PT8 S1 LR #20

jim-green
Posts: 808
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:55 pm

PT8 S1 LR #20

Postby jim-green » Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:37 pm

This is a challenging Principle Evaluate question. Almost all answers appear correct in that they indicate one or the other course is correct. Any thoughts on why the 4 incorrect answers are incorrect?

jim-green
Posts: 808
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: PT8 S1 LR #20

Postby jim-green » Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:44 pm

A says tear down.
B says rehab.
C says rehab.
How do you choose?

Kurst
Posts: 448
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:33 pm

Re: PT8 S1 LR #20

Postby Kurst » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:41 pm

Neither A nor C determines whether demolition or rehabilitation is the right decision.

A's principle applies to an abandoned neighborhood building which is not believed to pose a threat to neighborhood safety. The stimulus discusses an abandoned neighborhood building which is believed to pose a threat to neighborhood safety.

There are at least two problems with C. First, it is unknown whether the demolition required government funding. Second, even if it is assumed that the demolition did not require government funding, C does not apply to the situation presented in the stimulus. This is what C says:

If the necessary government funds have not already been secured, then the proposal which does not require government funds should be the one adopted.

What if the necessary government funds have already been secured? The principle offers no guidance; like A, it is inapplicable.

jim-green
Posts: 808
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: PT8 S1 LR #20

Postby jim-green » Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:50 am

Thank you so much! However, I disagree with your characterization of A.

A says rehab should be done, unless bldg is a threat. It does not say bldg is not a threat. Since bldg is a threat, we should not do rehab, i.e., we should demolish. What is wrong with my thinking here? I know something is wrong.

C says to demolish (doesn't require govt funding), unless funds have been secured. We know funds have been secured. hence we should rehab. Again, what is wrong with my thinking here?

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: PT8 S1 LR #20

Postby suspicious android » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:32 pm

jim-green wrote:Thank you so much! However, I disagree with your characterization of A.

A says rehab should be done, unless bldg is a threat. It does not say bldg is not a threat. Since bldg is a threat, we should not do rehab, i.e., we should demolish. What is wrong with my thinking here? I know something is wrong.

C says to demolish (doesn't require govt funding), unless funds have been secured. We know funds have been secured. hence we should rehab. Again, what is wrong with my thinking here?


You might want to review your understanding of "unless" statements. The statement in A means:

rehab shouldn't be done --> building is a threat

we know that the building is actually a threat, so the necessary condition has been met. But affirming the necessary condition doesn't allow you to infer anything. So it could be the case either that the rehab should or shouldn't be done. So no judgment possible.

jim-green
Posts: 808
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: PT8 S1 LR #20

Postby jim-green » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:56 pm

Thanks, once you diagrammed it, I got it!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bzam10, cherrygalore, Instrumental, wildquest8200 and 7 guests