PT38.S1.Q20 LR

User avatar
Ocean64
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:53 pm

PT38.S1.Q20 LR

Postby Ocean64 » Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:32 pm

i'm having trouble with this inference question about climate and migration. I'm not quite sure whether this is a cause & effect or a sufficient/necessary type of question. it says "drastic shifts in climate always result in migrations" which to me implies cause and effect.

can someone please explain why choice (D) is correct and why (A) is incorrect, and how should one think about this?

User avatar
lrslayer
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:38 am

Re: PT38.S1.Q20 LR

Postby lrslayer » Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:39 pm

Ocean64 wrote:i'm having trouble with this inference question about climate and migration. I'm not quite sure whether this is a cause & effect or a sufficient/necessary type of question. it says "drastic shifts in climate always result in migrations" which to me implies cause and effect.

can someone please explain why choice (D) is correct and why (A) is incorrect, and how should one think about this?

http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/q20-sociologist-climate-and-geology-determine-t2397.html?sid=17818f039edeb61bda1da8c59a47fcc1

User avatar
Ocean64
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:53 pm

Re: PT38.S1.Q20 LR

Postby Ocean64 » Fri Aug 12, 2011 8:49 pm

so i guess it's a standard suff/nec type of problem. thanks!

User avatar
Ocean64
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:53 pm

Re: PT38.S1.Q20 LR

Postby Ocean64 » Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:09 pm

ok general question...when you have a cause & effect relationship, doesn't that mean that the given cause is THE ONLY THING than can cause the given effect?

example: training causes accuracy. what this should mean is that training comes before accuracy and it is the only thing that can cause accuracy and if i'm given accuracy i can know that it was caused by training, solely on the "training causes accuracy" statement if such a statement is given as a premise. can someone please confirm that?

this is why the business of "primary cause" is giving me such a hard time

User avatar
Ocean64
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:53 pm

Re: PT38.S1.Q20 LR

Postby Ocean64 » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:18 pm

bump

senorhosh
Posts: 470
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 4:45 am

Re: PT38.S1.Q20 LR

Postby senorhosh » Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:53 am

Ocean64 wrote:ok general question...when you have a cause & effect relationship, doesn't that mean that the given cause is THE ONLY THING than can cause the given effect?

example: training causes accuracy. what this should mean is that training comes before accuracy and it is the only thing that can cause accuracy and if i'm given accuracy i can know that it was caused by training, solely on the "training causes accuracy" statement if such a statement is given as a premise. can someone please confirm that?

this is why the business of "primary cause" is giving me such a hard time


No, it doesn't meant that's the ONLY cause.
Why A is incorrect: The stimulus states that drastic climate shifts ALWAYS cause migration. However, this does not mean migration is caused solely by climate shifts. Other reasons like can cause migration. Thus, we do not know if it's the PRIMARY cause.

For example:
Every time there's a tornado (climate change) John has to move to another state (migration). John moved 300 times in the past year, and 20 of those were because of tornadoes. However, the other 280 times were due to rabid dogs in the area.
The stimulus is still true yet climate change is not the primary cause

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

Re: PT38.S1.Q20 LR

Postby WhoIsDonDraper » Sun Aug 14, 2011 5:01 am

Check out Dave's responses about how to select answer choices on LR. I think it will help you out. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=161914

Be careful of two things for must be true questions like this one.
1. Superlative language, or very strong language like "primary, most, largest, etc." That strong language is usually a good indicator of an incorrect answer choice since the stimulus generally doesn't give enough support to draw that much of a conclusion.
2. Comparisons are also very tricky. Always be cautious of comparisons between two things that are just mentioned in the stimulus. They are usually very difficult to make.

See if that helps.

User avatar
Ocean64
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:53 pm

Re: PT38.S1.Q20 LR

Postby Ocean64 » Mon Aug 15, 2011 3:24 pm

senorhosh wrote:No, it doesn't meant that's the ONLY cause.


i think i understand, although i could swear i learned it differently from PS.

do you guys see cause & effect as different and separate from Suff/Nec or do you think the two types of relationship are intertwined?

ex:
if it rains then the sidewalk will be wet.
rain causes the sidewalk to be wet.

both of these can be symbolized as such: R==>W

if the sidewalk is wet then you wont know whether it rained or weather its been hosed by someone. i think this is the same type of example senorhosh was making and that does make sense to me. the way PS taught it is that if you eliminate the cause then the effect will also be eliminated (assuming it's a valid C&E relationship), so if it doesn't rain, then the sidewalk will not be wet. i would quote PS's David Killoran if i still had the online lessons, but i don't. anyone else learned it this way?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: OneMoreShot, potatocowpower, Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests