PT49 Sec 2 Q 7 drives me crazy

User avatar
ocean
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 1:58 pm

PT49 Sec 2 Q 7 drives me crazy

Postby ocean » Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:12 pm

Answer choice B and E appear equal to me due to the following inference from the stem.

"Infected--->rotten" equals to "not rotten"--->"uninfected"

I have been staring it for the last 20 minutes and still can't untangle myself.

Your help is greatly appreciated.

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: PT49 Sec 2 Q 7 drives me crazy

Postby whymeohgodno » Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:19 pm

Infected->Rotten
Inspected->Not Infected

Conclusion: Inspected->Safe to Eat

Find the answer choice that justifies the conclusion.

B won't do it. Not Rotten-> Safe to eat. This won't justify the conclusion. In no way does it fit into any of the premises of the argument.

E does justify it. Not Infected->Safe to eat. This would mean that if it was Inspected, it would trigger Not Infected which would be sufficient to trigger Safe to Eat.

User avatar
ocean
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: PT49 Sec 2 Q 7 drives me crazy

Postby ocean » Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:39 pm

whymeohgodno wrote:Infected->Rotten
Inspected->Not Infected

Conclusion: Inspected->Safe to Eat

Find the answer choice that justifies the conclusion.

B won't do it. Not Rotten-> Safe to eat. This won't justify the conclusion. In no way does it fit into any of the premises of the argument.

E does justify it. Not Infected->Safe to eat. This would mean that if it was Inspected, it would trigger Not Infected which would be sufficient to trigger Safe to Eat.


But "Infected->Rotten" equals to "Not rotten->not infected". This extra step of inference equalizes B with E.

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: PT49 Sec 2 Q 7 drives me crazy

Postby whymeohgodno » Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:54 pm

ocean wrote:
whymeohgodno wrote:Infected->Rotten
Inspected->Not Infected

Conclusion: Inspected->Safe to Eat

Find the answer choice that justifies the conclusion.

B won't do it. Not Rotten-> Safe to eat. This won't justify the conclusion. In no way does it fit into any of the premises of the argument.

E does justify it. Not Infected->Safe to eat. This would mean that if it was Inspected, it would trigger Not Infected which would be sufficient to trigger Safe to Eat.


But "Infected->Rotten" equals to "Not rotten->not infected". This extra step of inference equalizes B with E.


No it doesn't.

Not rotten->not infected. Add that with the answer choice B which is Not Rotten->Safe to eat.

All we can gather from this is that if it's Not Rotten -> not infected and it's safe to eat.

The conclusion talks about Inspected->Safe to eat.

Inspected has to trigger safe to eat...choice B won't do that.

User avatar
ocean
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: PT49 Sec 2 Q 7 drives me crazy

Postby ocean » Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:05 pm

whymeohgodno wrote:
ocean wrote:
whymeohgodno wrote:Infected->Rotten
Inspected->Not Infected

Conclusion: Inspected->Safe to Eat

Find the answer choice that justifies the conclusion.

B won't do it. Not Rotten-> Safe to eat. This won't justify the conclusion. In no way does it fit into any of the premises of the argument.

E does justify it. Not Infected->Safe to eat. This would mean that if it was Inspected, it would trigger Not Infected which would be sufficient to trigger Safe to Eat.


But "Infected->Rotten" equals to "Not rotten->not infected". This extra step of inference equalizes B with E.


No it doesn't.

Not rotten->not infected. Add that with the answer choice B which is Not Rotten->Safe to eat.

All we can gather from this is that if it's Not Rotten -> not infected and it's safe to eat.

The conclusion talks about Inspected->Safe to eat.

Inspected has to trigger safe to eat...choice B won't do that.


will brew it a little more, but i think i get the point, thanks, buddy.

User avatar
ocean
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: PT49 Sec 2 Q 7 drives me crazy

Postby ocean » Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:07 pm

ocean wrote:
whymeohgodno wrote:
ocean wrote:
whymeohgodno wrote:Infected->Rotten
Inspected->Not Infected

Conclusion: Inspected->Safe to Eat

Find the answer choice that justifies the conclusion.

B won't do it. Not Rotten-> Safe to eat. This won't justify the conclusion. In no way does it fit into any of the premises of the argument.

E does justify it. Not Infected->Safe to eat. This would mean that if it was Inspected, it would trigger Not Infected which would be sufficient to trigger Safe to Eat.


But "Infected->Rotten" equals to "Not rotten->not infected". This extra step of inference equalizes B with E.


No it doesn't.

Not rotten->not infected. Add that with the answer choice B which is Not Rotten->Safe to eat.

All we can gather from this is that if it's Not Rotten -> not infected and it's safe to eat.

The conclusion talks about Inspected->Safe to eat.

Inspected has to trigger safe to eat...choice B won't do that.


will brew it a little more, but i think i get the point, thanks, buddy.


ok, now it fully hit me. damn, I was stupid.

User avatar
gdane
Posts: 12423
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: PT49 Sec 2 Q 7 drives me crazy

Postby gdane » Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:11 pm

Ooh I did this one today!

Ill make it easy for you without all the diagramming and filler crap.

Conclusion: Any fruit that was inspected is safe to eat
Premise: No fruit that was inspected was rotten (infected)

Unstated assumption and correct answer: Its safe to eat any fruit that is uninfected (inspected).

Number 23 was a bitch...

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: PT49 Sec 2 Q 7 drives me crazy

Postby whymeohgodno » Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:12 pm

gdane5 wrote:Ooh I did this one today!

Ill make it easy for you without all the diagramming and filler crap.

Conclusion: Any fruit that was inspected is safe to eat
Premise: No fruit that was inspected was rotten (infected)

Unstated assumption and correct answer: Its safe to eat any fruit that is uninfected (inspected).

Number 23 was a bitch...


#17 was the worst for me. I still don't buy the answer completely, although I agree that it is probably the best answer.

User avatar
gdane
Posts: 12423
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: PT49 Sec 2 Q 7 drives me crazy

Postby gdane » Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:18 pm

I got that one right too. It seems like I got almost all the hard ones correct, but missed on easy ones (#14).

My reasoning behind this one was that the argument ties intelligence and consciousness to complex behaviors. The argument essentially says that Animals cant exhibit complex goal oriented behavior and hence you cant consider them to be conscious. Because you need to be conscious in order to display complex behaviors, in spite of the fact that an animal might be intelligent, this doesnt mean that they can do complex goal oriented behaviors.

It seems like strange reasoning, but it worked for me. I also eliminated most of the answers. So this one essentially could be considered a "lucky" answer. :mrgreen:

User avatar
ocean
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: PT49 Sec 2 Q 7 drives me crazy

Postby ocean » Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:32 pm

gdane5 wrote:Ooh I did this one today!

Ill make it easy for you without all the diagramming and filler crap.

Conclusion: Any fruit that was inspected is safe to eat
Premise: No fruit that was inspected was rotten (infected)

Unstated assumption and correct answer: Its safe to eat any fruit that is uninfected (inspected).

Number 23 was a bitch...



People are indeed wired differently:) #23 was easy to me: how do we know the hypothetical gathering of a complete scientific account won't give us the full comprehension? It could well serve this purpose (or not). The commentator presume the "or not" part and the truth of his own conclusion.

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: PT49 Sec 2 Q 7 drives me crazy

Postby whymeohgodno » Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:37 pm

gdane5 wrote:I got that one right too. It seems like I got almost all the hard ones correct, but missed on easy ones (#14).

My reasoning behind this one was that the argument ties intelligence and consciousness to complex behaviors. The argument essentially says that Animals cant exhibit complex goal oriented behavior and hence you cant consider them to be conscious. Because you need to be conscious in order to display complex behaviors, in spite of the fact that an animal might be intelligent, this doesnt mean that they can do complex goal oriented behaviors.

It seems like strange reasoning, but it worked for me. I also eliminated most of the answers. So this one essentially could be considered a "lucky" answer. :mrgreen:


Yeh I had it between the right answer and E. But whatever. I just hope I don't run into a question like that again.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests