Excessively arbitrary LR in the low number range

User avatar
PeanutsNJam
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Excessively arbitrary LR in the low number range

Postby PeanutsNJam » Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:32 pm

Example: PT 60 Q10:

How can you possibly say that "petition" and "testimony" are equatable?

PT 59 Q14:

Negating E leaves you with typical donut eaters eating more calories than typical bagel eaters.

How do you guys justify the answers when doing these?

User avatar
MarcusAurelius
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: Excessively arbitrary LR in the low number range

Postby MarcusAurelius » Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:36 pm

It would help if we could actually see the question you are seeking an answer to

User avatar
PeanutsNJam
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Excessively arbitrary LR in the low number range

Postby PeanutsNJam » Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:38 pm

Sorry it's illegal to post the question.

User avatar
MarcusAurelius
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: Excessively arbitrary LR in the low number range

Postby MarcusAurelius » Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:39 pm

THEY'LL NEVER TRACE IT BACK TO YOU!

User avatar
relevantfactor
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: Excessively arbitrary LR in the low number range

Postby relevantfactor » Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:40 pm

PeanutsNJam wrote:Sorry it's illegal to post the question.

Section 1 or 2?

User avatar
PeanutsNJam
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Excessively arbitrary LR in the low number range

Postby PeanutsNJam » Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:00 am

PT 60 sect 1 and PT 59 sect 2

ncc5
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:24 pm

Re: Excessively arbitrary LR in the low number range

Postby ncc5 » Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:22 am

For PT 60, you're distorting the meaning of testimony. They don't mean in a court room, they just mean what the respondents affirm. Which answer did you choose?

User avatar
echamberlin8
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Excessively arbitrary LR in the low number range

Postby echamberlin8 » Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:29 am

Is it really illegal to post old PT questions on here?

User avatar
defdef
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Excessively arbitrary LR in the low number range

Postby defdef » Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:41 am

pt60 i think the link between testimony (A formal written or spoken statement, esp. [though not necessarily] one given in a court of law) and petition is pretty clear.

as for pt59, the key distinction is "one sitting". it doesn't matter if there is overlap between typical donut eaters and typical bagel eaters because the question sets the parameters for how much food is consumed in "one sitting". if he is both and he has both a donut and a bagel, this would be considered two sittings. that's the way i see it anyhow.

User avatar
PeanutsNJam
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Excessively arbitrary LR in the low number range

Postby PeanutsNJam » Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:58 pm

ncc5 wrote:For PT 60, you're distorting the meaning of testimony. They don't mean in a court room, they just mean what the respondents affirm. Which answer did you choose?


I believe I chose E. However, it was one of those questions where I felt none of the answer choices were right.

Testimony doesn't have to be a court room. It's simply a written or spoken statement. It's individual.

A petition is a signature. It's done as a collective.

I think those two are completely different things.

And as for PT59, I was under the impression that the answer choice meant a donut eater would also eat a bagel in the same sitting. The stimulus never said that donut eaters "only" eat 4 donuts.

User avatar
cahwc12
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: Excessively arbitrary LR in the low number range

Postby cahwc12 » Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:40 pm

PeanutsNJam wrote:And as for PT59, I was under the impression that the answer choice meant a donut eater would also eat a bagel in the same sitting. The stimulus never said that donut eaters "only" eat 4 donuts.


It also never says they date supermodels, but that doesn't mean you can assume it to be true because you want to.


Don't post stuff with sensationalist titles like this just because you don't understand a question.

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

Re: Excessively arbitrary LR in the low number range

Postby Nova » Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:52 pm

echamberlin8 wrote:Is it really illegal to post old PT questions on here?


Yes, breaks copyright laws.

User avatar
PeanutsNJam
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Excessively arbitrary LR in the low number range

Postby PeanutsNJam » Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:28 pm

cahwc12 wrote:
PeanutsNJam wrote:And as for PT59, I was under the impression that the answer choice meant a donut eater would also eat a bagel in the same sitting. The stimulus never said that donut eaters "only" eat 4 donuts.


It also never says they date supermodels, but that doesn't mean you can assume it to be true because you want to.


Don't post stuff with sensationalist titles like this just because you don't understand a question.


Let me break down Q14 for you since you clearly either did not look at the question or don't understand it yourself:

Stimulus

In one sitting, a typical donut eater eats 4 donuts (680 calories and 40g fat total).
In one sitting, a typical bagel eater eats one bagel with random spreads that add up to about 680 calories also.
Therefore, donut eaters and bagel eaters eat the same amount of calories in one sitting.

If you negate E

Most donut eaters are also bagel eaters. If I am a donut eater and a bagel eater, then what does that mean?

That means in one sitting, I eat 4 donuts because I am a typical donut eater. I would also eat a bagel with random spreads because I am a typical bagel eater. Nowhere are we told that donut eaters and bagel eaters are mutually exclusive (a silly assumption to make).

Is that clear enough for you? Or do you need pictures too.

And you clearly did not address again the question as to how one can equate petition and testimony given the fact that the former is a collective signing of a letter/document while the latter is an individual statement (verbal or written).

User avatar
cahwc12
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: Excessively arbitrary LR in the low number range

Postby cahwc12 » Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:43 pm

PeanutsNJam wrote:
cahwc12 wrote:
PeanutsNJam wrote:And as for PT59, I was under the impression that the answer choice meant a donut eater would also eat a bagel in the same sitting. The stimulus never said that donut eaters "only" eat 4 donuts.


It also never says they date supermodels, but that doesn't mean you can assume it to be true because you want to.


Don't post stuff with sensationalist titles like this just because you don't understand a question.


Let me break down Q14 for you since you clearly either did not look at the question or don't understand it yourself:

Stimulus

In one sitting, a typical donut eater eats 4 donuts (680 calories and 40g fat total).
In one sitting, a typical bagel eater eats one bagel with random spreads that add up to about 680 calories also.
Therefore, donut eaters and bagel eaters eat the same amount of calories in one sitting.

If you negate E

Most donut eaters are also bagel eaters. If I am a donut eater and a bagel eater, then what does that mean?

That means in one sitting, I eat 4 donuts because I am a typical donut eater. I would also eat a bagel with random spreads because I am a typical bagel eater. Nowhere are we told that donut eaters and bagel eaters are mutually exclusive (a silly assumption to make).

Is that clear enough for you? Or do you need pictures too.

And you clearly did not address again the question as to how one can equate petition and testimony given the fact that the former is a collective signing of a letter/document while the latter is an individual statement (verbal or written).


I read the question and solved it in about 30 seconds. There's no flaw or gab or ambiguity or arbitrariness in here at all.

You're assuming you have to eat donuts and bagels in one sitting. Where does it tell you that you can draw that assumption? You're absolutely right that you can't assume they are mutually exclusive either. But acknowledging this doesn't give you free reign to draw any other assumption you want.

Someone else already clearly explained that you're wrong if you scroll up a little bit.

Instead of complaining about arbitrariness that doesn't exist, strive to actually understand why your brain missed this simple logical reasoning question. Focus on why that incorrect answer is indeed incorrect. You ask for advice here but are ignoring it.

In regards to the other very straightforward LR you are complaining about:

tes·ti·mo·ny/ˈtestəˌmōnē/
Noun:
A formal written or spoken statement, esp. one given in a court of law.

You're right that the plural of testimony is testimonies, but you should consider that the object in the answer choice is "people," a singular entity. It would be grammatically incorrect for them to say "the testimonies of people."

User avatar
defdef
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Excessively arbitrary LR in the low number range

Postby defdef » Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:02 am

defdef wrote:
as for pt59, the key distinction is "one sitting". it doesn't matter if there is overlap between typical donut eaters and typical bagel eaters because the question sets the parameters for how much food is consumed in "one sitting". if he is both and he has both a donut and a bagel, this would be considered two sittings. that's the way i see it anyhow.


the stimulus even uses the phrasing "EXACTLY one bagel". meaning that ONLY a bagel can be eaten by typical bagel eater.

second, petition is absolutely a singular statement that is usually used when talking about many signatures, but needn't have many. even if a petition does have a thousand signatures it is still a single statement which is all that is required. if you want, think of it as many people co-signing the same testimony.

though the previous poster made a good point regarding the grammar, it is an unnecessary distinction as testimonies may mean that each individual had a different testimony. in this case they did not - they all had the same testimony.

User avatar
PeanutsNJam
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Excessively arbitrary LR in the low number range

Postby PeanutsNJam » Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:32 am

defdef wrote:
defdef wrote:
as for pt59, the key distinction is "one sitting". it doesn't matter if there is overlap between typical donut eaters and typical bagel eaters because the question sets the parameters for how much food is consumed in "one sitting". if he is both and he has both a donut and a bagel, this would be considered two sittings. that's the way i see it anyhow.


the stimulus even uses the phrasing "EXACTLY one bagel". meaning that ONLY a bagel can be eaten by typical bagel eater.

second, petition is absolutely a singular statement that is usually used when talking about many signatures, but needn't have many. even if a petition does have a thousand signatures it is still a single statement which is all that is required. if you want, think of it as many people co-signing the same testimony.

though the previous poster made a good point regarding the grammar, it is an unnecessary distinction as testimonies may mean that each individual had a different testimony. in this case they did not - they all had the same testimony.


Thanks your explanations were good. Made sense.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: laowhynot109, SunDevil14, VMars and 8 guests