Irked that I got this question wrong, explain?

dba415
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:50 pm

Irked that I got this question wrong, explain?

Postby dba415 » Tue Aug 07, 2012 7:59 pm

High blood cholesterol levels are bad for the heart. Like meat, eggs, and poultry, shellfish contains cholesterol. But shellfish is not necessarily bad for the heart; it is very low in saturated fat, which affects blood cholesterol much more than dietary cholesterol does.

Strengthen question

The correct answer is "foods low in saturated fat promote low blood cholesterol"

My problem is that the question says nothing about low blood cholesterol, only high levels of cholesterol being bad for the heart. It's possible that low blood cholesterol is equally bad for the heart, you do not know this.

Can someone explain this?

User avatar
Bildungsroman
Posts: 5553
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: Irked that I got this question wrong, explain?

Postby Bildungsroman » Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:02 pm

dba415 wrote:High blood cholesterol levels are bad for the heart. Like meat, eggs, and poultry, shellfish contains cholesterol. But shellfish is not necessarily bad for the heart; it is very low in saturated fat, which affects blood cholesterol much more than dietary cholesterol does.

Strengthen question

The correct answer is "foods low in saturated fat promote low blood cholesterol"

My problem is that the question says nothing about low blood cholesterol, only high levels of cholesterol being bad for the heart. It's possible that low blood cholesterol is equally bad for the heart, you do not know this.

Can someone explain this?

Guess you shoulda drawn that inference.

dba415
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:50 pm

Re: Irked that I got this question wrong, explain?

Postby dba415 » Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:20 pm

Hmm still not positive. Could you explain more?

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

Re: Irked that I got this question wrong, explain?

Postby cc.celina » Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:36 pm

I think I know what question you're talking about, but it would be much easier to explain if I had the text in front of me. Could you give us PT/section/question number?

User avatar
CardozoLaw09
Posts: 2041
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: Irked that I got this question wrong, explain?

Postby CardozoLaw09 » Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:03 pm

You're right. The fact that it promotes "low" blood cholesterol could very well weaken the argument since low blood cholesterol may not necessarily be a good thing. But yeah, it would be beneficial if we knew what PT/Section/Question this is from so that we could read the entire stimulus and/or all the answer choices that would perhaps validate this answer.

dba415
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:50 pm

Re: Irked that I got this question wrong, explain?

Postby dba415 » Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:18 pm

the question is PT 32(oct 2000) Section 4 #9

User avatar
05062014
Posts: 437
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:05 pm

Re: Irked that I got this question wrong, explain?

Postby 05062014 » Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:25 pm

I have an issue with LR questions in general. On another PT - pt 60 - a correct answer choice required the student to assume that for someone to have a bad reputation it was required that people could say bad things about that person. In hindsight, that seems kind of obvious. However, it is still an assumption required for the correct answer choice to strengthen or justify the critics argument. Are we expected to make assumptions about the implications of answer choices when none of them seem good enough outright?

I think this was pt 60 - LR1 - #23

thederangedwang
Posts: 1124
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:44 pm

Re: Irked that I got this question wrong, explain?

Postby thederangedwang » Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:26 pm

.
Last edited by thederangedwang on Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Irked that I got this question wrong, explain?

Postby 03152016 » Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:29 pm

.
Last edited by 03152016 on Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Irked that I got this question wrong, explain?

Postby 03152016 » Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:31 pm

.
Last edited by 03152016 on Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

dba415
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:50 pm

Re: Irked that I got this question wrong, explain?

Postby dba415 » Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:24 pm

Thanks max324, that explanation makes sense.

I feel this is one time where if you don't really get the question, you'll get it right, if you get it a bit more but not fully, you'll get it wrong, and if you understand it fully, you will also get it right.

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: Irked that I got this question wrong, explain?

Postby flem » Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:37 am

Bildungsroman wrote:Guess you shoulda drawn that inference.


lol this

Don't overthink stuff like this. You shoot yourself in the foot when you go full retard trying to pick apart answer choices like that. If high is bad, low is at least better (knowing nothing else) and therefore strengthens.

bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: Irked that I got this question wrong, explain?

Postby bp shinners » Wed Aug 08, 2012 11:53 am

flem wrote: If high is bad, low is at least better (knowing nothing else) and therefore strengthens.


Nope. I didn't read the question, but if the stimulus says that high blood cholesterol is bad for the heart, you can't assume that low cholesterol is better.

Now, if it said that higher levels of blood cholesterol equate to a higher risk for heart conditions, you can infer that lower is better. But you can't if it doesn't make that comparative statement.

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: Irked that I got this question wrong, explain?

Postby flem » Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:47 pm

bp shinners wrote:Nope. I didn't read the question, but if the stimulus says that high blood cholesterol is bad for the heart, you can't assume that low cholesterol is better.

Now, if it said that higher levels of blood cholesterol equate to a higher risk for heart conditions, you can infer that lower is better. But you can't if it doesn't make that comparative statement.


OK, fair, but reading this question (PT 32, section 4, question 9) answer choice D) clearly closes that hole in the argument. It seems really obvious that's the correct answer - if for nothing else, the other 4 answers clearly are not.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kkb319, preamble and 7 guests