pt59 sec 3, No. 21.

Alexander Wang
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:14 pm

pt59 sec 3, No. 21.

Postby Alexander Wang » Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:14 pm

The stem says "QWERTY" was configured to be awkward and limit typing speed because ealy typewriters would jam if tpyed too quick. Experiments showed different setup would be more efficient. But since expense and people's habitus, it never has been changed.

The Q ask to infer from the stem.

Why the answer is E? Where can I infer to get this? Thanks.

User avatar
yoni45
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:12 am

Re: pt59 sec 3, No. 21.

Postby yoni45 » Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:17 pm

Worth noting: this is what I'd call a 'soft' inference question, in that what it's looking for doesn't have to be "deductively" true.

In that regard, given that the QWERTY keyboard was designed to avoid an issue specific to typewriters, then that provides substantive support to the idea that it wouldn't have occurred in a device that's not a typewriter.

Hope this helps!

User avatar
Liquox
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:46 pm

Re: pt59 sec 3, No. 21.

Postby Liquox » Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:31 pm

not sure if this is the question i remember, but sounds like this stem implies that factors other than efficiency influence whether or not change needs to be made.

if you list out the answer choices, i can explain this better.

User avatar
chewdak
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:54 pm

Re: pt59 sec 3, No. 21.

Postby chewdak » Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:09 am

yoni45 wrote:Worth noting: this is what I'd call a 'soft' inference question, in that what it's looking for doesn't have to be "deductively" true.

In that regard, given that the QWERTY keyboard was designed to avoid an issue specific to typewriters, then that provides substantive support to the idea that it wouldn't have occurred in a device that's not a typewriter.

Hope this helps!


Great points.

Does the following work as a deduction?

if a keyboard is designed to be slow, then it avoids a problem inherent in typewriters.
and its contrapositive
if it does not avoid a problem inherent in typewriters, then a keyboard does not need to be designed slow.

if I squint this looks a little like (e)

User avatar
pizzabrosauce
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:06 pm

Re: pt59 sec 3, No. 21.

Postby pizzabrosauce » Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:35 am

yoni45 wrote:Worth noting: this is what I'd call a 'soft' inference question, in that what it's looking for doesn't have to be "deductively" true.


Yup, this is one of those frustrating "Most Strongly Supported" that leaves you with an uncomfortable final answer. In real time, you're probably going to end up eliminating the other 4 answers for being wrong and accepting E as "workable".

If you want the in-depth reason, check for the words "this was because" on line 4. Boom: you've got a causal reasoning implication. Let me know if you need help understanding the conditional, but basically:

Typewriters Jam => QWERTY keyboards
~Typewriters Jam => ~QWERTY keyboards

which is pretty close to E.

Hope this helps.

User avatar
chewdak
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:54 pm

Postby chewdak » Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:55 am

.
Last edited by chewdak on Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
pizzabrosauce
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:06 pm

Re: pt59 sec 3, No. 21.

Postby pizzabrosauce » Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:09 am

chewdak wrote:
pizzabrosauce wrote:Let me know if you need help understanding the conditional, but basically:

Typewriters Jam => QWERTY keyboards
~Typewriters Jam => ~QWERTY keyboards


Please help with this conditional,
are these statements supposed to be equivalent?


They are not equivalent, they are both entailed by the causal relationship. Causal reasoning assumes that the stated cause is the "only cause", and "will always produce the effect".

If the cause isn't there, the effect isn't there.

Alexander Wang
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:14 pm

Re: pt59 sec 3, No. 21.

Postby Alexander Wang » Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:37 pm

Impressive explanation!
Thanks a lot.

So following that trend, if I have a quesion like "hot because of summer." in LSAT, I can infer "not hot in spring", right?


pizzabrosauce wrote:
chewdak wrote:
pizzabrosauce wrote:Let me know if you need help understanding the conditional, but basically:

Typewriters Jam => QWERTY keyboards
~Typewriters Jam => ~QWERTY keyboards


Please help with this conditional,
are these statements supposed to be equivalent?


They are not equivalent, they are both entailed by the causal relationship. Causal reasoning assumes that the stated cause is the "only cause", and "will always produce the effect".

If the cause isn't there, the effect isn't there.

User avatar
yoni45
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:12 am

Re: pt59 sec 3, No. 21.

Postby yoni45 » Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:13 pm

pizzabrosauce wrote:They are not equivalent, they are both entailed by the causal relationship. Causal reasoning assumes that the stated cause is the "only cause", and "will always produce the effect".

If the cause isn't there, the effect isn't there.


Alexander Wang wrote:Impressive explanation!
Thanks a lot.

So following that trend, if I have a quesion like "hot because of summer." in LSAT, I can infer "not hot in spring", right?


Whoa, hang on -- I don't think this is right at all.

Even if you take it to be true that [causal reasoning assumes that the stated cause is the "only cause", and "will always produce the effect"], it does not follow that [If the cause isn't there, the effect isn't there]. For example, even if falling down the stairs is the only cause of my having a broken foot, that does not come close to meaning that if I don't fall down the stairs that I won't get a broken foot.

You guys are trying to extract a deductive inference from the stimulus, even though the question doesn't necessitate that the correct answer be deductively valid.

The deduction isn't formal, but given the context it's supported. If a relatively specific problem arises from a relatively specific cause, then absent that cause the problem is much less likely to occur. That doesn't come close to saying that it won't occur, however.

For example, if downloading pirated music guarantees your arrested because it happens to be illegal, then if you buy music from a production company you're not as likely to get arrested. But hey, it's still possible that buying from that production company is also illegal because they give you cocaine with your purchase and don't actually have the rights to the music, in which case you'd still get arrested. But it's far less likely than with the former case as in the former case your arrest was certain. Hence, this is "supported", even though it's not something that has to be deductively true.

User avatar
pizzabrosauce
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:06 pm

Re: pt59 sec 3, No. 21.

Postby pizzabrosauce » Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:36 pm

Alexander Wang wrote:Impressive explanation!
Thanks a lot.

So following that trend, if I have a quesion like "hot because of summer." in LSAT, I can infer "not hot in spring", right?


Its pretty rare that they sneak in these super powerful causal statements (that you must take as true) into the stimulus. I mostly noticed them in the late 50's LR's. Also if you check out LSATBlog & Powerscore's "Hardest LR Questions" list, a lot of them tend to be causal reasoning questions.

I wouldn't feel completely confident with that inference if it ever came up on a test, but I wouldn't immediately rule it out. I'd instead work on eliminating the other answers.
Last edited by pizzabrosauce on Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
pizzabrosauce
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:06 pm

Re: pt59 sec 3, No. 21.

Postby pizzabrosauce » Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:56 pm

yoni45 wrote:Whoa, hang on -- I don't think this is right at all.

Even if you take it to be true that [causal reasoning assumes that the stated cause is the "only cause", and "will always produce the effect"], it does not follow that [If the cause isn't there, the effect isn't there]. For example, even if falling down the stairs is the only cause of my having a broken foot, that does not come close to meaning that if I don't fall down the stairs that I won't get a broken foot.


This is Dave Hall's explanation in his Practice Test videos.

For your example:
If falling down stairs is the one and only cause of broken feet, then your feet will be invincible as long as you don't fall down stairs.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cocotruffles, Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests