PT 61, LR2 #20

spets
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:44 pm

PT 61, LR2 #20

Postby spets » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:31 pm

I narrowed this one down to A or D, and while I see why A is correct, I'm having trouble seeing why D is wrong, especially if you negate it. If "any substance of medicinal value contained in plant species indigenous to tropical rain forests will NOT eventually be discovered," doesn't that effectively destroy the argument, since if they're never discovered, then how will the medicines be developed?

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5834
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: PT 61, LR2 #20

Postby 2014 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:52 pm

It's too extreme. The argument says in the past medicines have been discovered in rainforests and thus in the future with more studying, more medicines will be discovered. It doesn't ever say that all possible medicines will be discovered, that is unsupported and not a necessary assumption.

I think the issue is that you didn't really negate the statement when you tried that as a test.

The LSAT negation of any/every is not none, rather it not every. The way you negated D effectively took a premise that said 100% and instead of making it "Not 100%" you made it 0%.

Think of it this way. If there is a substance of medicinal value that will never be discovered, that is perfectly compatible with the argument, but not compatible with D if in fact it is assumed.

Does that make sense at all? I know I wasn't fully clear.

spets
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:44 pm

Re: PT 61, LR2 #20

Postby spets » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:58 pm

Thanks 2014. It makes sense now once I realized that I negated it incorrectly.

Is there any chance you could shed some light on #24 (Long term friends, approx. age, and approaching strangers) in this section as well? I got it right, but looking back I basically chose the answer blind.

User avatar
chrissyc
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:14 pm

Re: PT 61, LR2 #20

Postby chrissyc » Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:07 pm

how'd you score on pt 61?

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5834
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: PT 61, LR2 #20

Postby 2014 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:15 pm

24 is a tricky one, I got it right on the real deal but even reading it now I have a hard time putting into words my train of thought but here's a shot.

The conclusion states:
"Most long term friends are probably of the same approximate age as each other"

The evidence given is:
"Most long term relationships begin because someone felt comfortable approaching a stranger"
and "One is likely to feel comfortable approaching a stranger if the stranger is the same age"

The flaw is that those two pieces of evidence alone are not sufficient to prove the conclusion. As E points out, consider if someone is a stranger of a totally different age. It is entirely possible that people are just as comfortable with those people if not more so, and if that is the case the conclusion is weakened significantly because we can no longer say with certainty that age mattered.

For the argument to flow with that conclusion and evidence, the 2nd piece of evidence above would have to say "only if the stranger is the same age". By not saying that, it is not commenting on those of different ages and leaving the argument vulnerable to the possibility above, hence E.

spets
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:44 pm

Re: PT 61, LR2 #20

Postby spets » Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:47 pm

2014 wrote:For the argument to flow with that conclusion and evidence, the 2nd piece of evidence above would have to say "only if the stranger is the same age". By not saying that, it is not commenting on those of different ages and leaving the argument vulnerable to the possibility above, hence E.


This is exactly what I needed. Now it makes much more sense. Thanks again!

User avatar
chrissyc
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:14 pm

Re: PT 61, LR2 #20

Postby chrissyc » Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:42 am

2014 wrote:24 is a tricky one, I got it right on the real deal but even reading it now I have a hard time putting into words my train of thought but here's a shot.

The conclusion states:
"Most long term friends are probably of the same approximate age as each other"

The evidence given is:
"Most long term relationships begin because someone felt comfortable approaching a stranger"
and "One is likely to feel comfortable approaching a stranger if the stranger is the same age"

The flaw is that those two pieces of evidence alone are not sufficient to prove the conclusion. As E points out, consider if someone is a stranger of a totally different age. It is entirely possible that people are just as comfortable with those people if not more so, and if that is the case the conclusion is weakened significantly because we can no longer say with certainty that age mattered.

For the argument to flow with that conclusion and evidence, the 2nd piece of evidence above would have to say "only if the stranger is the same age". By not saying that, it is not commenting on those of different ages and leaving the argument vulnerable to the possibility above, hence E.



I missed this one. That explanation helps a lot. THANKS!

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5834
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: PT 61, LR2 #20

Postby 2014 » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:47 am

I'm glad you guys could understand my blabber lol




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests