PT 61, S.2, Q16.

User avatar
nyjets2090
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:38 pm

PT 61, S.2, Q16.

Postby nyjets2090 » Sun May 05, 2013 2:22 pm

Wondering if someone can help me out with this.

I ended up with answer choice B at first, and in my blind review decided on answer choice C instead, since to save money as a whole the costs to install it definitely have to cover it.

Would I be right in saying that the first 3 words of answer choice B completely throw off the entire answer choice, since it's not necessary to assume we could accomplish the goal with current technology? since maybe they can develop new technology.

User avatar
mindarmed
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:16 pm

Re: PT 61, S.2, Q16.

Postby mindarmed » Sun May 05, 2013 5:02 pm

nyjets2090 wrote:Wondering if someone can help me out with this.

I ended up with answer choice B at first, and in my blind review decided on answer choice C instead, since to save money as a whole the costs to install it definitely have to cover it.

Would I be right in saying that the first 3 words of answer choice B completely throw off the entire answer choice, since it's not necessary to assume we could accomplish the goal with current technology? since maybe they can develop new technology.


Yeah the core here is:

Greatly reduce electric bills -> save money

If the cost of converting the heat to electricity is greater than the reduction in the electric bills, then we're not saving any money.

User avatar
boblawlob
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: PT 61, S.2, Q16.

Postby boblawlob » Mon May 06, 2013 6:03 pm

No, the first 3 words of answer choice B do not matter.

This is a classic LSAT trick answer.

The stimulus doesn't assume answer choice B. It states answer choice B with an "if" in front of it!

melmoththewanderer
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 12:31 pm

Re: PT 61, S.2, Q16.

Postby melmoththewanderer » Mon May 06, 2013 6:23 pm

This is an interesting question and I want to follow up by asking how you reconcile this answer with PT23 S3 Q9, which essentially is the same problem, but with a different credited response.

Daily_Double
Posts: 1035
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:45 pm

Re: PT 61, S.2, Q16.

Postby Daily_Double » Mon May 06, 2013 7:21 pm

These are slightly prephrased so as to not offend notions of copyright law, and to make me laugh.

PT 61, S2, Q16: N/A

Core: If steel manufacturing plants' bills go down, then they will save money

Why?

(p1) TG are devices that convert sexual frustration into electricity
(p2) Making steel produces a ton of sexual frustration, that sexual frustration goes to waste
(p3) If steel manufacturing plans could feed their sexual frustration into TG, they would reduce their electric bills

Seems like a pretty good argument. The key here is saving money. The argument is suggesting an action, and concluding that if that action is possible, then these plants will save money. This structure/conclusion combination of N/A question types pops up frequently, my view of the gap is that what if things besides electricity bills affect cost? If so, how do they affect cost? The necessary assumption here is getting at nothing will significantly affect the amount of money they save by taking this action except electricity bills. So my prephrase would be that "TG does not cost such a large amount of money that any gains in money from electricity bills would be outweighed by the cost of purchasing and/or maintaining the generators." Let's move to the answers:

A: No we don't care about other ways, nor their cost effectiveness. We only care about saving money. This answer gets at saving more money, which we don't care about. Eliminate.
B: This answer basically eliminates the function of TG. It's attractive because, theoretically if the generators are useless then the plants wouldn't save any money. However, the argument takes this into account. See (p3). For that reason, you should eliminate this one.
C: BOOM. It's time to move on, but just for kicks, let's see the others.
D: Nope. Once again we care about money. Not whether some do or do not rely on electricity as energy. What if they rely on nuclear power or the tears of children? Eliminate.
E: I'd eliminate this off the bat because of the phrase "greatly reduce." We don't care how much they reduce their bills, aka save money, we just care that money is saved. If we read further into it we see it's out of scope. Eliminate.

PT 23, S3, Q9: N/A

Core: If people skip whenever they can, then pollution will go down a lot

Why?

(p1) If they make the decision to skip instead, then there's one less hummer gushing out hummer pollution than there would be if people drove their hummers instead of skipping

The phrase "Skip whenever they can" and "greatly reduced" should be flaming red flags. The gap here is between not driving and greatly reducing pollution. What if hummers blow up when you don't drive them and that increases pollution? Alternatively, what if by skipping everywhere, people litter to the point where any gains from not driving hummers is diminished by littering? Furthermore, what if people are smoking whenever they skip and that pollutes more than the hummers? So my prephrase would be "Hummers that are not being driven do not excessively pollute the air." I would also go in with the second prephrase of "People skipping whenever they can do not pollute the air significantly." Let's go to the answers:

A: Nope. This answer suggests that there are many ways to achieve the desired end. Well, we only care about one way. Eliminate.
B: Scope.
C: Also scope.
D: Nope.
E: This is not what I was looking for. But look what it does. It is saying that the argument assumes that there must be some people who drive hummers when they are able to skip. If we negate it, then nobody drives when they are able to skip. And if that is true, then there's no reason for people to skip everywhere they can, since they already do.

melmoththewanderer wrote:This is an interesting question and I want to follow up by asking how you reconcile this answer with PT23 S3 Q9, which essentially is the same problem, but with a different credited response.


Now to answer your question, there is something very different going on in these two arguments, it's subtle, but it changes everything. I'll concede that the problems are similar: An argument is made for an action which will supposedly result in a reduction of something. However, in the first question, the argument covered its ass by basically saying, if we assume this is possible.... Whereas the second argument does not.

melmoththewanderer
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 12:31 pm

Re: PT 61, S.2, Q16.

Postby melmoththewanderer » Mon May 06, 2013 7:41 pm

So it comes down to the fact that in the first one it says "could" whereas in the second it says "would." That is subtle indeed. Thanks, Daily Double!

Daily_Double
Posts: 1035
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:45 pm

Re: PT 61, S.2, Q16.

Postby Daily_Double » Mon May 06, 2013 10:14 pm

I'm always looking for something tricky, let me know if you have issues with another question, especially in LR and LG.

User avatar
nyjets2090
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:38 pm

Re: PT 61, S.2, Q16.

Postby nyjets2090 » Fri May 10, 2013 6:35 pm

Thanks, all!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], comicbookdude, sethnoorzad and 17 guests