LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts Forum

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

I took a RC section yesterday and discovered that two of my mistakes were from questions that were answered in the first sentence of the corresponding passage. How often is it the case where the answer to a question can be found in the first sentence of the passage? What advice do you have on trying to help digest that initial, often seemingly background, information?

If these were cases of "minor" pieces of info, then it's the same old issue that happens with inference questions that reference stuff from the other parts of the text. But, regardless of whether that was central info in those first two sentences, it sounds like you're reading with too strong an idea in your head about how passages are structured. Our approach emphasizes a vigilant stance towards the entire passage, constantly looking for whether what you're reading is the main duality in the passage or whether it's something that is supporting one side or the other (or background).

I'm going to guess it really doesn't matter what anyone says here, you've learned your lesson, and you'll stop skimming the beginnings. Kind of like getting burned by a hot stove.

[cahwc12]

I took a RC section yesterday and discovered that two of my mistakes were from questions that were answered in the first sentence of the corresponding passage. How often is it the case where the answer to a question can be found in the first sentence of the passage? What advice do you have on trying to help digest that initial, often seemingly background, information?

If these were cases of "minor" pieces of info, then it's the same old issue that happens with inference questions that reference stuff from the other parts of the text. But, regardless of whether that was central info in those first two sentences, it sounds like you're reading with too strong an idea in your head about how passages are structured. Our approach emphasizes a vigilant stance towards the entire passage, constantly looking for whether what you're reading is the main duality in the passage or whether it's something that is supporting one side or the other (or background).

I'm going to guess it really doesn't matter what anyone says here, you've learned your lesson, and you'll stop skimming the beginnings. Kind of like getting burned by a hot stove.

thanks for that, hah! You're probably right.. i think I'm probably glossing too much in the first few sentences. I'll try to work on it, thanks again!

[Malapropism]

Two LR questions:

In PT 31, section 3, #18, can someone explain why the answer was A rather than D?

Also, can someone break down PT 35, section 4, #11?

Thanks!

[Dave Hall]

Two LR questions:

In PT 31, section 3, #18, can someone explain why the answer was A rather than D?

Here's how I symbolized the argument:

Science → Measure → Units → Arbitrary

So Science → Arbitrary

And here's my answer choices:

(A) Difficult → Skill → Practice → Tedious

So Difficult → Tedious

(D) Manager → Evaluate → Subjective
Evaluate → Resent

So Manager → Resent

Here's what seems different about (D) from both the argument and (A) - the shift in the latter two occurs within the conclusion (practice being tedious doesn't mean that performance is tedious - it means that performance involves tedium; equally, science involves some arbitrariness).

(D) gives us the shift from the middle premise - resenting an evaluation doesn't mean you'll resent your manager. For (D) to be parallel, I'd want the argument to undertake the same shift as the others: "Since people resent subjectivity [instead of subjective evaluation], they resent their managers".

Also, can someone break down PT 35, section 4, #11?

Thanks!

The argument, in brief:

These theories have theoretical entities, so we cannot call all their entities real.

(B) tells us, in the strongest language possible, that this conclusion is true - if things are theoretical, then they aren't real. Boom.

Clear?

[cripley50]

PT29 S1(LR) Q:16

This is a most seriously weaken question.

Summary of stimulus:

It is possible to gain insight about the living conditions of cultures (which are no longer around) through its language.

A certain culture probably lived in a cold climate, isolated from the ocean or sea, due to its lack of a word for "sea" and its possession of the words for "winter", "snow", and "wolf".


My original answer choice was A.

The culture had the word for "fish"

I chose this b/c it would show that the culture was around a body of water--no water no fish. In hindsight fish could live in a lake or river etc. and not an ocean or sea; its possible that the culture's language contained the word b/c of this.

The correct answer is B.

Some languages do not have words for prominent elements within a cultures location.

I understand why answer A could be wrong. I don't understand why answer B is better. Presumably, if they lived in a cold environment then words such as winter and snow would be prominent elements. I originally thought B was wrong b/c they did have words for potentially prominent elements. Am I assuming too much in thinking that winter and snow are prominent features?

What makes B the better answer?

[Dave Hall]

PT29 S1(LR) Q:16

What makes B the better answer?

Hi, cripley50,

To weaken any argument, we will expect to attack the assumption of the argument. This is true universally.

For this question, we've concluded that the Proto-Indo-Euro people lived away from the sea because they had no word for "sea."

Well, that raises the question: What the hell does a people's vocabulary tell us about their geography? Nothing, right?

We've just assumed that language does reflect your geography.

Thus, to weaken this argument, I want an answer that attacks that assumption - something that says that language does not necessarily reflect geography.

If (B) is true, then language has no necessary connection to environment, and the fact that we've got no word for "sea" just doesn't necessarily tell us anything about how close to the sea these people lived.

Does that make sense?

Best,

d

[BlaqBella]

"if and only if" v. "if but only if"...is there a difference? My instructor said there is with "if and only if" introducing just the necessary while "if but only if" introduces both the necessary and sufficient. Other prep companies state there is no such difference. What is the right approach??????

[Dave Hall]

"if and only if" v. "if but only if"...is there a difference? My instructor said there is with "if and only if" introducing just the necessary while "if but only if" introduces both the necessary and sufficient. Other prep companies state there is no such difference. What is the right approach??????

There is no difference at all between those two phrases. Both of them indicate that some condition is both necessary to and sufficient for another condition.

In fact, there's really no structural difference between the words "and' and "but" in any case. Consider an example:

"Yeah, Mom, I'd like to come pick you up from your Daughters of the American Revolution luncheon, but I'm busy running lines off this accommodating hooker's bosoms."

In the above sentence, you're saying two things:

1. You'd like to pick up your mom from her luncheon.

AND (but)

2. You've got some drugs to do.

"But" has some sort of metaphysical extra meaning; think of it like "and plus", because you're saying Thing One AND Thing Two, PLUS you're saying that Thing Two somehow impinges on Thing One (in the above example, you want to pick her up AND you're otherwise engaged, PLUS that engagement means you probably won't pick up Mom).

Does that make sense?

[BlaqBella]

"if and only if" v. "if but only if"...is there a difference? My instructor said there is with "if and only if" introducing just the necessary while "if but only if" introduces both the necessary and sufficient. Other prep companies state there is no such difference. What is the right approach??????

There is no difference at all between those two phrases. Both of them indicate that some condition is both necessary to and sufficient for another condition.

In fact, there's really no structural difference between the words "and' and "but" in any case. Consider an example:

"Yeah, Mom, I'd like to come pick you up from your Daughters of the American Revolution luncheon, but I'm busy running lines off this accommodating hooker's bosoms."

In the above sentence, you're saying two things:

1. You'd like to pick up your mom from her luncheon.

AND (but)

2. You've got some drugs to do.

"But" has some sort of metaphysical extra meaning; think of it like "and plus", because you're saying Thing One AND Thing Two, PLUS you're saying that Thing Two somehow impinges on Thing One (in the above example, you want to pick her up AND you're otherwise engaged, PLUS that engagement means you probably won't pick up Mom).

Does that make sense?

Hahah! LOVE the analogy! THANKS SO MUCH DAVE !!! It totally makes sense!

[Dave Hall]

Hahah! LOVE the analogy! THANKS SO MUCH DAVE !!! It totally makes sense!

Cool! I'm glad that helped.

[the_pakalypse]

Nevermind.

[BlackadderIn]

Hey experts!


PT61, S4, Q17: I don't understand why the answer is D not B.
For D: why is this sentence a premise? Isn't it an intermediate conclusion supported by sentence 2?
For B: the conclusion says "water itself is the biggest polluters"--- doesn't it come very close to saying that pollution from rainwater runoff is a bigger (ergo more serious) problem than industry discharge?
For C: I guess it is not really a "generalization" and that was the problem, right?


PT61, S2, Q14: why is the answer D instead of E.
For D: but D doesn't have to weaken -- it says "at the place where the stone was found"; so maybe the stone was brought to that region and came from somewhere with the right kinds of geological processes?
For E: one reason for making the conclusion is that the marks predate the earliest known traces of multicellular life. E basically says that maybe that premise is inaccurate, maybe there was already worms around the time the marks were left. So E revives the alternative explanation (worm) and weaken the conclusion (geo process). Why is it wrong?

thanks so much!

[BlackadderIn]

Hi experts, one more question:
PT65, S4, Q15
Why is the correct answer E, not C
For E: why does this go beyond the original purpose of copyright? Although the dead authors themselves can/t have fun with the money any more, all other authors may get greater motivation by knowing that the duration/amount of the copyright money extends even further. Who is to say what is the exactly optimal amount of the "encouragement" ?
For C, however, if the authors cannot find a publisher because of the copyright, it surely hinders the original purpose of encouraging the circulation of ideas. How can the author circulate his/her ideas if he/she is promised potential financial reward but cannot even publish the work?

many thanks!

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

I'm glad to see this thread revived -- I must admit I prefer it to the new style of each of us geeks having our own thread here.

Hey experts!

PT61, S4, Q17: I don't understand why the answer is D not B.
For D: why is this sentence a premise? Isn't it an intermediate conclusion supported by sentence 2?
For B: the conclusion says "water itself is the biggest polluters"--- doesn't it come very close to saying that pollution from rainwater runoff is a bigger (ergo more serious) problem than industry discharge?
For C: I guess it is not really a "generalization" and that was the problem, right?

For D: We're often expected to accept the relationship between a premise and "intermediate conclusion," making that intermediate conclusion a premise we are to accept. However, in this case specifically, what I think is going on is that the second sentence explains how the first one happens, and so for the purpose of this question, is irrelevant.

For B: is bigger more serious? Analogously, if you're looking at two wrestlers, and one is bigger than the other, is that one definitely a more serious threat?

For C: I agree--see above about my thoughts on that second sentence.

Here's Matt's take on the question: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/section-4-f475.html

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

PT61, S2, Q14: why is the answer D instead of E.
For D: but D doesn't have to weaken -- it says "at the place where the stone was found"; so maybe the stone was brought to that region and came from somewhere with the right kinds of geological processes?
For E: one reason for making the conclusion is that the marks predate the earliest known traces of multicellular life. E basically says that maybe that premise is inaccurate, maybe there was already worms around the time the marks were left. So E revives the alternative explanation (worm) and weaken the conclusion (geo process). Why is it wrong?

thanks so much!

I'm not seeing what you see for (E). To me, it says that worms are believed to be the earliest creatures, but we don't have a lot of evidence. It doesn't mean to me that they might have started even earlier. You have to add a lot to (E) to make it say that.

For (D) -- your issue is technically true and is an admirable way of debating that answer in some respects, but it's similar to saying "couldn't high-tech and nefarious aliens have come and changed this one piece of rock using a rock-de-structalizer in order to screw with archaeologists and set our civilization's understanding back a few years?" It's a lot of work to make (D) not work as a weakener, and, we're only looking for the answer that "most weakens." More importantly, we're looking for something that disconnects the premise and the conclusion in the sense that even when we accept the premise, we don't have to necessarily conclude the conclusion--that conclusion still might be true, but it doesn't have to be. With (D) in place, can we confidently conclude the conclusion? No. We'd need to add another premise about moving the rock. This distinction between disproving the conclusion and disrupting the argument is a very subtle and powerful one for getting deep about how assumption family question work.

That said, I think that line of thinking--focusing on the "at the place" is spot on for various other questions. Here, however, the question-writer put that in because to say the geological process never could have occurred would be going straight up against the stimulus. And, in case you're feeling confident now, let me add this to add complexity: if the argument were about an arrowhead, I think your reasoning would be strong, as that's clearly something that can move!

[BlackadderIn]

Thanks so much Noah!!! Appreciate your kind help!

[TheJanitor6203]

Sort of off topic but.. I'm looking at these LSAT "timers" but I want to make sure they are 100% legit on test day before I buy it. Some of them even claim to be LSAC approved but I'm still skeptical. If anyone knows please let me know!

http://www.lsattimer.com/lsattimer-anal ... ermissible

--LinkRemoved--

http://lsatwatch.webs.com/

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

Sort of off topic but.. I'm looking at these LSAT "timers" but I want to make sure they are 100% legit on test day before I buy it. Some of them even claim to be LSAC approved but I'm still skeptical. If anyone knows please let me know!

http://www.lsattimer.com/lsattimer-anal ... ermissible

--LinkRemoved--

http://lsatwatch.webs.com/

If you're worried, just get an analog watch with an easy-to-read face and re-set the hands to noon at the start of each section. No reason to spend any mental energy worrying about your watch now or on test day.

[Inferno]

While running through some of the first LR preptest sections I've seemingly run into some issues:

PT 7 (Feb 93):

2:


In order for the conclusion that Bevex is safe for people to be properly drawn, which one of the following must be true:

C: People drink fewer than 25 cans of Bevex-sweetened soda per day.
E: Some of the studies done on Bevex were not relevant to the question of whether or not Bevex is carcinogenic for people.

The other answers were immediately able to be excluded but I wasn't particularly sure how to proceed from there because seemingly I don't understand exactly what is implied by "properly drawn."

My issue with C is that it takes for granted that the carcinogenic effects of Bevex are able to be identically modeled between mice and humans by simply scaling the weight of the consuming organism.

E, while being true (although I suppose not if you make the people=really big mice assumption), would seemingly cause the conclusion to not be properly drawn.

Also is this method acceptable/convenient or is there a better way to provide the information to you?

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

While running through some of the first LR preptest sections I've seemingly run into some issues:

PT 7 (Feb 93):

2:

Bevex, and artificial sweetener used only in soft drinks, is carcinogenic for mice, but only when it is consumed in very large quantities. To ingest an amount of Bevex equivalent to the amount fed to the mice in the relevant studies, a person would have to drink 25 cans of Bevex-sweetened soft drinks per day. For that reason, Bevex is in fact safe for people.

In order for the conclusion that Bevex is safe for people to be properly drawn, which one of the following must be true:

C: People drink fewer than 25 cans of Bevex-sweetened soda per day.
E: Some of the studies done on Bevex were not relevant to the question of whether or not Bevex is carcinogenic for people.

The other answers were immediately able to be excluded but I wasn't particularly sure how to proceed from there because seemingly I don't understand exactly what is implied by "properly drawn."

My issue with C is that it takes for granted that the carcinogenic effects of Bevex are able to be identically modeled between mice and humans by simply scaling the weight of the consuming organism.

E, while being true (although I suppose not if you make the people=really big mice assumption), would seemingly cause the conclusion to not be properly drawn.

Also is this method acceptable/convenient or is there a better way to provide the information to you?

What's being asked for here is a necessary assumption -- something that must be assumed for the argument to "work" (for us to be able to draw the conclusion from the premises). We don't need to find an answer that makes the argument air-tight (that's a sufficient assumption).

You're right that there is more than one gap in this argument, and (C) addresses one. (E) is out of scope; who cares whether there were or were not some irrelevant studies? That is what we call a "premise booster" in that it just gives more background or calls into question a premise, a fact you're supposed to accept.

I hope that's helpful, but tell me if you have more questions about that.

[lawschoolplease1]

FEB 96
section 4, #11.

Does "depends on" introduce a necessary condition?
If so, then the argument would read:
Premise: examine fossilized leaves of any prehistoric plant --> determine climate --> altitude.
Conclusion: fossilized leaf --> altitude
and this conclusion would be valid.

even before looking at the answer choices and question stem, however, i didn't feel 100% confident about my logic chain. i thought: it "depends on" the altitude, but is that equivalent to indicating an exact altitude? and when i got down to the answer choices, i was able to get to right answer by process of elimination and it "sounded right" to me (horrible way to pick an answer, i know).
So I was wondering... would anyone be willing to explain the correct reason? where am i going wrong with my logic chain?

thank you so much!

[Inferno]

What's being asked for here is a necessary assumption -- something that must be assumed for the argument to "work" (for us to be able to draw the conclusion from the premises). We don't need to find an answer that makes the argument air-tight (that's a sufficient assumption).

You're right that there is more than one gap in this argument, and (C) addresses one. (E) is out of scope; who cares whether there were or were not some irrelevant studies? That is what we call a "premise booster" in that it just gives more background or calls into question a premise, a fact you're supposed to accept.

I hope that's helpful, but tell me if you have more questions about that.

I don't see how the argument works though: if X is the TDlo for mice and humans would have to consume 25 cans to reach X this says nothing about the effect of X (carcinogen, hallucinations, altered development, etc.) on humans, let alone whether <X is safe for humans. Even if people did always drink <25 cans and the only side-effect was as a carcinogen, I don't see how you can conclude that it's safe. For instance if the TDlo was .5X then people drinking <12.5 cans would be ok and >12.5 wouldn't be.

Is the assumption here that we're supposed to use "common knowledge" to determine that people and mice respond to presumably imaginary drugs identically or does the conclusion remain properly drawn regardless?

I suppose for E I simply classified all of the studies as irrelevant as none of them dealt with toxicity/safety in humans, they were relevant as the question stated for determining the toxicity in mice.

At this point I had what I presumed to be an irrelevant answer and a true answer and equally irrelevant answer (though the true answer has nothing to do with making the conclusion that Bevex is safe for people) and I reread everything a bunch of times looking for something that I missed but couldn't find it so I wrote mean things in the margins and

[hallbd16]

PT 56 S2 Q8 "The boulder is volcanic..."

I see how D is a weakener because it shows that there is evidence that the rock was not deposited by a glacier.
I had a hard time eliminating both A and C.
A- It seems that it would lessen the chance it was moved hundreds of miles and thus reducing the probability the conclusion talks about, thus weakening.
I suppose because it is most, it allows for the exception that this rock was moved further. But doesn't the fact that most are not moved more than 100 miles reduce the likelihood/degree that the conclusion talks about?

C- Similarly, this suggests an alternate explanation for a rock being deposited from hundred miles away, aren't alternate cuases a type of weakener?
It seems the argument against C would be that it requires the assumption that the closer a rock is the more likely it was transported by a glacier.

I don't see definitive reasons for A and C being wrong. I do see reasons why D is better. A little help?

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

I don't see how the argument works though: if X is the TDlo for mice and humans would have to consume 25 cans to reach X this says nothing about the effect of X (carcinogen, hallucinations, altered development, etc.) on humans, let alone whether <X is safe for humans. Even if people did always drink <25 cans and the only side-effect was as a carcinogen, I don't see how you can conclude that it's safe. For instance if the TDlo was .5X then people drinking <12.5 cans would be ok and >12.5 wouldn't be.

I think you're still thinking that the answer is going to make the argument perfect. It's not - it's just something that we have to assume, or else there's no way to make the argument work. (I hate to sound salesy, but I think you'd benefit from getting our LR strategy guide). So, yes, there is another hole. However, (C) addresses one hole, while (E) does not.

Is the assumption here that we're supposed to use "common knowledge" to determine that people and mice respond to presumably imaginary drugs identically or does the conclusion remain properly drawn regardless?

I suppose for E I simply classified all of the studies as irrelevant as none of them dealt with toxicity/safety in humans, they were relevant as the question stated for determining the toxicity in mice.

You don't need to use common knowledge--you were quite right in questioning that relationship. It just turns out the answer doesn't hinge on it.

At this point I had what I presumed to be an irrelevant answer and a true answer and equally irrelevant answer (though the true answer has nothing to do with making the conclusion that Bevex is safe for people) and I reread everything a bunch of times looking for something that I missed but couldn't find it so I wrote mean things in the margins

I'm a fan of writing mean things in the margins

Let me give you an analogy:

Tim is late to work, therefore Tim must have overslept.

If you were asked for a sufficient assumption, the answer would have to be something like, If Tim (or anyone) is late to work, it must be that they overslept.

However, if you're asked for a necessary assumption, it could be Tim was not late because of a car accident or Tim was not late because of traffic. Each of those is needed, but neither would make the argument air-tight, since there are so many potential problems.

That clear it up?

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

FEB 96
section 4, #11.

Does "depends on" introduce a necessary condition?
If so, then the argument would read:
Premise: examine fossilized leaves of any prehistoric plant --> determine climate --> altitude.
Conclusion: fossilized leaf --> altitude
and this conclusion would be valid.

even before looking at the answer choices and question stem, however, i didn't feel 100% confident about my logic chain. i thought: it "depends on" the altitude, but is that equivalent to indicating an exact altitude? and when i got down to the answer choices, i was able to get to right answer by process of elimination and it "sounded right" to me (horrible way to pick an answer, i know).
So I was wondering... would anyone be willing to explain the correct reason? where am i going wrong with my logic chain?

thank you so much!

I wouldn't bust out so much formal diagramming on this one, but looking at your chain, I'd say the issue is that we know this:

examine fossilized leaves of any prehistoric plant --> determine climate, but we don't get that final "--> altitude" because the argument doesn't say that each climate has a unique altitude. "Depends on" usually does indicate that something is necessary, but here it's being used to say that climate is a factor, as in me saying that my mood depends on the weather. You wouldn't say "mood --> weather." This is another instance of when simply using key words for conditional logic can lead you astray.

Here's how I'd do this (I'm writing it up for our forums now, so excuse the broader tone of the explanation):

The conclusion of the argument in this ID the flaw question is that the size and shape of a leaf fossil indicate the altitude at which that leaf grew.

Why? Because the size and shape indicate the unique climate that the plant grew in, and climate is related to altitude.

This is a tricky argument in terms of finding the gap because it seems like a great argument if you're not careful. However, notice that the size and shape of a leaf are unique to a given climate, however, each climate isn't necessarily unique to an altitude. We only know that climate "depends on" altitude. Consider that velocity of a car depends on its mass and force applied (right?), however if a car is going 100 mph, there are no doubt various combinations of mass and force that could get there, so we can't deduce the car's mass (or force applied) from speed.

(B) hinges on this issue. Perhaps multitude altitudes have the same climate.

By the way, if you were thinking about what it means if the ground rises up because of tectonic plate movements, you were ignoring that the whole argument is about where the plant grew, not where the fossil was found.

As for the wrong answers:

(A) is out of scope 00 who cares about species surviving?

(C) is pointing out that there could be other ways to "read" a leaf to figure out the climate. Who cares? We're talking about one way.

(D) analogy?

(E) is tempting if you overlooked that the whole argument is about where the plant grew. Nowhere is the location of the fossil ever discussed. Out of scope.