PT 51, S1, Q10

User avatar
LoveLife89
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:08 pm

PT 51, S1, Q10

Postby LoveLife89 » Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:37 pm

This is a flaw question that kind of tripped me up. I had an asterick next to it when I was taking the test so that I could come back to it. I originally chose A, but then I changed it to E becaue A said by means other than exercise. My reasoning for picking E was that the sufficient can be reached without having that particular necessary factor. In other words, something else can come about from exercising vigorously and significantly lowering one's chances of developing cardio- illnesses. I saw that as the sufficient and another necessary for that could have been nonstrenous walking. So the flaw would be not showing why this would no longer suffice over the new study.

Am I wrong to break it down this way? I saw the way other people attacked this problem and my thinking was a bit different. Basically sufficient --->>necessary, but that the sufficient could still be activated from a different necessary. All the other answers sucked also so I was down to E, but I want to be able to get this question right for the right reason.

Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks

JohnV
Posts: 279
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:29 am

Re: PT 51, S1, Q10

Postby JohnV » Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:43 pm

if you posted the question or linked it a few of us could help out better, I don't have that test around and I can't find it on the web (although I didn't look very hard to be honest). I feel like I've recently done PT 51 and I think I did exactly what you did for the same reason (I remember answering E on an LR and then switching to A in error).

User avatar
Nova
Posts: 9116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: PT 51, S1, Q10

Postby Nova » Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:46 pm

JohnV wrote:if you posted the question or linked it a few of us could help out better.


It is actually against the rules to post actual questions because of copyright laws. Most people have copies of 52-61 because they come bundled. I dont have 51 on me right now or I would try to help. Sorry OP!

JohnV
Posts: 279
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:29 am

Re: PT 51, S1, Q10

Postby JohnV » Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:49 pm

Nova wrote:
JohnV wrote:if you posted the question or linked it a few of us could help out better.


It is actually against the rules to post actual questions because of copyright laws. Most people have copies of 52-61 because they come bundled. I dont have 51 on me right now or I would try to help. Sorry OP!


Oh well then I apologize! I thought it was just against the rules to post recent ones. I've posted some questions before and asked if it was against the rules and no one ever corrected me, just answered the questions lol.

User avatar
LoveLife89
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:08 pm

Re: PT 51, S1, Q10

Postby LoveLife89 » Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:50 pm

Oo okay! Thank you for that info. I'll wait around. Someone will have it

ookoshi
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:30 am

Re: PT 51, S1, Q10

Postby ookoshi » Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:53 pm

TLS wants to maintain a good relationship with LSAC, that's why you can't post questions here. I find it hard to believe that posting 1 question out of a hundred for the pupose of commentary, done not for profit, wouldn't fall under fair use. I understand TLS's position on deleting posts, and they have a right to do that, but LSAC can't really stop you from posting a question on the internet and presenting/receiving comments on it elsewhere.

User avatar
LoveLife89
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:08 pm

Re: PT 51, S1, Q10

Postby LoveLife89 » Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:57 pm

Has anyone been able to figure this out or have been able to locate the PT ? :D

User avatar
Nova
Posts: 9116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: PT 51, S1, Q10

Postby Nova » Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:33 pm

My take:

Report: Statement 1: excersise vigorously --> lowers chance of developing cardio certian illness

Statement 2: excercise lowers chance of developing certian cardio illness --> excercise is vigorous

Columnists conlcusion: Statement 3: Despite other studies, It is not the case walking yields the same benifits

Basically, the two statements made by the report contradict previous studies. The flaw is that the columnist assumes the legitimacy of one study and not the other for no justifiable reason. (E).

Like you said, (A) is not right because walking is excercise, so it is irrelevant.
Last edited by Nova on Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ookoshi
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:30 am

Re: PT 51, S1, Q10

Postby ookoshi » Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:43 pm

This is my take on the question.

The argument presented in the question is essentially the same as this.

"Study A, published last month, says X. Study B, published last year, says Y. Therefore, you shouldn't listen to Study B."

Whether X and Y are a subset of each other, or whether X is necessary or sufficient for Y, are all irrelevant to the question being asked. The only thing that matters is that X is different from Y. At that point, the question is not about X or Y, the argument is about A vs B. You can remove X and Y from the question and simply it.

"Study A was published last month. Study B was published last year. Therefore, you shouldn't listen to Study B."

The answer is E because, simply put, Study A being more recently published is not a justification for why Study A is superior. The passage never gives a valid reason WHY Study A is more valid.

Edited: To clarify what I mean by X and Y being irrelevant. X and Y are relevant in that it may open up other criticisms, but X and Y are irrelevant because answer E is a valid criticism no matter what X and Y are.

User avatar
LoveLife89
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:08 pm

Re: PT 51, S1, Q10

Postby LoveLife89 » Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:19 pm

Wow!!! Thank you guys so much!! I just went back to the question with this new information and it definitely makes more sense now. There are other questions like this, but for some reason I didn't see the reasoning like this before. Thanks a bunch

TylerJonesMPLS
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:20 pm

Re: PT 51, S1, Q10

Postby TylerJonesMPLS » Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:43 pm

Just a couple of more points on 51.1 10.

The first and second sentences taken together form a biconditional. Sentence 1 and sentence 2 are both sufficient conditions and necessary conditions. The biconditional excludes all other sufficient and necessary conditions, and requires that the antecedent and consequent are either both true or both false. One of them cannot be true while the other is false.

The biconditional looks like this:

One lowers one’s chances of developing some CRD if and only if one exercises vigorously.

Sentence 3 is the conclusion, and it obviously does not follow from the premises.

The argument is so bad that it is hard to tell what the informal fallacy actually is. Maybe it is an Appeal to (inappropriate) Authority. The only grounds that the columnist puts forward for giving greater authority to the recent study is that it is recent. But, if so, then the next study that is done will have greater authority than the recent study that the columnist currently favors, whatever that study may conclude. So the columnist’s argument is really just silly.

I think what makes this question hard is that the argument is so terrible that it is difficult to get a handle on it. But if you ignore the distraction of how terrible an argument it is, and concentrate on the premises and conclusion, you can see that (A) - (D) are irrelevant, and (E) must be the correct AC, even though (E) is deliberately vague. That is, (E) refers only to a “certain conclusion” of the recent report, which is meant to distract the reader by suggesting that the argument has more than one conclusion, when in fact the argument only has one (fallaciously derived) conclusion, namely that we should not heed the older reports.

But all that really matters is that the columnist has not provided any even remotely persuasive reason for why we should not heed the older reports and believe the recent report. So (E) has to be correct.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”