Top Law Schools

I want to start in section 3, the logical reasoning section of PrepTest 33.

I missed 6 in this section, including 3 in the first ten! One of them, in my "defense," was a simple misread where I did not see EXCEPT in the resolve discrepancy question.

#9 The problem with societal justice.

I had an extremely difficult time with this question. This was just about the only one where I could not understand what was being asked of me. I know I am looking for a principle to strengthen this argument.

The conclusion is [So we can see that general principles of justice are never sufficient to determine the details of social policies fixed within a particular state.]

One of the premises for this is that conversations with societal justice will end up with "That is the way we do things here."

The other premise is that different communities settle on somewhat different provisions for older people.

I thought about an answer (prephrasing I suppose it is called to most people) before I read the answer choices. My answer was nothing close to these, which sometimes is the case. After reading the answer choices I almost became convinced this was like a parallel the principle question????

I chose (A) because the two states (communities) each adhered to the same electoral principles (general principles of justice), one had a different type of machine for counting ballots in public elections than the other did. (A detail of an electoral policy differs in one than another)

How is that not the answer, it seems to fit quite nicely. of course, I am viewing this as a parallel the principle question.

I do not see how (D) is a principle that strengthens the argument?

can you post the whole thing?

Okay I read the question. The details in the wording is key to figuring out what the right answer is. From the conclusion we have (as you mentioned): "general principles of justice are never sufficient to determine the details of social policies fixed within a particular state". It also gives an example of how the elderly are treated in two societies. So we probably want a answer that closely mirrors this example.

Let's look at [A] and [D] (I'll assume you eliminated the other answers for the correct reasons)

[A] talks about "electoral principles" and applies it to the use of ballot counting machines, which hardly seems like a social policy.

[D] Talks about similar "principles of justice" (exact wording of the conclusion) as applied to government subsidized day-care, which very much seems like a social policy to me.

Both answers reflect the idea of two societies having the same or similar principles but apply those principles differently in developing the details of their policies; however, the wording of [D] parallels the wording of the stimulus more closely. Thus, I think [D] is the stronger answer.

To to honest, my first reaction upon reading the answers was that [D] just "felt" right (either because it pertained to a social policy and thus, mirrored the elderly example a little better, or because I subconsciously remember that question); however upon closely re-reading the answer choices I picked up on the subtle differences between the wording that made [D] the only possible correct answer. Hope this helped.

you chose an unfortunate screen name.

somewhatwayward wrote:you chose an unfortunate screen name.

Are you referring to me or OP?

gggrra wrote:Hope this helped.

It did. Thanks so much.

I missed two more principle questions, but in section 1. I cannot believe I am this bad at principle questions. I bet I have a sub 50% accuracy rate on these questions.

Let me start with #18 from section 1 of PrepTest 33.

#18

I eliminated every answer choice except for A and B.

The stimulus is very easy to understand. It says that the use of satellites in space to study conditions on earth is a big development in conservationism. Problems can now be seen before they would be observed otherwise, which would give people a chance to fix it before it reached crisis mode. The last sentence states "It is no wonder that environmentalists fail to consider both that spacecraft may damage the ozone layer and that this damage could be serious enough to warrant discontinuing spaceflight."

Answer choices:

A) People tend to ignore possible objectionable consequences of actions that support their activities.

B) A negative consequence of an activity may be outweighed by its great positive consequences.

I do not see how you can B is incorrect. I feel that if A is true, then by necessity B has to be true. And if B is true, it is not necessary for A to be true because of the word tend.

I feel like principle questions are subjective in this case.

You should first recognize and really understand what the conclusion is saying. Basically the author is concluding that it is understandable or it is not surprising that environmentalists don't think about the bad consequences of satellites.

Once I've paraphrased the conclusion like that, it should be pretty obvious why [A] is the right answer. Basically [A] addresses the conclusion directly, while (though it may be true) is not really the author's point. The author's conclusion is not about whether the negative consequences are outweighed by the positive consequences; in fact he's actually suggesting that the environmentalists are ignoring or even unaware of (i.e. "fail to consider") these negative consequences. His conclusion is not to pass judgement on the use of satellites as would suggest, but to say that people can fail to consider a negative consequence if they are fixated on the positive consequences or answer [A]. Don't know if this explanation makes sense.

secretad wrote:The last sentence states "It is no wonder that environmentalists fail to consider both that spacecraft may damage the ozone layer and that this damage could be serious enough to warrant discontinuing spaceflight."

This is the reason that B is wrong. The negative consequence is not outweighed by its positive consequences. If anything, the positive consequences may be outweighed by the negative consequence.

tomwatts wrote:

secretad wrote:The last sentence states "It is no wonder that environmentalists fail to consider both that spacecraft may damage the ozone layer and that this damage could be serious enough to warrant discontinuing spaceflight."

This is the reason that B is wrong. The negative consequence is not outweighed by its positive consequences. If anything, the positive consequences may be outweighed by the negative consequence.

That is not an adequate reason to state that B is wrong.

Here is why: The conclusion states, "It is no wonder that environmentalists fail to consider both that spacecraft may damage the ozone layer and that this damage could be serious enough to warrant discontinuing spaceflight."

The environmentalists are saying that the negative is NOT OUTWEIGHED because it is fitting their agenda. They feel that a negative consequence of an activity [the conclusion] may be outweighed by its great positive consequences [being able to intervene in environmental problems].


I see that my view of ignore is what caused me to miss this question. I was thinking that ignore suggested the environmentalists KNEW of these risks and simply did not deem it worthy to trump the benefits of what they were doing.

I was not totally aware that ignore implied not knowing at all or failing to consider.

If I were to say that you ignored my message, aren't I implying that you knew of it yet did nothing about it.

I would not say that I ignored somebody when I did not know that I had a message from them.

Is this one of those distinctions that I have failed to incorporate in my LSAT studying.

I know that or is not disjunctive on the LSAT and that some could imply all, as could most, etc.

Is it the case that ignore includes not knowing at all?

secretad wrote:The environmentalists are saying that the negative is NOT OUTWEIGHED because it is fitting their agenda. They feel that a negative consequence of an activity [the conclusion] may be outweighed by its great positive consequences [being able to intervene in environmental problems].

Who cares what the environmentalists think? The argument presents as fact that the positive might be outweighed by the negative. Thus, it is not the case that the negative outweighs the positive, which is reason enough to say that this answer is wrong.

If the answer said, "Some people believe that the negative..." or whatever, then the environmentalists' views would be relevant to the answer. But it doesn't.

tomwatts wrote:

secretad wrote:The environmentalists are saying that the negative is NOT OUTWEIGHED because it is fitting their agenda. They feel that a negative consequence of an activity [the conclusion] may be outweighed by its great positive consequences [being able to intervene in environmental problems].

Who cares what the environmentalists think? The argument presents as fact that the positive might be outweighed by the negative. Thus, it is not the case that the negative outweighs the positive, which is reason enough to say that this answer is wrong.

If the answer said, "Some people believe that the negative..." or whatever, then the environmentalists' views would be relevant to the answer. But it doesn't.

What the environmentalists believe is certainly relevant in the principle that we are hunting for in this problem.

Just because the negative consequences MAY be blah blah and could be blah blah, the environmentalists DO NOT CARE. They would not be for this if it were not for the case that there are positive consequences outweighing the negatives.

We do not know for a fact that the negatives outweigh the positives like you suggest. You are turning a maybe and a could into certain fact.

secretad wrote:What the environmentalists believe is certainly relevant in the principle that we are hunting for in this problem.

Just because the negative consequences MAY be blah blah and could be blah blah, the environmentalists DO NOT CARE. They would not be for this if it were not for the case that there are positive consequences outweighing the negatives.

There's something rather important that you're doing wrong here, so I'll give this one more try, and if you don't see it, you don't see it, and you'll figure it out from other questions.

The question asks about the "reasoning above," not about the environmentalists specifically, and the passage presents the negative potentially outweighing the positive as a fact. The environmentalists ignore the fact that this damage could be serious enough to warrant discontinuing spaceflight. So the positive does not necessarily outweigh the negative. If anything, the opposite may be true. Hence, saying that the passage illustrates the notion that a "negative consequence... may be outweighed by its great positive consequences" is wrong because that's not actually true in this case; if anything, the positive consequences may be outweighed by the negative consequences.

Now, here's the crucial bit. What the environmentalists think or don't think doesn't matter for answer choice B. It does for answer choice A, because A talks about "People tend to ignore," etc. A is specifically talk about people. B is talking about the facts of the situation. So whether the environmentalists believe that the negative is outweighed by the positive (which they don't; they "fail to consider" this in the first place) is not relevant to answer choice B; B talks about what is in fact true, not what people believe to be true.

A is about what people think and do; B is about the actual consequences. Hence, the environmentalists' thoughts and actions are not relevant to B. All that matters is that the argument says that the damage could in fact be serious enough to warrant discontinuing spaceflight (regardless of whether the environmentalists know or care).

Thanks tomwatts. I see it now. I appreciate it.