PT 43 LR

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

PT 43 LR

Postby JJDancer » Mon Oct 04, 2010 1:07 pm

# 7) failure to rotate crops. Can anyone explain why C is correct and why A is wrong?

Is D wrong because it doesn't HAVE to be true that pesticides weren't used.
fertilizer --> use more pesticides
- pesticides --> - fertilizer

but (-fertilizer) --> could have used pesticides..


#16) Natural beauty and economies. I was between C and E on this. I picked E and I do understand it but is B wrong because it says the economies of MOST?
If B said the economies of ALL natural beauty regions are not based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by govt protection, would that be the answer?

User avatar
matt@atlaslsat
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: PT 43 LR

Postby matt@atlaslsat » Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:42 pm

JJDancer wrote:# 7) failure to rotate crops. Can anyone explain why C is correct and why A is wrong?

Is D wrong because it doesn't HAVE to be true that pesticides weren't used.
fertilizer --> use more pesticides
- pesticides --> - fertilizer

but (-fertilizer) --> could have used pesticides..


(A) is wrong because we know from the question stem that fertilizer had never been added and yet crops were grown. So there is no way that the vegetables were grown in soil that may have been completely depleted of nutrients. This is not possible without fertilizer.

(C) is correct because we do that the soil was not completely depleted of nutrients. We can infer this because crops were grown in soil that never had fertilizer applied.

The conditional relationships could be established if you're having a hard time seeing this.

(~R + ~DS) ---> PM
DS + GC ---> F

We know from the question stem

GC + ~F

So we can establish (~DS) but nothing more. So answer choice (C) must be true.

(Notation Key: R = rotate crops, DS = depleted soil, PM = other preventative measures, GC = grow crops, F = fertilizer)

JJDancer wrote:#16) Natural beauty and economies. I was between C and E on this. I picked E and I do understand it but is B wrong because it says the economies of MOST?
If B said the economies of ALL natural beauty regions are not based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by govt protection, would that be the answer?



Tough question. The MOST issue is definitely important on necessary assumption questions, it's almost never necessary that "most" ends up in the correct answer. That said, I'm sure there's a few examples where the term is inserted carefully so as to actually be required.

The bigger issue I think though is whether these regions are based primarily on local industries that would be harmed. The conclusion is about a net effect. That the positive will outweigh the negative effects. it doesn't matter if the negative effects would be devastating (as answer choice (B) implies), since the positive effect could still outweigh the harm.

So no assumption about the size of the negative effect must be made.

I hope that helps. Let me know if you still have questions about this.
Last edited by matt@atlaslsat on Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: PT 43 LR

Postby JJDancer » Mon Oct 04, 2010 7:31 pm

Thanks
Basically if they had been completely depleted then no veggies could have grown in the absence of fertilizer. Since we know veggies grew without F, it wasn't completely depleted.

Also, crops could or could not have been rotated, we don't know because nutrients could be partially depleted (gradually..)?

#16) Stimulus says govt protection CAN help economies overall even if they harm SOME older local industries.

(does the SOME matter? or could some = all?)

I guess the problem I have with B is that what if business relocates there (following pop growth), and it is not affected by the enviromental protections but the overall result is still negative because 90% of $$ in the region comes from the older local industries or something.. ?

is B wrong because it says the economies of MOST?
If B said the economies of ALL natural beauty regions are not based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by govt protection, would that be the answer? or would that still be wrong?
If it would still be wrong if it said ALL then why..?

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

Re: PT 43 LR

Postby JJDancer » Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:51 pm

matt@atlaslsat wrote:I hope that helps. Let me know if you still have questions about this.


Can you respond to my last post? Thanks

User avatar
matt@atlaslsat
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: PT 43 LR

Postby matt@atlaslsat » Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:47 am

Sorry it took so long to get back to your question. As you can imagine this week is full of last minute preparations and hours of tutoring getting ready for the October 9th LSAT.

Your understanding of Q7 is right on.

For Q16 though, the change you're making to the answer choice would not affect it's correctness. The only assumption that needs to be made about the extent of the damage done to the older local industries is that the damage is less than the benefit these economies will see from the environmental protections.

So an answer choice that says the damage is not going to be bad (which is basically what answer choice (B) is saying) isn't necessary to the argument, because no matter how bad the damage is, the benefit could always be greater. Answer choice (B) is merely about the extent of the damage done to the older local industries, whereas answer choice (E) is about both the damage and the benefit that will come as a result of environmental protections.

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

Re: PT 43 LR

Postby JJDancer » Tue Oct 05, 2010 10:43 am

No problem at all. Sorry I'm impatient too (pre LSAT jitters!)

Q16) wow going on about this for so long is making me feel like I'm an idiot. lol

But B doesn't say how bad damage to local industries might be, it says ECONOMIES of most regions of natural beauty are not based PRIMARILY on local industries that would be harmed by govt protection.
matt@atlaslsat wrote:So an answer choice that says the damage is not going to be bad (which is basically what answer choice (B) is saying) isn't necessary to the argument, because no matter how bad the damage is, the benefit could always be greater. Answer choice (B) is merely about the extent of the damage done to the older local industries, whereas answer choice (E) is about both the damage and the benefit that will come as a result of environmental protections.


The bolded stuff doesn't seem accurate.. ?

Thank you for trying to explain this though!

User avatar
matt@atlaslsat
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: PT 43 LR

Postby matt@atlaslsat » Wed Oct 06, 2010 1:37 am

The fact that the economies of most regions of natural beauty are not based primarily on local industries that would harmed implies that the damage done by these environmental regulations will not be that bad.

I know I'm dealing more with the implication of answer choice (B) rather than with the literal meaning, but I think that's the draw for most people to this answer. It plays nicely into the issue at hand which that it's necessary that damage done is not greater than the benefits gained.

Definitely don't worry about this one too much though. Much better to keep your eyes on the prize, which is Saturday's test! Good luck.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 5 guests