PT 59, LR SECTION 2, #5

testmachine45
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:09 am

PT 59, LR SECTION 2, #5

Postby testmachine45 » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:43 am

I don't get this question.

I chose B and the answer is E.

I understand how it could be E, but I think B is a better answer.

B would most strengthen Sabrina's argument because it anticipates a possible rebuttal to Sabina's argument. The rebuttal being that the chemical synthesis might be an ingredient in the cookie's that is unnatural(chemical synthesis sounds pretty unnatural.). Therefore the label would be wrong.

Even if E was true, it does not dispute this rebuttal.

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

Re: PT 59, LR SECTION 2, #5

Postby incompetentia » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:47 am

testmachine45 wrote:I don't get this question.

I chose B and the answer is E.

I understand how it could be E, but I think B is a better answer.

B would most strengthen Sabrina's argument because it anticipates a possible rebuttal to Sabina's argument. The rebuttal being that the chemical synthesis might be an ingredient in the cookie's that is unnatural(chemical synthesis sounds pretty unnatural.). Therefore the label would be wrong.

Even if E was true, it does not dispute this rebuttal.

Bolded in your reasoning is what is considered 'illogical' by the LSAT. Strengthening an argument in this case ONLY means solidifying the line of reasoning used in the scenario.

testmachine45
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:09 am

Re: PT 59, LR SECTION 2, #5

Postby testmachine45 » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:48 am

How do you know this?

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

Re: PT 59, LR SECTION 2, #5

Postby incompetentia » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:50 am

Taking and studying 30+ PTs...?

testmachine45
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:09 am

Re: PT 59, LR SECTION 2, #5

Postby testmachine45 » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:51 am

edit
Last edited by testmachine45 on Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: PT 59, LR SECTION 2, #5

Postby incompetentia » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:53 am

168 on my diagnostic, high of 180 (once), then 177 (4x).
I got a couple prep books but I found them generally useless, so I went to the tests.

If you only have five tests taken, then I'd say wait. That's just me though

testmachine45
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:09 am

Re: PT 59, LR SECTION 2, #5

Postby testmachine45 » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:54 am

Good luck on Saturday




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, Baidu [Spider], JD_Kingfish and 6 guests