PT 36 Sec. 1 p21 and Sec. 3 p19

b33eazy
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 6:43 pm

PT 36 Sec. 1 p21 and Sec. 3 p19

Postby b33eazy » Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:59 am

P21: I just understand why A is correct.. It does not seem similar to me.

P19 in Sec 3 of PT 36.

I don't understand why D is not the answer the logic seems the same

Father like turnips but not potatoes, says tasteless, so it is not true that whoever likes potatoes likes turnips

Erica enjoys studying physics but not pure math, says it's boring, so it is not true that whoever enjoys studying physics enjoys studying pure math.

That logic looks exactly the same to me.

KaplanLSATInstructor
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:53 pm

Re: PT 36 Sec. 1 p21 and Sec. 3 p19

Postby KaplanLSATInstructor » Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:04 am

For Q. 21, you need to consider what the flaw is. In the original argument, the author describes a painting, calling it an inaccurate portrait. So clearly, any reproduction would be equally inaccurate AS A PORTRAIT. However, the author concludes that the reproduction is in inaccurate AS A REPRODUCTION -- which is unfair. The reproduction can be an excellent copy of the original, even if it contains the same errors as the original (which an exact copy would). So, the correct answer needs to make the same error in reasoning.

(A) does that. The original speech was inaccurate. So clearly, any reproduction would contain the same inaccuracies IN TERMS OF THE CONTENT. However, the author concludes that the recording is a poor REPRODUCTION. Again, the recording can be a high-quality copy of the speech, even if it contains the same errors as the original.

For Q. 19, again, you need to consider the flaw in the original argument. The author is trying to deny the claim that "whoever likes potatoes likes turnips." Or, in terms of Formal Logic: like potatoes --> like turnips.

So how do you deny that claim? By finding someone who likes potatoes and DOESN'T like turnips. However, the author doesn't do that. Instead, he finds someone who likes turnips but DOESN'T like potatoes. That doesn't deny the claim at all. Based on the logic of the claim, someone can like turnips and still not like potatoes -- so the father is NOT a valid exception. That's the flaw.

Now look at (D). The author is trying to deny the claim that whoever likes physics also likes math. Or, in terms of Formal Logic: like physics --> like math.

So how do you deny that claim? By finding someone who likes physics and DOESN'T like math. And that's what the author does! Therefore, Erica is a valid example that denies the claim, which makes this answer choice logical -- not flawed like the original argument.

Hope this helps.

- Chris




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Hopeful5 and 12 guests