PT 29 Section 4, #20 Question

forps
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:35 pm

PT 29 Section 4, #20 Question

Postby forps » Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:59 pm

Hello all,

There are some questions which I have difficult time justyfing the reasoning behind the correct answer choice.
PT 29 Section 4(LR) Question #20 is one of them. Can anyone help me understand why the answer choice (A) is the correct answer for this particular question?

Thanks in advance.

pft
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 7:56 pm

Re: PT 29 Section 4, #20 Question

Postby pft » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:50 pm

How do you think (A) strengthens the argument?

forps
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: PT 29 Section 4, #20 Question

Postby forps » Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:33 am

pft wrote:How do you think (A) strengthens the argument?


Thank you for your response pft.

Stimulus conclusion (In my opinion) is that the primary cause of the declining amphibian population is the depletion of the ozone layer.

Well, at first, I thought if (A) is true - that of the various of radiation blocekd by atmospheric ozone, UV-B is the only type that can damage genes - This answer choice affirms the fact ozone layer, if not depleted, blocks UV-B which is damaging genes which in result contribute in declining of amphibian population.

Should I just think that this answer choice reiterates the information which is already stated in the stimulus?

Am I making an assumption unconsciously?

Thanks in advance.

pft
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 7:56 pm

Re: PT 29 Section 4, #20 Question

Postby pft » Mon Jul 11, 2011 1:21 am

I think you're overthinking (A) a bit.

The argument is the primary cause of the declining amphibian population is the depletion of the ozone layer. The strengthening of the argument should deal directly with the "primary cause of the decline of the amphibian population", and all the other answers do and support the argument.

(A) doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not the ozone layer is the primary cause of the decline of the amphibian population until you follow a chain of logic through a couple other assumptions.

I think, in general, thinking very narrowly about the scope of the answers in LR or RC will get you the right response. If you find yourself really reading into the meaning behind an answer choice, you may have missed something more obvious.

forps
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: PT 29 Section 4, #20 Question

Postby forps » Mon Jul 11, 2011 1:31 am

pft wrote:I think you're overthinking (A) a bit.

The argument is the primary cause of the declining amphibian population is the depletion of the ozone layer. The strengthening of the argument should deal directly with the "primary cause of the decline of the amphibian population", and all the other answers do and support the argument.

(A) doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not the ozone layer is the primary cause of the decline of the amphibian population until you follow a chain of logic through a couple other assumptions.

I think, in general, thinking very narrowly about the scope of the answers in LR or RC will get you the right response. If you find yourself really reading into the meaning behind an answer choice, you may have missed something more obvious.


Thank you for your response pft.

I better understood the question and the reasoning behind the answer now.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tazewell and 3 guests