PT 59 DEC 2009 Section 2 question 25

zahunter
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 10:44 pm

PT 59 DEC 2009 Section 2 question 25

Postby zahunter » Sun Dec 05, 2010 2:34 pm

Regarding the amount of heat present as a result of a higher level of greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide and methane, how does the answer (B) follow from the argument? I guess I’m missing something. I really appreciate anyone willing to explain it.

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

Re: PT 59 DEC 2009 Section 2 question 25

Postby Anomaly » Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:45 pm

Well first off remember that since this is a weaken question, the correct answer choice is allowed to bring in information outside of the stimulus.

Now the key to this question and a lot of LSAT questions is a matter of scope. In the evidence, the author says that GREENHOUSE GASES (such as carbon dioxide and methane) can trap heat in the atmosphere. In his conclusion he says "it must be that carbon dioxide levels were higher".

But wait a minute...what about other greenhouse gases (methane)? Do you see that the author automatically ruled out all the other greenhouse gases and assumed that carbon dioxide is the culprit?

If methane levels were higher (as choice B says) then we have a pretty good reason to doubt the author's conclusion that CO2 levels were higher.

zahunter
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 10:44 pm

Re: PT 59 DEC 2009 Section 2 question 25

Postby zahunter » Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:50 pm

Thanks. I see your point. I made the mistake of assuming that if methane (a greenhouse gas) was higher, so was CO2. AHH, I see it now. Methane caused it instead of carbon dioxide. Thank you.

2011Law
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:40 pm

Re: PT 59 DEC 2009 Section 2 question 25

Postby 2011Law » Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:55 pm

lol, typed up a response to help, but was too late. Anyone mind helping me out on #15 of the same section real quick? For some reason I can't see which term it is that is shifting.

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

Re: PT 59 DEC 2009 Section 2 question 25

Postby Anomaly » Sun Dec 05, 2010 4:24 pm

Anarchy shifts all over the place. Red flags should go off any time the author gives a definition in an LR question.

In the first sentence the author defines anarchy as the absence of government. "One writer" calls it extreme laissez-faire capitalism. The author finally makes his argument:

Since an acceptable social philosphy must promote peace and order, anarchy (which countenances chaos) deserves no further attention.

This is confusing and rightfully so. Anarchy shifts from being the absense of government, to extreme laissez-faire capitalism, to a social philosophy that countenances chaos.

zahunter
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 10:44 pm

Re: PT 59 DEC 2009 Section 2 question 25

Postby zahunter » Sun Dec 05, 2010 4:31 pm

Anomaly beat me to it.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: batlaw, bcapace, BobBoblaw, Instrumental, judill, LobLaw_LawFirm, MSNbot Media, Pozzo and 14 guests