PT 59 SECTION 3 LR #19 BABIES

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

PT 59 SECTION 3 LR #19 BABIES

Postby JJDancer » Sun Oct 03, 2010 9:08 pm

OK I understand that the stimulus is not to be taken for granted..because it is one big conditional based on whether the first statement is true or not

If (UW --> KDD) --> (UW--> UW in def)
There are people (ALL babies) who do not KDD of some words they utter
-KDD --> -UW
but this doesn't tell us anything.

I chose A because "some babies" is a subset of all babies and I thought i needed to connect understanding words and "uttering" them somehow...

I get that E makes sense because it says if some babies UW without KDD then the big conditional up top falls apart.

But why is A wrong exactly? because it is assuming that UW --> KDD?
because if we don't assume that, then babies could potentially understand words that they utter (even if they don't know the dic defs as stated in stimulus) ?

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

Re: PT 59 SECTION 3 LR #19 BABIES

Postby JJDancer » Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:19 pm

bump

User avatar
incompetentia
Posts: 2307
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:57 pm

Re: PT 59 SECTION 3 LR #19 BABIES

Postby incompetentia » Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:34 pm

Correct.

UW > KDD is not stated as GIVEN information, but rather the PREMISE of another logical conclusion. I had A marked on this, but after staring at it for 3 minutes, I did eventually choose E.

If we approach this using sort of an LG-ish method, you have:

Case 1: UW > KDD. Therefore UW > KW/DD
Case 2: UW not nec. > KDD. No conclusion can be drawn.

Given the fact that B !> KDD.

Case 1: B !> KDD ---> B !> UW. A would be correct under these circumstances.
Case 2: B > UW is NOT ruled out. A therefore does not logically follow.

If we look at E, however:

Case 1: Invalidated by the wording of the answer choice.
Case 2: B > UW. UW not nec. > KDD. B !> KDD is therefore still possible - we have a winner.

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

Re: PT 59 SECTION 3 LR #19 BABIES

Postby JJDancer » Mon Oct 04, 2010 1:36 pm

Thanks incompetentia

I still don't think I really get the hang of this one though.

Also, what is B"!" ?

User avatar
incompetentia
Posts: 2307
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:57 pm

Re: PT 59 SECTION 3 LR #19 BABIES

Postby incompetentia » Mon Oct 04, 2010 1:39 pm

Oh, it's programming shorthand...means "not" or something similar to that.

So since we're given the example in the premise that babies do not know the dictionary definitions of the words they use...B !> KDD

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

Re: PT 59 SECTION 3 LR #19 BABIES

Postby JJDancer » Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:43 pm

Ugh. Still having a hard time with this.
Is A wrong just because the stimulus is a huge conditional and answer choice A doesn't state that
"understanding a word DOES always involve knowing dict def. therefore, some babies utter individual words they do not understand" ?

Hedwig
Posts: 835
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:56 am

Re: PT 59 SECTION 3 LR #19 BABIES

Postby Hedwig » Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:01 pm

What was this? A must be true/inference question?

I initially chose A, like you. However, because the premises were not necessarily true, I didn't feel like they 100% supported A. Like, the stimulus is based on an IF so you can't say definitively that some babies don't understand words they utter. It COULD be wrong because the IF premise could be wrong. Whereas E most definitely is true no matter what.

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

Re: PT 59 SECTION 3 LR #19 BABIES

Postby JJDancer » Tue Oct 05, 2010 11:37 am

eit wrote:What was this? A must be true/inference question?

I initially chose A, like you. However, because the premises were not necessarily true, I didn't feel like they 100% supported A. Like, the stimulus is based on an IF so you can't say definitively that some babies don't understand words they utter. It COULD be wrong because the IF premise could be wrong. Whereas E most definitely is true no matter what.


Yeah it was a which can be logically inferred. Thanks. I get it now.

In general, if I see the premise in LR as a conditional
ex: (If A--B) --> (-A --> C)
Should I look for things that are true regarless of whether "if A --> B" and be wary of answer choices that assume the first conditional as fact?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cherrygalore and 7 guests