PT 18.5: Sec1, Q14, Q17 and Q24; and PT 18.5: Sec4, Q25

jaglsat2013
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:37 am

PT 18.5: Sec1, Q14, Q17 and Q24; and PT 18.5: Sec4, Q25

Postby jaglsat2013 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:35 am

How would you do PT 18.5: Section1, Q14, Q17 and Q24; and PT 18.5: Section 4, Q25?

Thanks!

bilbaosan
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:58 pm

Re: PT 18.5: Sec1, Q14, Q17 and Q24; and PT 18.5: Sec4, Q25

Postby bilbaosan » Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:07 pm

Q17 is pretty simple: while Q16 asks to weaken the conclusion that "Bruno must have been a spy", the Q17 basically asks to strengthen it.

A says nothing about Bruno, and could only be mistakenly chosen if you take in account the answer in Q16;
B doesn't add anything valuable to the argument; what if pope praised him instead of condemning? who cares?
C doesn't directly affect spying; introduction to aristocrats is too much a leap and it doesn't affect the conclusion "Bruno must have been a spy"
D explains how he got into the embassy, but we don't care, we already know he got there
E however is a strong support - the spy was active exactly at times Bruno worked in the embassy.

Q24 is difficult, and will screw you badly if you coming from another culture where working on a factory in different city is something which simply doesn't happen. If you assume - as it happens in many countries around the world - that the only people working on the factory in city X are residents of city X, you won't solve this question.

The assumption here comes from the scope shift - the premise says the factory in city X employs more unskilled workers than other businesses. However the conclusion says if factory closes, more than half of city X residents who are unskilled workers would lose their jobs.

Here if you lived in US and assume that there is a possibility that the only unskilled workers there came from other cities (again, this is something impossible in many countries so it IS an unstated assumption from testmakers), then you'll see that in this case if factory closes, not a single unskilled worker in city X would lose the job since none of them work at the factory. Hence you need a statement which would say something "more than half of unskilled workers from city X work at that factory". Which is what D states.

A has no effect on conclusion, which tells you what happens IF the factory closes, not what happens now.
B would be good but won't work - maybe all the unskilled workers in city X work in agriculture, and closing the shoe factory wouldn't affect them at all
C has no effect on conclusion. Even if the factory employs 2 unskilled workers and 10k skilled, the conclusion will stand if those workers are from city X which only has 3 unskilled workers
E has no effect on conclusion since it states the people would lose their jobs, it doesn't state they won't be able to find another job.

For the rest I hope someone else would chim in, as Q14 is parallel reasoning (I ignore those questions completely), and S4/Q25 is a philosophy/conscience question, and I typically don't even understand what those people are trying to say (same happened here).




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DumbHollywoodActor, Exabot [Bot], Instrumental, Pozzo, splitterfromhell, ThatOneAfrican, Thomas Hagan, ESQ., Vino.Veritas and 7 guests