PT 59 LR

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

PT 59 LR

Postby whymeohgodno » Mon Oct 04, 2010 7:08 pm

Can anyone explain to me answers for #18 # 20 #25 in the first LR section?

For #18 was the answer D and not C because the statement does not directly support Malthus's position but instead it's the statement derived from the original statement that supports Malthus?

Also for #20 I can see how D is right but I can't eliminate B.

And for #25 I'm just completely lost on how B could weaken the argument. It seems to be it would strengthen it by saying that there is less methane in the atmosphere today than 3 billion years ago...

Thanks in advance.

PostHawk
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:11 pm

Re: PT 59 LR

Postby PostHawk » Mon Oct 04, 2010 7:57 pm

whymeohgodno wrote:Can anyone explain to me answers for #18 # 20 #25 in the first LR section?

For #18 was the answer D and not C because the statement does not directly support Malthus's position but instead it's the statement derived from the original statement that supports Malthus?

Also for #20 I can see how D is right but I can't eliminate B.

And for #25 I'm just completely lost on how B could weaken the argument. It seems to be it would strengthen it by saying that there is less methane in the atmosphere today than 3 billion years ago...

Thanks in advance.



For #18 was the answer D and not C because the statement does not directly support Malthus's position but instead it's the statement derived from the original statement that supports Malthus?

Also for #20 I can see how D is right but I can't eliminate B.

And for #25 I'm just completely lost on how B could weaken the argument. It seems to be it would strengthen it by saying that there is less methane in the atmosphere today than 3 billion years ago...

Thanks in advance.[/quote]

For #18 i had narrowed it down to C & D also but what helped me choose was i looked at the answer choices and asked myself did the argument actually show support that the observation really supported Malthus's position? and the answer was no it didn't. The observation is still contrary to Malthus's belief but the argument suggests that Malthus' belief will be correct in the future (i.e. will eventually change)

20. This was the only LR question I missed in this section and to be honest wouldn't mind some clarification on it if anyone has it...

25. I actually chose B because I misread it but going back through I think the real reason it was B is because the conclusion was that there was significantly higher Carbon Dioxide back then than there is today and B weakens this because it says there was significantly higher Methane than there is today and I guess you can't have significantly higher of both?? That's not a very good explanation but it might be of some use...

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

Re: PT 59 LR

Postby whymeohgodno » Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:00 pm

PostHawk wrote:
whymeohgodno wrote:Can anyone explain to me answers for #18 # 20 #25 in the first LR section?

For #18 was the answer D and not C because the statement does not directly support Malthus's position but instead it's the statement derived from the original statement that supports Malthus?

Also for #20 I can see how D is right but I can't eliminate B.

And for #25 I'm just completely lost on how B could weaken the argument. It seems to be it would strengthen it by saying that there is less methane in the atmosphere today than 3 billion years ago...

Thanks in advance.



For #18 was the answer D and not C because the statement does not directly support Malthus's position but instead it's the statement derived from the original statement that supports Malthus?

Also for #20 I can see how D is right but I can't eliminate B.

And for #25 I'm just completely lost on how B could weaken the argument. It seems to be it would strengthen it by saying that there is less methane in the atmosphere today than 3 billion years ago...

Thanks in advance.


For #18 i had narrowed it down to C & D also but what helped me choose was i looked at the answer choices and asked myself did the argument actually show support that the observation really supported Malthus's position? and the answer was no it didn't. The observation is still contrary to Malthus's belief but the argument suggests that Malthus' belief will be correct in the future (i.e. will eventually change)

20. This was the only LR question I missed in this section and to be honest wouldn't mind some clarification on it if anyone has it...

25. I actually chose B because I misread it but going back through I think the real reason it was B is because the conclusion was that there was significantly higher Carbon Dioxide back then than there is today and B weakens this because it says there was significantly higher Methane than there is today and I guess you can't have significantly higher of both?? That's not a very good explanation but it might be of some use...[/quote]

Thanks. I can understand #18 now but still not sure on 20 and 25.

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

Re: PT 59 LR

Postby JJDancer » Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:28 pm

For #18 The statement that human food producing capacity has increased more rapidly than human pop is a fact that the arg seems to throw out. It says that fact is contrary to Malthus' arguments but doesn't tell you where the fact comes from/how it's supported. Then there is another random fact that agricultural advances often compromise biodiversity.
CONCLU: M says lack of food will doom humanity -- this will likely be proven correct because LACK of BIO will eventually erode capacity to produce food.

so because of lack of biodiversity, humans wil be doomed because of lack of food. (so EVENTUALLY food < population)

It doesn't support Malthus' argument that insuff food will doom humanity because that is supported by the biodiversity thing. Even if food producing capacity had NOT increased more rapidly than population.. his argument would still hold.

#20) They say that 5% defect is allowed but samples chosen by inspectors showed 20% defective.
The argument doesn't PRESUME that they were just as likely to chose defective or non-defective. - It is just presuming that the sample they got from inspectors is representative of the actual % that were defective from the supplier. What could cause a disconnect? Well if the inspectors only gave those for testing that they thought were defective...D!

#25) Earth was 80% as luminous. Why didn't this freeze oceans? Heat is trapped through CO2 which is a greenhouse gas.
Earth retain enough heat to not freeze ocean --> level of greenhouse gases higher 3 bil yrs ago

CONLCU: level of CO2 was higher

This argument is valid. especially since it says "it is likely" but what can weaken it?
If ANOTHER greenhouse gas was higher back then... waters still wouldn't be frozen but the likelihood that CO2 was higher is weakened.

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

Re: PT 59 LR

Postby whymeohgodno » Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:30 pm

JJDancer wrote:For #18 The statement that human food producing capacity has increased more rapidly than human pop is a fact that the arg seems to throw out. It says that fact is contrary to Malthus' arguments but doesn't tell you where the fact comes from/how it's supported. Then there is another random fact that agricultural advances often compromise biodiversity.
CONCLU: M says lack of food will doom humanity -- this will likely be proven correct because LACK of BIO will eventually erode capacity to produce food.

so because of lack of biodiversity, humans wil be doomed because of lack of food. (so EVENTUALLY food < population)

It doesn't support Malthus' argument that insuff food will doom humanity because that is supported by the biodiversity thing. Even if food producing capacity had NOT increased more rapidly than population.. his argument would still hold.

#20) They say that 5% defect is allowed but samples chosen by inspectors showed 20% defective.
The argument doesn't PRESUME that they were just as likely to chose defective or non-defective. - It is just presuming that the sample they got from inspectors is representative of the actual % that were defective from the supplier. What could cause a disconnect? Well if the inspectors only gave those for testing that they thought were defective...D!

#25) Earth was 80% as luminous. Why didn't this freeze oceans? Heat is trapped through CO2 which is a greenhouse gas.
Earth retain enough heat to not freeze ocean --> level of greenhouse gases higher 3 bil yrs ago

CONLCU: level of CO2 was higher

This argument is valid. especially since it says "it is likely" but what can weaken it?
If ANOTHER greenhouse gas was higher back then... waters still wouldn't be frozen but the likelihood that CO2 was higher is weakened.


Thanks a lot. I now get #18 and #25 but I still don't see why #20 B is wrong.

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

Re: PT 59 LR

Postby whymeohgodno » Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:44 pm

Thanks I understand it now.

#20 B is wrong because B states "just as likely" which means 50/50 chance of choosing a defective item but in the question it states the rate of defects is limited at below 5%.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: The_Pluviophile and 4 guests