PT 65 discussion

User avatar
shifty_eyed
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:09 pm

PT 65 discussion

Postby shifty_eyed » Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:43 pm

I'm not sure want went wrong in the blackmail passage for me. I missed questions 16, 17, 19 (3/6)

On 16, I went with E. I didn't particularly like it as an AC, but I didn't like any of the ACs actually.

17, B looked nice to me because the triangular structure was not mentioned in passage B, but I see now that it is still there, since third parties such as public authorities are mentioned. I'm okay with A as the correct answer.

19. I hate these types of questions. I was stuck between D and E.

I think the correct answer choices really hammered home the idea that free speech was not guaranteed in classical Roman law, which is something I totally did NOT pick up on from reading that passage.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby Br3v » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:05 pm

I'm doing one more RC then I will visit this thread.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby Br3v » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:06 pm

The last question in 65 RC was pretty hard I thought however

1278
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:26 pm

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby 1278 » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:07 pm

Thanks for the thread. I would LOVE to get some input here too! I totally didn't "get" passage B. I didn't realize that blackmailing per se is not illegal in Roman law. I thought that the author was just only discussing the "harm" part.

OK, at the beginning, it was said that "it was not necessary" to have a category, I guess we are supposed to infer that the only "necessary" part is about the harm? Just because harm is necessary should mean nothing else is necessary??? Also, the second sentence says "Roman jurists BEGAN their evaluation....", I would think that means the evaluation does not include ONLY the harm part?

Idk, I still feel kind of lost.

User avatar
shifty_eyed
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:09 pm

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby shifty_eyed » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:13 pm

1278 wrote:Thanks for the thread. I would LOVE to get some input here too! I totally didn't "get" passage B. I didn't realize that blackmailing per se is not illegal in Roman law. I thought that the author was just only discussing the "harm" part.

OK, at the beginning, it was said that "it was not necessary" to have a category, I guess we are supposed to infer that the only "necessary" part is about the harm? Just because harm is necessary should mean nothing else is necessary??? Also, the second sentence says "Roman jurists BEGAN their evaluation....", I would think that means the evaluation does not include ONLY the harm part?

Idk, I still feel kind of lost.


I interpreted Passage B to be saying that blackmail is only illegal if revealing the information caused harm and was not for a legit purpose that dealt with a matter of interest to public authorities.

I am not sure how we are supposed to make the connection that free speech connections are not an issue in Roman law. I guess the link is in the second sentence where they say that Roman jurists don't consider the legality of the action itself? Still confused tbh.

User avatar
shifty_eyed
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:09 pm

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby shifty_eyed » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:44 pm

Looking over 16 on the blackmail passage, and I see how A is correct. Passage B tells us that a special category for blackmail was unnecessary, and the last sentence tells us that revealing something shameful is not always lawful even if there is no blackmail involved. If it is not lawful to reveal some shameful things, then free speech protection must not exist in the form it does in US and Canadian law.

I do not have a great explanation for why E is wrong. The best I can come up with is that although Passage A never mentions any interest of public authorities in having information revealed, we cannot assume that the law doesn't recognize this interest in the US and Canada.

User avatar
cc.celina
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby cc.celina » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:48 pm

GRR... I initially -0ed this section, but had 1 minute left, and since I knew it was a hard section I went back to check and changed two right answered to wrong ones. I do this ALL the time in RC. Is it a good idea just to not look back on Monday?

shifty_eyed wrote:I am not sure how we are supposed to make the connection that free speech connections are not an issue in Roman law. I guess the link is in the second sentence where they say that Roman jurists don't consider the legality of the action itself? Still confused tbh.


This tripped me up too at first, maybe this will help

Passage A identifies the free speech here -- "two acts, each of which is legally permissible separately, become illegal when combined ... the right to free speech protects my right to make such a disclosure" (lines 5-10)

Passage B never specifically mentions free speech. However, they say in relation to information revealed about an individual, "if the shame would cause harm to the person's status or reputation, then prima facie the threatened act of revelation was unlawful" (lines 47-50).
And furthermore, "assertion of the truth of the shameful fact being revealed was not, in itself, sufficient to constitute a legal privilege." (lines 48-50)
And finally, "Just because something shameful happened to be true did not mean it was lawful to reveal it."
Notice that none of these sentences mention money!!

In other words, passage A establishes free speech as the legal privilege to say whatever you want, which, when combined with seeking money, becomes illegal. In Rome, however, in ANY situation -- not just blackmail -- revealing a shameful fact about someone is "prima facie unlawful" and "not, in itself, sufficient to constitute a legal privilege." Because passage B says these things are unlawful even in the ABSENCE of seeking money, we can conclude that free speech isn't a right in Roman law.


EDIT:

I do not have a great explanation for why E is wrong. The best I can come up with is that although Passage A never mentions any interest of public authorities in having information revealed, we cannot assume that the law doesn't recognize this interest in the US and Canada.


You're right that passage A never mentions interest of public authorities. So stating that can't be "most strongly supported" by what's given in the passage.

User avatar
shifty_eyed
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:09 pm

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby shifty_eyed » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:50 pm

Br3v wrote:The last question in 65 RC was pretty hard I thought however


This was one of those questions where I first was like
Image

but after looking at the answer choices, it became clear.

The spread of thistles is Party A winning a majority of seats
the newspaper is the researchers trying to help out the plots of land
The defensive editorials are the beneficial mycorrhiza
The rival party is the native plant population
the broadcast journalists are the aggressive disease organisms.

Thus the researchers are trying to prevent the spread of thistles by introducing beneficial mycorrhiza to defend the native plant population from aggressive disease organisms.

User avatar
cc.celina
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby cc.celina » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:52 pm

shifty_eyed wrote:The defensive editorials are the beneficial mycorrhiza


This is why I love/hate the LSAT

1278
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:26 pm

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby 1278 » Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:01 pm

cc.celina wrote:In other words, passage A establishes free speech as the legal privilege to say whatever you want, which, when combined with seeking money, becomes illegal. In Rome, however, in ANY situation -- not just blackmail -- revealing a shameful fact about someone is "prima facie unlawful" and "not, in itself, sufficient to constitute a legal privilege." Because passage B says these things are unlawful even in the ABSENCE of seeking money, we can conclude that free speech isn't a right in Roman law.


Wow. I think NOW I finally understood this passage. Thanks for the great explanation!!

p.s. wish I had studied with you guys earlier...

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby Br3v » Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:16 pm

shifty_eyed wrote:
Br3v wrote:The last question in 65 RC was pretty hard I thought however


This was one of those questions where I first was like
Image

but after looking at the answer choices, it became clear.

The spread of thistles is Party A winning a majority of seats
the newspaper is the researchers trying to help out the plots of land
The defensive editorials are the beneficial mycorrhiza
The rival party is the native plant population
the broadcast journalists are the aggressive disease organisms.

Thus the researchers are trying to prevent the spread of thistles by introducing beneficial mycorrhiza to defend the native plant population from aggressive disease organisms.


Yeah after reviewing it today I came to that. Take about a time burner

Taus11
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:05 am

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby Taus11 » Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:49 pm

For LR question #26 Section 4, what made you guys pick (E) over (C)? I thought this was a deceptively tricky question. I see why (E) works, and I debated for like two minutes when I was taking it, but how would you eliminate (C)? I am guessing it's because the argument doesn't do a "comparison between the parties," rather just states that it's the best. Does qualifying it as the best not count as a comparison? Thanks. Also the RC was indeed terrible. Hoping for an easier RC. I also need to stop missing easy identification questions that has clear answers in the text due to being a lazy fuck to check the text. I have noticed that the newer RC makes you look at the text more than before though. Ugh.

-1 on each LR, -0 on LG, and then -5 on RC.
I hate RC with a passion

VasaVasori
Posts: 573
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:36 pm

.

Postby VasaVasori » Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:55 pm

.
Last edited by VasaVasori on Sat May 02, 2015 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Taus11
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:05 am

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby Taus11 » Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:01 pm

VasaVasori wrote:
Taus11 wrote:For LR question #26 Section 4, what made you guys pick (E) over (C)? I thought this was a deceptively tricky question. I see why (E) works, and I debated for like two minutes when I was taking it, but how would you eliminate (C)? I am guessing it's because the argument doesn't do a "comparison between the parties," rather just states that it's the best. Does qualifying it as the best not count as a comparison? Thanks. Also the RC was indeed terrible. Hoping for an easier RC. I also need to stop missing easy identification questions that has clear answers in the text due to being a lazy fuck to check the text. I have noticed that the newer RC makes you look at the text more than before though. Ugh.

-1 on each LR, -0 on LG, and then -5 on RC.
I hate RC with a passion

I remember this question, because I had pre-phrased "assumes that what is true of the parts of a whole is also true of a whole," but that didn't turn out to be the answer.

I chose E because the stimulus equivocates from "most like to win the city championship" to "almost certainly be city champions".

This is tricky, though, IMO, because I think the argument does what C describes. I eliminated it because I don't think this is a flaw. How else would you predict the outcome of a competition? LSATBlog's explanation says that there is no comparison in the argument, but IMO saying that a club is best is implicitly comparing it to the rest.

Wow, you could not have described my thought process any more precisely. I was looking for the parts of a whole to the whole answer, almost fell for it on (D), realized it was backwards, then got thrown off from there. Thanks, I agree with your point.

User avatar
Micdiddy
Posts: 2190
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby Micdiddy » Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:34 pm

PT 65 95/177

I took this one two section Thursday and two today, so doesn't really count, but anyway:

LR1. -0

LG. -1

RC. -4

LR2. -1, don't know why that wolf question was so hard for me, the re-wording just threw me off completely and the right answer was one I kept skipping because I was so sure it was wrong from my first impression of "wtf?"

Oh well. PT's are done, tomorrow is for light drilling. Bring it on Monday.

User avatar
Micdiddy
Posts: 2190
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby Micdiddy » Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:38 pm

Taus11 wrote:
VasaVasori wrote:
Taus11 wrote:For LR question #26 Section 4, what made you guys pick (E) over (C)? I thought this was a deceptively tricky question. I see why (E) works, and I debated for like two minutes when I was taking it, but how would you eliminate (C)? I am guessing it's because the argument doesn't do a "comparison between the parties," rather just states that it's the best. Does qualifying it as the best not count as a comparison? Thanks. Also the RC was indeed terrible. Hoping for an easier RC. I also need to stop missing easy identification questions that has clear answers in the text due to being a lazy fuck to check the text. I have noticed that the newer RC makes you look at the text more than before though. Ugh.

-1 on each LR, -0 on LG, and then -5 on RC.
I hate RC with a passion

I remember this question, because I had pre-phrased "assumes that what is true of the parts of a whole is also true of a whole," but that didn't turn out to be the answer.

I chose E because the stimulus equivocates from "most like to win the city championship" to "almost certainly be city champions".

This is tricky, though, IMO, because I think the argument does what C describes. I eliminated it because I don't think this is a flaw. How else would you predict the outcome of a competition? LSATBlog's explanation says that there is no comparison in the argument, but IMO saying that a club is best is implicitly comparing it to the rest.

Wow, you could not have described my thought process any more precisely. I was looking for the parts of a whole to the whole answer, almost fell for it on (D), realized it was backwards, then got thrown off from there. Thanks, I agree with your point.


It's a spin on the plurality=majority flaw. Just because something is the most likely thing to happen out of all the alternatives, does not mean it has a greater than 50% chance of happening. Take poker for example, if five hands get it all in pre-flop and one is Aces, it likely has a better chance of winning than any other of the hands, but will still probably only win 30% of the time.

For the record, I was also looking at that first sentence "we have the best player so we are the best team" as the flaw. Tricky tricky LSAT.

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby 03152016 » Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:44 pm

.
Last edited by 03152016 on Tue Mar 15, 2016 2:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

BalanceCare
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:56 pm

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby BalanceCare » Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:55 pm

Well, I just took PT 65 and I think I have to come to terms...

-0 ... LRa
-7 ... LG (Why, oh why, do I STILL suck at timed LG after ALL THIS PRACTICE?!?!?!)
-3 ... RC (That shit _was_ hard. Can't believe I got the last Q right. It was such BS.)

-0 ... LRb
-0 ... EXP: LRa PT50
-2 ... 6th Section: LRb from PT50.


173 scaled score. If that's what I get on test day, so be it. I just want to crack 99%.

Hoping for a miracle on games though!!!!!


[Cross-posted on June 2012 thread because I hadn't seen this thread yet. Sorry!]

BalanceCare
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:56 pm

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby BalanceCare » Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:59 pm

Max324 wrote:Can someone explain Q10? Stumped. I see the reference in the text, but I'm not making the connection.




Do you mean RC #10?

Answer is A. Supported dubiously by L33-36: "Even as some archivists are reluctant to become dependent on computer technology, they are also quickly running out of time"; and L40-43: "decisions about what to keep and what to discard will have to be made quickly, as materials recorded on conventional media continue to deteriorate."

VasaVasori
Posts: 573
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:36 pm

.

Postby VasaVasori » Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:03 pm

.
Last edited by VasaVasori on Sat May 02, 2015 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cc.celina
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby cc.celina » Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:03 pm

Max324 wrote:Can someone explain Q10? Stumped. I see the reference in the text, but I'm not making the connection.


Assuming you mean RC? I answered this based on "even as some archivists are reluctant to become dependent on ever-changing computer tech, they are also quickly running out of time" (33-36)

that's tricky because it could be referring to running out of time to decide what to save and what not to save - but as that's not the focus of this paragraph, and author later talks about new comupter tech that will "provide archivists with the info storage durability they require," i decided that they're probably "running out of time" to accept that they will soon have to depend on computers

edit: what balancecare and vasa said also makes sense haha

VasaVasori
Posts: 573
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:36 pm

.

Postby VasaVasori » Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:05 pm

.
Last edited by VasaVasori on Sat May 02, 2015 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby 03152016 » Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:14 pm

.
Last edited by 03152016 on Tue Mar 15, 2016 2:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

TheColonel
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby TheColonel » Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:56 pm

Micdiddy wrote:PT 65 95/177

I took this one two section Thursday and two today, so doesn't really count, but anyway:

LR1. -0

LG. -1

RC. -4

LR2. -1, don't know why that wolf question was so hard for me, the re-wording just threw me off completely and the right answer was one I kept skipping because I was so sure it was wrong from my first impression of "wtf?"

Oh well. PT's are done, tomorrow is for light drilling. Bring it on Monday.


Are you me? I had the exact same splits but missed my single LR question in the first section. Over all I was pretty happy that I got a 177 with this bitch of an RC section. Was your LG mistake a careless error as well? It really is a crapshoot whether I miss one due to misreading a question or just writing down the wrong answer in LG.

User avatar
Micdiddy
Posts: 2190
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: PT 65 discussion

Postby Micdiddy » Sun Jun 10, 2012 12:19 am

TheColonel wrote:
Micdiddy wrote:PT 65 95/177

I took this one two section Thursday and two today, so doesn't really count, but anyway:

LR1. -0

LG. -1

RC. -4

LR2. -1, don't know why that wolf question was so hard for me, the re-wording just threw me off completely and the right answer was one I kept skipping because I was so sure it was wrong from my first impression of "wtf?"

Oh well. PT's are done, tomorrow is for light drilling. Bring it on Monday.


Are you me? I had the exact same splits but missed my single LR question in the first section. Over all I was pretty happy that I got a 177 with this bitch of an RC section. Was your LG mistake a careless error as well? It really is a crapshoot whether I miss one due to misreading a question or just writing down the wrong answer in LG.


Yep, careless error. It was on the TV show game when it asked of W was first how many diff possibilities there were, for some reason completely forgot T would have to 2nd and diagrammed it with 4 possibilities. Just dumb, oh well. 177 pretty decent, looking for that 180 Monday.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ac89, Baidu [Spider], GioChanturia and 2 guests