PT 62 S2 Q19

User avatar
mhaas
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:53 am

PT 62 S2 Q19

Postby mhaas » Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:36 am

Can somebody please explain this question to me? It is giving me fits

magickware
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: PT 62 S2 Q19

Postby magickware » Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:19 pm

The first sentence is a smoke screen.

Store sells tropical birds but no tropical fish->sells gerbils.
Independent store->doesn't sell gerbils.

Take contra of the second sentence and see how it relates to the first one.

User avatar
SilvermanBarPrep
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:19 pm

Re: PT 62 S2 Q19

Postby SilvermanBarPrep » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:54 pm

Let's understand what each sentence individually is saying, because doing so will give you the best opportunity to understand the argument as a whole.

We are first told that in West Calverton, most pet stores sell exotic birds. Sometimes it helps to think of such a sentence in terms of numbers. So, for example, assume that there are 10 pet stores in in West Calverton, and that 7 of them sell exotic birds.

We are then told that most of those that sell exotic birds, also sell tropical fish. From the above, we've determined that 7 sell exotic birds, so let's assume that 5 of the 7 sell exotic fish.

This also leads to a conclusion that 2/7 stores sell exotic birds but do not sell tropical fish. (7/7-5/7)

Finally, we are told that any pet store that sells tropic fish, but not exotic birds (2/7 from above), does sell gerbils, and no independently-owned store in West Calverton sells gerbils.

Answer choice D tells us that no independently owned pet stores in West Calverton sells tropical fish but not exotic birds. This must be true because these stores that sell tropical fish but not exotic birds (the 2/7 above) must sell gerbils, and if you sell gerbils, you are not an independently owned pet store located in West Calverton.

User avatar
SilvermanBarPrep
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:19 pm

Re: PT 62 S2 Q19

Postby SilvermanBarPrep » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:55 pm

"exotic fish" should say "tropical fish" above.

User avatar
wtrc
Posts: 2057
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 9:37 pm

Re: PT 62 S2 Q19

Postby wtrc » Sat Aug 31, 2013 10:54 am

Yeah, what the above posters have said. The first sentence is meant to confuse.

If a store sells tropical fish and not exotic birds and is in West Calverton, that store sells gerbils. That is in the stimulus. None of the independently owned stores do that. So none of the independently owned stores in W Calverton sell tropical fish but not exotic birds. That's a prephrase I have (other prephrases relating to the first sentence just in case... like some pet stores sell exotic birds in W Calverton).

Answer choice (A) doesn't work. We don't know with that specificity about stores that are not independently owned.
(B) we also don't know. If they sell both, we have no idea if they also sell gerbils.
(C) Same as answer choice B. We don't know this.
(D) is a totally perfect match to the above prephrase.
(E) No, nothing in the stimulus prevents one from not selling both.

User avatar
mhaas
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:53 am

Re: PT 62 S2 Q19

Postby mhaas » Sat Aug 31, 2013 6:40 pm

Thanks for the answers, very insightful. First sentence definitely took me off course.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, Google [Bot], mrgstephe, TecumsehSherman and 8 guests