Top Law Schools

Hi all, I am review my October 2010 LSAT, and I understand where I went wrong on most of the problems, but there are a few I was wondering if I could get some help with?

EDITED BY MODS, PLEASE DO NOT POST ACTUAL LSAT QUESTIONS OR ANSWERS, THANKS WE APPRECIATE IT.

I was going to ask for the proper diagram, but now I'm thinking using a diagram would be improper given the circumstances. If you could describe how you came to the proper response, aside from mere intuition, I would really appreciate it.

I've been a long time lurker on the forum, but I've never posted. All the help is awesome and much appreciated!

First off you should edit out the actual questions and just refer to the section and question numbers for copyright reasons.

#7 We know from the stimulus that a necessary condition for corporations to contract a design company is that they be large. We are told that their are better designs out there, but they are made by small companies who the corporations are therefore unwilling to hire. Since Baxe has maintained a monopoly despite having designs inferior to some produced by small companies, we can infer that their market position is not currently threatened.

You could weaken this I suppose by saying something like "All small companies that win awards for their corporate designs experience sufficient growth within a year to make them very large" but I'm getting ahead of myself :p

Additionally, E is clearly the best answer. The issue with C is that it is unsupported since we only know that some small companies have superior designs not most.


#25
I got this one wrong too on October, but the issue is that to make it flow you have to connect the first two statements. This makes the last one basically irrelevant I believe.

~RoL ---> ~IF
~SI ---> ~IF
~SI ---> ~GL
B.) ~RoL ---> ~SI

So to rearrange that getting rid of the last sentence:
B.) ~RoL ---> ~SI
~SI ---> ~IF
Therefore: ~RoL ---> ~IF


The first conditional and the second conditional are not compatible without the connection. The first conditional serves as the conclusion, the second as a premise, and you need that added premise to make it work.

They just throw that last statement in there with the "and" to throw you off, making it a rather difficult question especially if you are pressed for time or aren't big on conditionals.


Hope those help.

Wow, thanks for pointing out on 7 that I just cannot read. No wonder I had so much trouble answering the question.

Thanks for the diagram! You can't use contrapositives on those since they aren't certainties, correct?

Are you retaking in Dec, or are you done?

You could take the contrapositives of them and still get to the right answer, it just switches the order of the argument up to get it to flow as A-->B-->C => A-->C, The whole point is just to recognize that the first two statements need connected and the last one is extraneous to the argument.


And I'm retaking in December . I underachieved in October and didn't prepare as well as I could have.

I really appreciate all the help, best of luck to you next week!