PT #57 Section 2 (LR), #25

NaturalLawyer
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:37 am

PT #57 Section 2 (LR), #25

Postby NaturalLawyer » Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:28 pm

This was the question about the city of Weston and registering contributions.

I don't see how (C) must be true. What is needed in the stimulus for (C) to necessarily be true is something like, "and no other contributions needs to be registered with the city council but these."
or "this law is the only law regarding registration of contributions."

Yet, there is nothing like that.

The only thing that I can think of is saying that "the law of the city of Weston regarding contributions to mayoral campaigns" implies that what is stated is the ONLY law. But this is clearly not how we state things ordinarily.

Am I missing something? Or is this the kind of question that one can have thrown out?

I really feel bad for those who had to take PT 57 for the real exam. I found it to be the hardest LSAT exam I've taken and I've taken +30.

Anomaly
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:55 pm

Re: PT #57 Section 2 (LR), #25

Postby Anomaly » Thu Dec 02, 2010 12:11 am

The stimulus sets up a rule: Contributions exceeding $100 made by nonresidents who are not former residents of Weston must be registered with the city council.

In formal logic terms:

If contribution exceeds $100 and if nonresident and non former resident --> must register with council.

The author concludes that Brimley's campaign complied with the rule because it only accepted contributions from residents and former residents.

(C) is definitely true based on the facts. Since the only contributions were from residents and former residents, they are not required to be registered with the city council.

A) This could be true, but it's also possible that the nonresident was one of the former residents who contributed to Brimley's campaign. Either way, we can't say for sure.

B) Again, this could be true or it could be false. Maybe some of Brimley's campaign contributions were registered anyways (even though the law doesn't require it). Not inferrable.

D) Again, we have no idea if any contributions were registered at all. Even if they were, we don't know how much $$ was involved.

E) This isn't necesarrily true. Maybe Brimley's campaign chooses to register all of its contributions, regardless of the city's law.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: PT #57 Section 2 (LR), #25

Postby suspicious android » Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:18 am

I don't see how (C) must be true. What is needed in the stimulus for (C) to necessarily be true is something like, "and no other contributions needs to be registered with the city council but these."
or "this law is the only law regarding registration of contributions."

Yet, there is nothing like that.

The only thing that I can think of is saying that "the law of the city of Weston regarding contributions to mayoral campaigns" implies that what is stated is the ONLY law. But this is clearly not how we state things ordinarily.


Yeah, that actually is how we use that phrase. If I say "A law of Weston regarding contributions is blah, blah, blah" I'm referring to a specific statute, and there might be other laws. But when I say "The law regarding contributions is blah, blah, blah" I'm referring not to a specific statute, but the body of law as a whole. Pretty annoying way they used that, I think just about everyone reading that question had that moment of doubt you did (I remember I did, anyway), but this is definitely fair on LSAC's part.

Anomaly
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:55 pm

Re: PT #57 Section 2 (LR), #25

Postby Anomaly » Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:21 am

.
Last edited by Anomaly on Mon Feb 14, 2011 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NaturalLawyer
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:37 am

Re: PT #57 Section 2 (LR), #25

Postby NaturalLawyer » Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:29 am

suspicious android wrote:Yeah, that actually is how we use that phrase. If I say "A law of Weston regarding contributions is blah, blah, blah" I'm referring to a specific statute, and there might be other laws. But when I say "The law regarding contributions is blah, blah, blah" I'm referring not to a specific statute, but the body of law as a whole. Pretty annoying way they used that, I think just about everyone reading that question had that moment of doubt you did (I remember I did, anyway), but this is definitely fair on LSAC's part.


I don't think this is quite right. For example we say: "Don't drink and drive. It's against the law." Or "The law of the United States states that in order to vote you must at least 18." This doesn't mean that it's the only law. You also need to be a citizen and not just a green-card holder. But I'm open to conversion! :)

Anyways, I think the key is in the body where it says "this" law, which implies that the beginning was referring to a particular law of the city of Weston.

Anomaly wrote:By the way, there actually are a few must be trues with questionable answers, and if the answer doesn't jump off the page at you then start eliminating wrong ones. I can recall one problem from PT 56 or something where the correct response was something like "The managers will not all use the new software". I remember thinking that this wasn't necesarrily true, but the other 4 responses were horribly flawed so it had to be the right answer.

Same thing with this question...even if you can't see C has necesarrily being true, there's no way we could possibly infer A,B,D, or E.


Yes, absolutely you're right. It's just so hard because I'm trying to score in the solid 170s, which requires paying close attention to everything! These questions randomly throw me off.

But thanks guys for the help! I really appreciate the responses.

I guess I have a different question now. For those of you who are also in the 170s range and aiming at mid-high 170s, what do you do about these few logical reasoning questions that really seem puzzling and strange? (I have in mind also the Lead Seals question which now does make sense, but I must admit, if I were to see it during the exam, I would not have even really understood the stimulus.)

Good luck to all the December takers!

gambelda
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:44 am

Re: PT #57 Section 2 (LR), #25

Postby gambelda » Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:51 am

I have had difficulty with all of the questions mentioned in this posting so far. It's these types of questions which I often eliminate 2-3 AC's on but really have no idea between the rest that are costing me points.

Last night I did the first 3 sections of PT 44 and went -3 RC/-1 LG/-6 LR.......I missed 4 questions on LR that I had narrowed down to 2 AC's.... not sure how to tackle these errors in 2 weeks but they are single handedly keeping me from the 170 range.

Anomaly
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:55 pm

Re: PT #57 Section 2 (LR), #25

Postby Anomaly » Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:51 am

Yeah the lead seals was tough, but even on that one you can for sure cross off a couple choices as not affecting the argument either way. I took that PT two days ago and I was actually pretty confident in (A), even though I didn't really 'get' it until reviewing afterwards (got a 179). There will almost certainly be at least one LR question on test day where the logic of the right answer doesn't click with your brain, but if you can prove 4 choices wrong then you're golden.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: PT #57 Section 2 (LR), #25

Postby suspicious android » Thu Dec 02, 2010 12:33 pm

NaturalLawyer wrote:Anyways, I think the key is in the body where it says "this" law, which implies that the beginning was referring to a particular law of the city of Weston.


Well that changes things a lot, didn't see that part in your quote.:) I still stick by my assertions, but I guess it doesn't even matter.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”