## Logic Reasoning Question

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
lawschool2014hopeful

Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:48 pm

### Logic Reasoning Question

Prep test #16, Section 2, Question 16, I doubt anyone will remember this one so I will type it up

REMOVED BY MODS

Which weakens:

I picked C)
REMOVED BY MODS

E)
REMOVED BY MODS

(Secondary question, I use Kaplan's answer guide to the prep test, some of them questions I dont find it very helpful, does anyone else have a different guide)?

kckool7

Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:32 pm

### Re: Logic Reasoning Question

Since post 1980, they can target the sharks more effectively, that means they'll need to use fewer KMs of nets, which will skew the CPUE. That significantly weakens the argument.

lawschool2014hopeful

Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:48 pm

### Re: Logic Reasoning Question

kckool7 wrote:Since post 1980, they can target the sharks more effectively, that means they'll need to use fewer KMs of nets, which will skew the CPUE. That significantly weakens the argument.

So it didnt need to satisfy the CPUE = same condition because the answer is stating 1980, and I guess we can assume the "date" under discussion is after 1980.

Posts: 4
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 1:28 am

### Re: Logic Reasoning Question

jimmierock wrote:REMOVED BY MODS

Another copyright violation. I will report this to the LSAC as well.

foggynotion

Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:19 am

### Re: Logic Reasoning Question

kckool7 wrote:Since post 1980, they can target the sharks more effectively, that means they'll need to use fewer KMs of nets, which will skew the CPUE. That significantly weakens the argument.

I'm not sure how this relates to the question. If their technology improved their shark-locating accuracy, then if the population had stayed the same, the expectation would be that they would catch more sharks per hour per km of net--which they didn't--so the population didn't stay the same, which is the position the argument is asking you to take.

Even if they used smaller nets, which I'm not sure we can assume they did or would even have wanted to, we're told that the cpue remained fairly constant. The cpu is a measurement of the number of sharks per hour per km of net, so if even if they did use a smaller net, since the shark-catch rate stayed roughly the same, all that would mean is that they were catching a smaller number of sharks per hour.

thestalkmore

Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:11 am

### Re: Logic Reasoning Question

jimmierock wrote:REMOVED BY MODS

Another copyright violation. I will report this to the LSAC as well.

Fucking lol.

beezneez

Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:53 pm

### Re: Logic Reasoning Question

Another copyright violation. I will report this to the LSAC as well.

OMFG

elterrible78

Posts: 1119
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:09 am

### Re: Logic Reasoning Question

Another copyright violation. I will report this to the LSAC as well.

You must be quite a hit with the ladies.

thederangedwang

Posts: 1115
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:44 pm

### Re: Logic Reasoning Question

jimmierock wrote:REMOVED BY MODS

Quite simply actually...you are thinking wayyy too hard.

the question basically asks you to weaken the statement that the shark population stayed the same..

if fishing boats were using better electronic equipment to help them find sharks...its possible for the SPUE to be the same but the actual shark population to have dropped considerably...the technology makes the shark easier to catch...so even if the shark population dropped, the boats could still maintain the same SPUE..giving the illusion the shark population is the same..get it?

boredatwork

Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:26 pm

### Re: Logic Reasoning Question

Powerscore bibles FTW

LSAT Blog

Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 pm

### Re: Logic Reasoning Question

elterrible78 wrote:
Another copyright violation. I will report this to the LSAC as well.

You must be quite a hit with the ladies.

I loled.

HBradly2, by quoting the question, you've technically reposted it. This makes you guilty of the very same copyright violation. You're also creating more work for the mods.

For future reference, just click that red little exclamation point at the bottom-right of the relevant post, report it, and the mods will take care of it.

jimmierock, in the future, just post the PrepTest #, Section #, and Question #, rather than retyping the question itself. LSAC is protective of its intellectual property and doesn't want people publishing their questions online without a license.

bk1

Posts: 20072
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

### Re: Logic Reasoning Question

LSAT Blog wrote:HBradly2, by quoting the question, you've technically reposted it. This makes you guilty of the very same copyright violation. You're also creating more work for the mods.

For future reference, just click that red little exclamation point at the bottom-right of the relevant post, report it, and the mods will take care of it.

jimmierock, in the future, just post the PrepTest #, Section #, and Question #, rather than retyping the question itself. LSAC is protective of its intellectual property and doesn't want people publishing their questions online without a license.

Essentially this.

Manhattan LSAT Noah

Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am

### Re: Logic Reasoning Question

jimmierock wrote:Prep test #16, Section 2, Question 16, I doubt anyone will remember this one so I will type it up

Here's the explanation that my colleague wrote:

The researchers conclude that the shark population around South Australia must be around what it was back in 1973, because the "catch per unit effort" has remained the same since then. In other words, because people are catching sharks at around the same rate, there must be the same number of sharks available.

If you're not seeing the gap in that logic, consider this example:

"In 2009, Gilad got 100 hits as a member of the Yankees. In 2010, he also got 100 hits. So he must have had the same number of at-bats in both seasons."

Well, wait a minute -- what about my batting average? What if I got a lot worse between 2009 and 2010? Then it would stand to reason that it took me many more at-bats to get to 100 hits than it did in the previous season.

The shark argument makes the same mistake. Just because people are catching the same number of sharks per attempt doesn't mean the shark population hasn't changed. Maybe it has changed, but the fishermen have gotten better or worse at catching them!

That's why (E) weakens the argument -- it challenges the assumption that the ability to catch the sharks is unchanged. If sharkfishing boats have been using sophisticated shark-finding technology that increases their accuracy, but they're still catching the same number of sharks, then the shark population must actually have decreased; otherwise, we'd expect them to be catching more sharks!

(A) is irrelevant because the argument explicitly limits itself to the waters around South Australia.

(B) is out of scope as soon as it mentions the "most profitable" sharks. Who cares?

(C) is tempting, but this doesn't help us figure out whether the shark population has changed since 1973. Was "incident mortality" a threat back then, too? We don't know.

(D) is out of scope, first in its mention of quotas and, second, because the argument defines CPUE specifically in terms of the number of sharks caught. So that's what we care about.