geverett wrote:Would love to hear an explanation for PT 52 Section 1 #3 complete with conditional logic diagram of the answer choice and the stimulus to show how they match up.
Also would love to hear an explanation of PT 52 Section 3 #20
These are explanations straight from Kaplan, so don't blame if they suck lol. I haven't taken this PT yet so i can't help you personally.
Section 1, #3:
There’s formal logic at work here, but begin as always: work with one piece of the argument at once. We have a neat, straightforward conclusion: Joe took his car to K & L auto to be fixed. We can characterize that as an assertions of fact: something definitely happened. Match that against the conclusions in your answer choices. (A) asserts that something happened (Emily took her medication), so we’ll keep that for now. (B) asserts that something DIDN’T happen; eliminate. (C) and (E) both assert that something occurred, but (D) introduces a qualifier—throw it out. With A, C and E remaining, look at the evidence. There’s a chain reaction at work here: if Joe’s car was vacuumed, K & L employees did it. If K & L employees did it, Joe took his car to K & L for service. (A) is a match—if Emily’s water glass is wet, she drank out of it this morning. If she drank out of it this morning, she took her medication. (C) lacks the trigger/effect relationship, and (E) introduces an element of choice not present in the stimulus.
Section 3, #20:
The first step is always to identify what seems to be wrong, but in this case half that work is done for us— the stem tells us that we’re looking to explain why the first alternative is rarely used. The stimulus tells us the first alternative is cheaper, so it seems it would make sense to use it, yet it doesn’t happen. We need an answer choice that gives us a possible reason for that apparent discrepancy. (A) doesn’t do it—in fact, it makes it harder to understand why we’re using radical reconstruction in most cases. (B) is irrelevant—amount of traffic has nothing to do (at least, nothing we’ve been told) with the approach chosen. (C) is another argument for performing continuous maintenance, even at a shoddy level—but we don’t. (D) Again, this presents a reason that we should be using continuous maintenance rather than explaining why we’re not. Only correct answer choice (E) makes sense of what’s going on—it’s easy to let ongoing maintenance slip by since the damage is slow to occur.
Hope this helps. I've noticed these Kaplan explanations don't always do it for me, but they are usually better than nothing.