PT 60: Section 1, LR, #6 Only question I had trouble with!

secretad
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

PT 60: Section 1, LR, #6 Only question I had trouble with!

Postby secretad » Fri May 13, 2011 5:28 pm

I could not believe that of all questions, #6 was the hardest for me. Part of it was that I could not understand the stimulus. Tell me what this line is even saying..?

"The effort was not worthwhile, however, since 357 affected live otters and 900 that died were counted, but only 222 affected otters, or 18 percent of those counted were successfully rehabilitated and survived."

Since I know that 222 of 357 is not 18%, what are they saying in that statement? So you have 357 live otters that were affected by the oil spill and only 222 affected otters were successfully rehabilitated and survived. How is that 18%?

If this were a weaken question, instead of this question, which I do not even know what type it is (lots of unique question stems from this test) would E have been a correct answer? Since it challenges the conclusion of it being not worthwhile?

User avatar
510Chicken
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: PT 60: Section 1, LR, #6 Only question I had trouble with!

Postby 510Chicken » Fri May 13, 2011 5:43 pm

secretad wrote:"The effort was not worthwhile, however, since 357 affected live otters and 900 that died were counted, but only 222 affected otters, or 18 percent of those counted were successfully rehabilitated and survived."

Since I know that 222 of 357 is not 18%, what are they saying in that statement? So you have 357 live otters that were affected by the oil spill and only 222 affected otters were successfully rehabilitated and survived. How is that 18%?

I don't have the question, so I can't really say more than this but...

222 is ~18% of 900 + 357. It's out of the total otters counted, both dead and alive.

tomwatts
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:01 am

Re: PT 60: Section 1, LR, #6 Only question I had trouble with!

Postby tomwatts » Fri May 13, 2011 6:34 pm

secretad wrote:If this were a weaken question, instead of this question, which I do not even know what type it is (lots of unique question stems from this test) would E have been a correct answer? Since it challenges the conclusion of it being not worthwhile?

This is a Weaken question, although it's phrased more specifically than most (we're calling into question the evidence, not just the conclusion). The issue with E is that we have no frame of reference to evaluate this information. If we find out that the cost was $5 per otter, what does that mean? If we find out that the cost was $500 per otter, what does that mean? To have a frame of reference, we'd need to know the value of the life of an otter, too, which we don't know.

However, B attacks the evidence directly, which is what the stem asks for.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, Bing [Bot], blackmamba8, goldenbear2020, isuggestbedtime, LewD33, maybeman, proteinshake, SunDevil14, TLane, VMars, xtremenite, Yahoo [Bot] and 29 guests