few questions on PT 18 Section 4 LR

cord
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 6:41 pm

few questions on PT 18 Section 4 LR

Postby cord » Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:48 am

Hello,

For two problems, I just wanted some insight on why some wrong answers were in fact wrong.

I will start with the one that irks me the most.

23. I picked the right answer because it seemed blatantly correct. However, I'm having trouble seeing how D weakens the argument.

The argument/conclusion essentially is that Depression ---> Tinted Eyeglasses. To consider D, would not one have to assume that this is not infact fasionable presently in Britain, and then, therefore it is fashionable elsewhere since "fashions differ in different parts of the world"?

Or is it as simple as: if fashions differ, you can assume that some places people wear it for fashion, therefore depression is not the ONLY cause for wearing them?


And the last question...

19. I had a toss up between B and D on this one. The conditional I set up was ~S (not skeptical ) --> Interests coincide or, with the contrapositive, ~ IC --> S.

The way I rationalized that D was less preferable to B is because, though the interests do not fully coincide in D (Sara's personal friend also gains) and this should sufficiently lead to skepticism, Ron should invesitgate does not seem to mean the same thing as holding skepticism. This seems to me somewhat tenuous rationalization given that in B, the judgement is that Ramon should not reject .... and this is also not the same thing as being "skeptical."


Thanks for any help, guys.

nickm100
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: few questions on PT 18 Section 4 LR

Postby nickm100 » Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:17 pm

23.

Weaken EXCEPT are certainly my least favorite question types but this is what I came up with:

1st sentence, Observation: People who wear tinted glasses correlate with hypochondriacs and depressives

2nd sentence, Example: British tests confirm correlation

3rd sentence, Hypothesis explanation: Not supported and more of a throw away distractor

4th sentence, Conclusion: Glasses --> Depression+Hypochondriac
I think you've got your conclusion mixed up formally, for it says WHEN Glasses (then) Depression and Hypo

So I went in to 23 thinking that based on evidence from a study in Britain showing a correlation the author has concluded a global conditional relationship.

(D) Weakens the conditional relationship because fashions may influence a person who is neither H not D to wear tinted glasses. This is not so different from (A) because in both instances, a force other than H or D influences the person to wear glasses.

19.

My advice when it comes to Principal Qs is to look for the simplest transposition. Every part should match perfectly. (B) Matches really well-- we've got a person offering advice who is in a position to profit from it and thus like you laid out in you conditional, Ramon must be skeptical.

(D) is tricky because it's close but slightly different. 1st Do the writers of a book stand to gain from its purchase? (Likely yes in the real world, but not certain in LSAT world), 2nd, assuming they both stand to gain from its purchase, both will gain if Ron uses it, 3rd, Sarah's editor friend isn't the one giving the advice and thus won't benefit her individually even if we assume the editor benefits (again, likely in real world but not certain in LSAT world), 4th in the real world Sarah might help her friend the editor out and then the editor will help her but this isn't spelled out.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: galeatus, Greenteachurro, potatocowpower, qemini1594, SunDevil14, Tazewell and 9 guests