PT 61 LR S4 Q. 4

User avatar
Diiizzzzoooo
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:18 pm

PT 61 LR S4 Q. 4

Postby Diiizzzzoooo » Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:57 pm

This was one of the few I got wrong, so I was pretty fumed when I saw the right answer. It seemed so counterintuitive after reading the passage. What puzzles me even now is that I don't understand how (D) is right, and it is all because of the word "eradicated" in the passage. Can someone please explain to me how the diseases "come back" after being eradicated? Eradicated literally means to permanently destroy. I figured (D) was way off, and chose something else.

User avatar
Diiizzzzoooo
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:18 pm

Re: PT 61 LR S4 Q. 4

Postby Diiizzzzoooo » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:29 am

Really? Even Manhattan hasn't taken a crack at this one.

User avatar
albusdumbledore
Posts: 1132
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:38 pm

Re: PT 61 LR S4 Q. 4

Postby albusdumbledore » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:39 am

You're reading too much into that word. Sure, they were eradicated during the industrial revolution in polluted industrial English cities. Who says eradicated means they can never come back? It doesn't say permanently eradicated. Plus there isn't a single other choice that makes even a remote amount of sense. And it is question number four, you have to figure it is going to be fairly simple answer.

User avatar
Diiizzzzoooo
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:18 pm

Re: PT 61 LR S4 Q. 4

Postby Diiizzzzoooo » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:50 am

albusdumbledore wrote:You're reading too much into that word. Sure, they were eradicated during the industrial revolution in polluted industrial English cities. Who says eradicated means they can never come back? It doesn't say permanently eradicated. Plus there isn't a single other choice that makes even a remote amount of sense. And it is question number four, you have to figure it is going to be fairly simple answer.




Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but my understanding is that the test writers do not leave the individual words in the passage up for interpretation.The literal definition of "eradicated" doesn't allow for something to come back. "Permanently eradicated" would be redundant, like saying "That guy is dead forever."

Now I understand that most of the other answer choices seemed silly, but that's what I thought when I hit (D).

Whatever, maybe I psyched myself out, but I missed 2 questions in that section, and this was one of them.

User avatar
albusdumbledore
Posts: 1132
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:38 pm

Re: PT 61 LR S4 Q. 4

Postby albusdumbledore » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:04 am

Your definition is wrong. Eradicated can mean completely or totally destroy, but it doesn't mean "destroyed forever". That isn't the literal definition of eradicated. It isn't redundant, which is why you hear people sometimes say "permanently eradicated".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eradicated

User avatar
Diiizzzzoooo
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:18 pm

Re: PT 61 LR S4 Q. 4

Postby Diiizzzzoooo » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:10 am

I mean, I guess I'm wrong then, but I've always maintained that if something is "destroyed" or "eradicated", it can't return. It's done for. I even get the same sense reading that definition.



Thanks for responding though, I'll be sure to leave some wiggle room on similar words in the future.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Avs13, cherrygalore, dontsaywhatyoumean, floatie, govlife, Instrumental, lawcapture, Pozzo, Yahoo [Bot] and 19 guests