## PT 35 Section 4 Question 23

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
lawquestions1

Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 7:50 pm

### PT 35 Section 4 Question 23

I did get the right answer, but I am not sure why it wouldn't be A as well.
The structure of A seems similar to the original to me.

Manhattan LSAT Noah

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

### Re: PT 35 Section 4 Question 23

Tough one.

The original argument sets up a general rule -- the higher you go, the thinner the air. Then it goes on to compare two places with different altitudes and conclude the the higher place has thinner air. Simple enough. If we want to complicate it, we can write it as this:

If A has more X than B, then A has more Y than B as well.

(D) has the same structure. If something is ______er (in this case, "older"), it has more _______ (in this case rings, in the original argument, thin air). Then (D) goes on to apply this rule in comparing two trees.

(A) is extremely tempting -- tricky of the LSAT to place it first! It sets up a comparison: as one gets ______er, one gets ______er. However, what is important to notice here is that this is a comparison between someone at one age and that same person at another age. What we cannot do -- and this is exactly what (A) does do! -- is use this to compare two people. Let's say we're comparing me to King Solomon (who, we'll agree for the sake of discussion, was a very wise guy). Well, I'm good at the LSAT, but I'm not King Solomon, so even when I hit 70, I probably won't be wiser than King Sol was at 37.

There's a longer discussion here.

I hope that helps.

lawquestions1

Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 7:50 pm

### Re: PT 35 Section 4 Question 23

Manhattan LSAT Noah wrote:Tough one.

The original argument sets up a general rule -- the higher you go, the thinner the air. Then it goes on to compare two places with different altitudes and conclude the the higher place has thinner air. Simple enough. If we want to complicate it, we can write it as this:

If A has more X than B, then A has more Y than B as well.

(D) has the same structure. If something is ______er (in this case, "older"), it has more _______ (in this case rings, in the original argument, thin air). Then (D) goes on to apply this rule in comparing two trees.

(A) is extremely tempting -- tricky of the LSAT to place it first! It sets up a comparison: as one gets ______er, one gets ______er. However, what is important to notice here is that this is a comparison between someone at one age and that same person at another age. What we cannot do -- and this is exactly what (A) does do! -- is use this to compare two people. Let's say we're comparing me to King Solomon (who, we'll agree for the sake of discussion, was a very wise guy). Well, I'm good at the LSAT, but I'm not King Solomon, so even when I hit 70, I probably won't be wiser than King Sol was at 37.

There's a longer discussion here.

I hope that helps.

Thank you so much! Oh these subtleties...