PT 37, Section 4, Q

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.

Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 11:52 pm

PT 37, Section 4, Q

Postby February1088 » Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:12 pm

Did anyone find this section harder than the usual LR section? I consistently score at least 20 correct on each LR section but this section made me go 18. That being said, I was wondering if I could ask multiple questions for this, seeing as how they are in the same section

Question 11
I picked C, but answer was D. I don't understand why. D sounds like it's actually strengthening Galina's point

Question 19
Picked D but answer was A. It's a justify question but I don't see the missing links that I have t to connect. I know the 'welfare of society' should be used within the answer choice but what is the other piece of information I have to connect it to?

Question 20
This question made me angry lol. I had to re-read it a couple times to even have an understanding of it. I see that it's a justify question. I picked E, but the correct answer was A. I thought it was E because it was the answer choice that talked about how motives override consequences of actions, and in the passage it sounds like it's talking about the 'goodwill' or 'reason behind your action' i.e. motive that matters, whether it is motivated by a desire to help others.

I can see why its A as well but would E not work at all? Why would it be wrong?

Thanks in advance

Manhattan LSAT Noah

Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am

Re: PT 37, Section 4, Q

Postby Manhattan LSAT Noah » Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:57 pm

Here's my colleague Mike's explanation for #20: This is a very tough question, and I think, when you say "abstract" questions that play with your mind (I know the feeling!) you may be referring to questions involving conditional logic, and you may want to generally review the rules of conditional logic.

There are a few ways one could approach a question like this, and you can get a better sense of it, perhaps, by diagramming, and other instructors may do that. I personally wouldn't, and here's the process I would use.

1. Read for the core and find the gap

What is the author's point?

One who aids others primarily out of a desire for praise does not deserve praise.

What is the supporting premise?

People merit praise only for actions motivated by a desire to help others.

What's the gap?

The author is assuming that desire for praise and desire to help others are mutually exclusive concepts, but they are not. One who aids primarily out of a desire for praise can still have a desire to help others, at least according to what we know.

So, in order for the argument to be sound, in order to bridge the gap between evidence and conclusion, we need to know that those who aid primarily out of a desire for praise are not motivated by a desire to help others.

These answer choices sound a lot alike, and if you don't have a clear sense of what you are looking for when you go in, you can be in trouble! It certainly helps to know what piece you need.

In this case, (A) matches exactly what we need, and is therefore correct.

It shows us that those who aid primarily out of a desire for praise are not motivated by a desire to help others.

Let's look at the other answers quickly:

(B) is tempting, but an assumption about actions "solely" motivated by a desire for praise doesn't match the argument.

(C) is also tempting, but it's not exactly the piece we need. In fact, this answer is really just a restatement of the premise (the contrapositive).

(D) Deserving praise for advancing one's own interest is not relevant for this conclusion.

(E) Motives vs consequences are not relevant to this core.

Again, you can diagram this, but diagrams tend to be a bit more helpful in absolute situations, and "primarily" in this case makes the diagramming a bit more complicated.

I hope that helps.

Another one of your questions has a discussion here: ... c66c0e88d1

User avatar

Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: PT 37, Section 4, Q

Postby 510Chicken » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:06 pm

February1088 wrote:Question 11
I picked C, but answer was D. I don't understand why. D sounds like it's actually strengthening Galina's point

D is correct because when the water evaporates, the concentration of sugar (which is left behind) in the sap increases. This accounts for the otherwise large amounts of sap that Galina thinks the squirrels would need to consume, since squirrels would be able to consume a smaller amount of the higher concentration sap and get the same amount of sugar.

C is incorrect because tapping one tree species more often than another doesn't necessarily mean that it is the sugar that is the cause. For example, there could be some other nutrient that correlates positively with sugar concentration. The trees with lower concentration might simply have less of it, so squirrels tap the (relatively) higher concentration tree instead, sugar aside.

Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests