## Bruising battle with PT44 S2 LR section

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

Posts: 804
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:55 pm

### Bruising battle with PT44 S2 LR section

Just emerged quite scathed from a bruising battle with PT44 S2 LR section. I think it is one of the hardest ever. Witness #13, where the correct answer is a negation of a double negative and involves some playing with few and most. Obviously, I chose the incorrect ans D. Anyone know what makes ans A correct? Another loss was #21. If I do a Venn diagram, I can figure it out. Did not think to try this when doing the section timed. Anyone do #21 without a Venn diagram?

suspicious android

Posts: 919
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

### Re: Bruising battle with PT44 S2 LR section

jim-green wrote:Just emerged quite scathed from a bruising battle with PT44 S2 LR section. I think it is one of the hardest ever. Witness #13, where the correct answer is a negation of a double negative and involves some playing with few and most. Obviously, I chose the incorrect ans D. Anyone know what makes ans A correct? Another loss was #21. If I do a Venn diagram, I can figure it out. Did not think to try this when doing the section timed. Anyone do #21 without a Venn diagram?

The correct answer to #13 is D, so you might want to check your records there.

For #21, if you think of what the argument's doing in abstract terms, it's easier to see what's going on and how E is parallel. They are both essentially saying "Between 2 options X and Y, X is safer in the event of an accident/illness, but you should do Y instead, since Y minimizes the chances of an accident/illness."

nickm100

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

### Re: Bruising battle with PT44 S2 LR section

PT44 S2 LR#13
Actually, I believe the answer is A.

Here is why I think D is wrong.

After linking the conditional statements I came to something like this:
Sol (GMl) --> major change --> econ. entice

Conclusion: e --> sol

Essentially, this conclusion is re-affirming the premise by stating it as a contra-positive but inserts a new term "few" and neglects to mention the original sufficient condition, "government mismanagement."

Pre-phrase:
The new piece of information that makes this an assumption is "few" so I attacked the answer choices looking for "most" or "few". (I actually immediately thought to look for 'most are not GM' but had to twist is around to get 'few are GM')

I'll run through the answer choices.

(A) TCR: This answer asserts a limited relationship between (sol) and GM by using the term "few". It accounts for the neglected term "GM" and the inserted term, "few" and ties them all to the conditional statement. We've explained how the conclusion came up with the new term and correctly matched it up with the conditional statements. To illustrate, this AC can be diagrammed as: Enviro. prob -Most-> GM

(D) This is a description of GM enviro problems and a shell game answer.
1. "major" is used in the answer choice to distract you from the conditional, that 'major changes to consumer habits are needed'.
2. "most" is inclusive to describing a subset of environmental problems, GM enviro probs. We need to know about a comparison of GM to GM.
3. While the conclusion also adds the term "serious," it is only to throw you off because the premise conditional addresses "any environmental problem"

Basically I attacked this problem after circling "few" in the conclusion, nixing any answer choice that didn't address few or most, and then chose the one that addressed the relationship on macro level of GM vs GM.

suspicious android

Posts: 919
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

### Re: Bruising battle with PT44 S2 LR section

nickm100 wrote:PT44 S2 LR#13
Actually, I believe the answer is A.

Ah, I took S2 LR to mean the second LR section. My mistake. So my explanation for #21 is worthless too.

nickm100

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

### Re: Bruising battle with PT44 S2 LR section

PT44 S2 LR#21

This stimulus makes itself out to be harder than the Question is because the answer choices are all pretty weak. I got to diagramming it this way but ultimately it wasn't necessary:

Conclusion: Claudette --> Classical Pianist

Premise: Claudette --> Rec. Clara's Works
Premise: Classical Pianist -Most-> Rec. Clara's Works
Premise: Classical Pianist -Most-> Rec. Clara's Works

Pre-phrase:
I attacked this problem thinking there would be some sort of mention of a mistaken reversal but the answer choices were so weak, this pre-phrase and diagramming wouldn't be needed.

Answers:
(A) Degree familiarity is not in the conditional statements (either you recognize or you don't, don't split hairs)
(B) Distinction of heard vs. recognize is not part of the conditional statements (again, we only care about recognition)
(C) ability to Play CS works is not part of the conditional
(D) Classic wrong answer, vagueness isn't a factor here-- the conditionals are very specific by mentioning Clara's works. An example to make this answer correct would be if the conditionals relied on different conceptions of classical music and wasn't so specific by mentioning CS)

(E) TCR: The conclusion relies on a most statement to assume Claudette falls into that category because she satisfies the necessary. The error is that satisfying the necessary has no bearing on attaining the sufficient. This answer just states that the group (Classical Pianists) are not the only/majority people who meet the necessary condition. If you like the Powerscore bibles, they would probably mention that you cannot travel against a most statement.

jim-green

Posts: 804
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:55 pm

### Re: Bruising battle with PT44 S2 LR section

THANKS, guys! This is very helpful. As soon as I return home, I will open the PT and look at your responses carefully. Haha, thank God, suspicious got the Section incorrect. I read the response and had a panic attack. But THANKS for that too, since it will be very helpful for me to understand those 2 questions as well!

nickm100

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

### Re: Bruising battle with PT44 S2 LR section

oh yeah, also, see how the stimulus gets to its conclusion using an assumption? Well, (E) attacks that by saying the argument "ignores a possibility" -- It's essentially challenging the assumption the stim makes by making it clear that it cannot be true.

Return to â€œLSAT Prep and Discussion Forumâ€?

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests