PT 16. Sect. 3 #1

User avatar
cloudhidden
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:29 am

PT 16. Sect. 3 #1

Postby cloudhidden » Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:13 pm

(D) clearly weakens this argument more than any other choices, but does (A) weaken as well? The fact that it appears first in the choices could make such a trap very tempting.

User avatar
Balthy
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: PT 16. Sect. 3 #1

Postby Balthy » Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:22 pm

A can apply to other spiders as well, so it doesn't necessarily weaken the argument. D applies only to stickier webs.

EDIT: That was off a bit. (A) doesn't tell you whether other spider's habitats also contain non-flying insects, so it doesn't weaken the argument.

6lehderjets
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:01 pm

Re: PT 16. Sect. 3 #1

Postby 6lehderjets » Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:26 pm

The stimulus says painted spiders are a more successful predator than its competitors. Why? Because stickier webs are more efficent at trapping insects that fly into them.

A is irrelevant because in order to weaken the stimulus you have challenge either the conclusion or the premises. A does neither, it simply tells us that there are other species living in the same habitat as painted spiders. A also doesn't speak to how effective the webs are to catching to those non-flying species. If the webs effectively catch the non-flying species than the stimulus wouldn't be weakened by that choice.

User avatar
cloudhidden
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:29 am

Re: PT 16. Sect. 3 #1

Postby cloudhidden » Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:30 pm

Yeah, I rationalized that it could but does not necessarily weaken. I'm just getting punctilious in understanding why every answer choice is wrong. :lol:

6lehderjets
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:01 pm

Re: PT 16. Sect. 3 #1

Postby 6lehderjets » Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:37 pm

cloudhidden wrote:Yeah, I rationalized that it could but does not necessarily weaken. I'm just getting punctilious in understanding why every answer choice is wrong. :lol:



That's not a bad thing to do. Just don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. Know what the objective of the question is and if the answer choice fulfills that objective.

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

Re: PT 16. Sect. 3 #1

Postby flem » Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:18 pm

Remember that the phrase "not all" is total weaksauce. What if there are 100 insects and 99 of them fly?

When I approach a weaken question, I keep an eye out for an answer choice that shows a detriment to whatever thing they are talking about. So this bro is like "Man, this webs are so sticky, and that's pretty sweet." At this point I'm like, "ayo breh, maybe there's a big drawback that makes these sticky webs not so awesome."

D) is right in line with my thought process.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DumbHollywoodActor, wildquest8200 and 10 guests