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:28 pm

8: i got this one wrong i said e but upon rereading what the "essayist" states is literally what answer A says:

"i agree we would reject such claims, but we would do so because really do not believe in clairvoyance as a reliable process. were we to believe we would accept knowledge claims on the basis of it."

translation: clairvoyance isn't reliable, were it otherwise we would actually give consideration to people who said they know things via it. note this implies we would analyze it using the criteria in the definition of knowledge.

therefore the means by which the definition is criticized is not about the definition at all.

10: the conclusion of peter's argument is don't water plants too much, only enough that they don't die or produce less. jennifer's argument presents another reason why that's a good idea.

26: this is a tricky question. that a theory doesn't contradict absolutely any prior confirmed knowledge is a good thing, it means it's concordant with prior knowledge. you could probably solve this one by process of elimination.

a is out because finer measurements don't imply confirmation of the theory, they just imply that the measurement of the smaller gravitational attraction was authoritative. the theory explains the measurements not the other way around.

c is out because this totally contradicts

d is out because this would call into question the results of the experiments thereby obviating a 5th force completely.

e is out because it's irrelevant and maybe even undermines the conclusion since it might suggest that the theory is just a fad.

stargazin
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:20 pm

Re: PT 36 LR (section 3) Qs 8, 10, 26

Postby stargazin » Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:59 pm

Thank you both SO MUCH. The Qs make sense to me now. I think part of my problem is trying to use formal logic diagrams too much in the LR. I used to not really use formal logic very much because I HATE formal logic, and that ended up badly, so I tried to make myself do more diagrams, but I've found trying to do diagrams for tricky questions that aren't explicitly about formal logic is not helpful either, it just confused me even more.

ND'10
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:46 am

Re: PT 36 LR (section 3) Qs 8, 10, 26

Postby ND'10 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:44 pm

I still don't really get how B strengthens 26.

The non-existence of contradictory evidence shouldn't help establish the existence of the thing right?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros and 6 guests