PT 60 LR questions

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

PT 60 LR questions

Postby mz253 » Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:51 pm

Hey,

Wonder if anyone can explain me no.6 (otter) and no. 22 (money invention) of the LR in the June 2010 exam?

Thanks!

tomwatts
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:01 am

Re: PT 60 LR questions

Postby tomwatts » Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:28 am

For 22, see the other topic.

6: The argument concludes that the effort to save sea otters by removing oil from an oil spill from them was not worthwhile. The evidence is that they were not able to save a very high percentage: 18 percent of the otters that were physically seen and counted were saved, and apparently they did not physically see and count very many of the dying otters (only a fifth, according to the final part of the last sentence). Since the question stem specifically says to attack the integrity of the evidence, it should seem likely that this last part — the number of otters never seen was estimated somehow — is going to be attacked, rather than the earlier premise about the otters that were actually seen.

So the right answer is supposed to be B. This is the most serious issue for the argument to address that it has not addressed. The argument claims to estimate the total number of otters, including those that were never seen, and it uses this as evidence for its conclusion. If this estimate is based on shaky reasoning, a premise of the argument is lost.

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

Re: PT 60 LR questions

Postby mz253 » Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:51 am

Hey, for the otter question, I was choosing between B and E. But I guess E does not question the evidence, but the argument? While B question the evidence (like how do you know you actually get 18% or the real percentage is even lower?)

Is that right?

tomwatts
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:01 am

Re: PT 60 LR questions

Postby tomwatts » Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:06 pm

Yes, that's part of it. The conclusion addresses the issue of whether it was worth it, but the evidence doesn't, so this isn't really attacking the evidence. The other part of it is that the answer to this question still wouldn't be enough to do anything to the argument. If the cost per otter rehabilitated was $5, what does that mean? What if it was $500? Are those large or small amounts? To know whether those costs were worthwhile, as the conclusion addresses, it would also be necessary to know the value of saving an otter. If saving an otter is worth $100, but the cost per otter was $5, then it was worth it, for example. However, this second piece of information (the value of the life of an otter) is not addressed here, so we still wouldn't really know whether it was worth it or not.

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

Re: PT 60 LR questions

Postby mz253 » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:40 pm

thanks!

wjun15
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:09 pm

Re: PT 60 LR questions

Postby wjun15 » Sun Sep 19, 2010 1:48 am

might be a dumb question but can someone explain what generalization and overgeneralization is. an example.

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

Re: PT 60 LR questions

Postby MissLucky » Fri Sep 24, 2010 4:57 pm

tomwatts wrote:Yes, that's part of it. The conclusion addresses the issue of whether it was worth it, but the evidence doesn't, so this isn't really attacking the evidence. The other part of it is that the answer to this question still wouldn't be enough to do anything to the argument. If the cost per otter rehabilitated was $5, what does that mean? What if it was $500? Are those large or small amounts? To know whether those costs were worthwhile, as the conclusion addresses, it would also be necessary to know the value of saving an otter. If saving an otter is worth $100, but the cost per otter was $5, then it was worth it, for example. However, this second piece of information (the value of the life of an otter) is not addressed here, so we still wouldn't really know whether it was worth it or not.


great explanation! could you explain why (C) is wrong? i'm not even sure what it means. is it wrong because trapping and releasing wouldn't affect any of the totals of those that died or survived (since they were presumably released immediately after they were trapped)?

thnx!

JJDancer
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: PT 60 LR questions

Postby JJDancer » Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:06 pm

MissLucky wrote:great explanation! could you explain why (C) is wrong? i'm not even sure what it means. is it wrong because trapping and releasing wouldn't affect any of the totals of those that died or survived (since they were presumably released immediately after they were trapped)?

thnx!

C is talking about how they "caught" an otter to see if it needed rehabilitation/was alive etc.
First of all this is outside of the scope of the arg - we don't care how they were caught.
In this case caught isn't the same as catching fish which injures/kills the fish. They are simply getting them in a cage, seeing if they are affected and letting them go again.

Even if it was unavoidable that they trapped and released some that were fine/unaffected during the time that they were looking to count the # that were affected -- it makes no difference in the amount that were found/counted.

The answer to this would not challenge the evidence given in support of the conclusion.
It wouldn't affect the conclusion at all (concl: efforts to rehabilitate were not worthwhile).




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cherrygalore, CMac86, NavyNuke, PrezRand and 8 guests