PT 43, LR 1, #17 Formal Logic LR question, help =(

notaznguy
Posts: 318
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:48 am

PT 43, LR 1, #17 Formal Logic LR question, help =(

Postby notaznguy » Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:41 am

The answer is E and I have literally NO idea how to solve it =( I've been going over the Bible and staring at this monster for over an hour and I just can't figure it out.

Sorry, I don't know which section it is because I'm working it out of a prepcourse textbook...it's the question about small countries and the United Nations.

User avatar
tyro
Posts: 648
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:23 am

Re: PT 43, LR 1, #17 Formal Logic LR question, help =(

Postby tyro » Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:09 am

Let's see here, June 204 test, found it.

It looks like the key to the question is in the first two sentences. The last sentence is meant to trick you.

No sc's and no c's in the sh have ps on the UNSC.

Each of the five c's WITH a ps on the SC is in favor of a greater role.

Therefore, some of the c's in favor of a greater role must not be located in the sh because no c located in the sh can be on the UNSC.

User avatar
WhoIsDonDraper
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:19 am

Re: PT 43, LR 1, #17 Formal Logic LR question, help =(

Postby WhoIsDonDraper » Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:25 am

If you take the contrapositive of the first sentence you get:
If you have a permanent seat on the security council, then you are not in the southern hemisphere and you are not a small country. Combined with the second sentence, you also get two more feature of a country with a permanent seat on the security council: increased international peacekeeping and increased UN role in moderating regional disputes.

So all these combined you could even draw an All statement saying: all countries with a permanent seat are in favor of increased UN Role and None are not located in the southern hemisphere. Since you can draw these all statements you can also draw a some statement. This is a good indicator of the right answer anyway since common answers tend to be a little weaker.

The only other choice that should even give you pause is C. However since the All statement comes before the Some statement, you cannot draw any inference about the relationship between permanent seats and spending on refugees. A, B, and D are not in any way transitive given the conditional statements. I can go into more detail but the rules for why these are wrong are outlined in the LR Bible.

notaznguy
Posts: 318
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:48 am

Re: PT 43, LR 1, #17 Formal Logic LR question, help =(

Postby notaznguy » Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:28 am

tyro wrote:Let's see here, June 204 test, found it.

It looks like the key to the question is in the first two sentences. The last sentence is meant to trick you.

No sc's and no c's in the sh have ps on the UNSC.

Each of the five c's WITH a ps on the SC is in favor of a greater role.

Therefore, some of the c's in favor of a greater role must not be located in the sh because no c located in the sh can be on the UNSC.


I didn't know the last sentence had no bearing on anything. That's really good to know.

I know my main issue is that I'm not really understanding formal logic :( I just came back from a lesson at Testmasters and honestly, I feel like my instructor did a sh*tty job of going over what it was. I'm trying to teach myself right now by going over the Bible, but I'm sorta freaking out and panicking because I'm not getting it. Oh jeez......thanks a lot though.

User avatar
tyro
Posts: 648
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:23 am

Re: PT 43, LR 1, #17 Formal Logic LR question, help =(

Postby tyro » Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:37 am

Could you maybe help me on PT 36 LR 1 (secion one) #21?
It was the only one I missed in the section and I still am having trouble with the key word "any" in the correct answer choice.

Ability to explore the wide range of a subject = grounds for accepting-----> easier to understand ANY greek tragedy?

totaltest.milan
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:45 pm

Re: PT 43, LR 1, #17 Formal Logic LR question, help =(

Postby totaltest.milan » Tue Jul 19, 2011 2:08 pm

tyro wrote:Could you maybe help me on PT 36 LR 1 (secion one) #21?
It was the only one I missed in the section and I still am having trouble with the key word "any" in the correct answer choice.

Ability to explore the wide range of a subject = grounds for accepting-----> easier to understand ANY greek tragedy?


i don't think you referenced the correct question, #21 is about paintings and reproductions.

User avatar
tyro
Posts: 648
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:23 am

Re: PT 43, LR 1, #17 Formal Logic LR question, help =(

Postby tyro » Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:46 am

totaltest.milan wrote:
tyro wrote:Could you maybe help me on PT 36 LR 1 (secion one) #21?
It was the only one I missed in the section and I still am having trouble with the key word "any" in the correct answer choice.

Ability to explore the wide range of a subject = grounds for accepting-----> easier to understand ANY greek tragedy?


i don't think you referenced the correct question, #21 is about paintings and reproductions.


:oops: :oops:
It was PT 38 not 36 sorry!

totaltest.milan
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:45 pm

Re: PT 43, LR 1, #17 Formal Logic LR question, help =(

Postby totaltest.milan » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:45 pm

You're right, saying that you'll be able to understand ANY Greek tragedy is a little extreme; but in this case it's tolerable. The basic point of this question is an uncommon variation of the principle question type. You're given a scenario where the reasoning is guided by a general principle or rule and the answer choices ask for an example that illustrates this principle. In this particular question, aside from the somewhat questionable use of the term ANY the situation in choice D best captures the principle in the argument, in fact the rest of the choices aren't examples of that principle at all and are easily eliminated.

The argument basically concludes that school courses should cover basic subject matter in depth. There are two premises that support this conclusion and you can think of both of them as principles/rules. The first one is that if students learn the basic concepts and techniques well they'll be able to explore the rest of the subject on their own. You can think of this premise as a rule that directly supports the conclusion by highlighting the positive consequences of the conclusion (namely students will develop tools to learn additional info on their own). The second premise says that just learning lots of facts won't equip students to further study on their own. You can think of this as a rule that indirectly supports the conclusion by pointing out the negative consequences of not adopting the suggestion in the conclusion (namely students won't be able to learn on their own).

So now we need to pick the answer choice that conforms to either one of those rules:
1) if students learn basic concepts they'll be able to learn on their own
2) if students learn lots of facts they won't be able to learn on their own
(I paraphrased a bit for sake of brevity, it's always important to pay attention to the exact concepts used)

A - this is incorrect because it basically says that students who learn how plants and animals are useful will better understand how they are classified. That's essentially saying that students who learn one aspect of a subject matter will better understand another, related aspect. That's not what our premise says, it talks about learning the basic concepts or foundations in order to learn additional material. A correct rephrasing of choice A would've said 'students who learn how certain plants and animals are useful would be better prepared to learn how other plants and animals are useful.
B - this is incorrect because it doesn't talk about learning/understanding and it doesn't compare key basic concepts to additional cases, it instead talks about recalling two separate things - dull and complicated versus lively and interesting. Likewise, B says that X is easier than Y, whereas the argument says that X is easier after Y.
C - this is incorrect because it likewise doesn't talk about learning/understanding but talks about remembering. And the relevant comparison is between personal explanation vs independent exploration not key basic concepts vs additional cases. As with B, it says that X is easier than Y, whereas the argument says that X is easier after Y.
D - this is the correct choice because it's an illustration of our first premise. Analyzing a few Greek tragedies is equivalent to achieving a solid grasp of the basic ideas and understanding any Greek tragedy is equivalent to exploring the breadth of the subject. The difference with this choice and choices B and C is that here we're finally talking about learning/understanding and we're finally comparing key concepts/examples vs additional cases, which is not what we talked about in A.
E - this is incorrect because it says that X is easier than Y, whereas the argument says that X is easier after Y. Had it said that it's easier to learn many simple ideas well after learning a few complicated ideas well it would've been trickier but still incorrect. The comparison isn't between a few complicated ideas and many simple ideas but between a few basic concepts and additional examples.

Ok, hope that helps. Yes, ANY was a bit problematic, but as you see the other choices all used concepts that prevented them from being correct.

User avatar
tyro
Posts: 648
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:23 am

Re: PT 43, LR 1, #17 Formal Logic LR question, help =(

Postby tyro » Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:47 pm

This is what went through my head when I chose answer choice A:

Premise:
1) if students learn basic concepts, they'll be able to explore the breadth (paraphrased as broad nature) of a topic on their own.

Answer choice A: it is easier to understand how to classify plants and animals once a student realizes how they can be useful.
-Clearly, the required assumption would be that understanding how plants and animals can be useful is a basic concept while the ability to classify them is what would be explored on one's own. This is a questionable assumption but...

in terms of answer choice D, what went through my head was that no where in the question stem did it say that if students learn the basic concepts of a subject, they will be able to understand ANY concept related to that subject on their own. This is why I crossed off answer choice D and went with A.

Looking back on it though, I think it may be possible to go from "able to explore the breadth of a subject on their own after understanding the basic concepts" to "easier to understand any G after one has analyzed a few G's." What I may have mininterpreted was the difference between "easier to understand" and "will be able to understand with certainty"

These are not the same thing and ultimately I think this is what goofed me up. Thanks for your help though.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BOSStongrl and 4 guests