PT74 Discussion Thread

User avatar
Rigo
Posts: 11953
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

PT74 Discussion Thread

Postby Rigo » Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm

Talk about questions here, so as not to ruin it for preppers who haven't taken it yet.

The Avatar
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:32 pm

Re: PT74 Discussion Thread

Postby The Avatar » Wed Jan 14, 2015 5:33 pm

I just redid the test today and got perfect in LG, whereas I could not complete the last game in December.

I also did better in LR, seemed to have made a few stupid mistakes in December.

Bombed RC though again; it was a difficult section.

User avatar
leslieknope
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:53 pm

Re: PT74 Discussion Thread

Postby leslieknope » Wed Jan 14, 2015 5:42 pm

Redoing LG was so frustrating because I didn't miss any key inferences or screw up a diagram or anything. I even diagrammed the stupid rug game right and made the call about either white or olive being out in question 4(?). I just went too fast and missed things that I shouldn't have. Argh.

keosu11
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:31 pm

Re: PT74 Discussion Thread

Postby keosu11 » Sat Jan 17, 2015 12:44 pm

Can someone discuss the process they used for S5Q21 (Letter to the editor)? I really struggled on this question

ilikebaseball
Posts: 4103
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:04 am

Re: PT74 Discussion Thread

Postby ilikebaseball » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:19 pm

someone explain passage 4 plz cuz its a damn bitch

User avatar
Rigo
Posts: 11953
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: PT74 Discussion Thread

Postby Rigo » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:42 pm

keosu11 wrote:Can someone discuss the process they used for S5Q21 (Letter to the editor)? I really struggled on this question

I tackled this like a weakening question because you want to find a principle that attacks the reasoning the person who wrote the letter uses.

Conclusion: The newspaper exhibits unjustified bias.
Premise: The tone of the article was skeptical when it shouldn't have been.

The main problem I see with this reasoning is that maybe the newspaper was in fact justified in being skeptical. The justified versus unjustified idea is what I went with.

(A) This answer choice basically says that when in doubt, the paper is justified in being skeptical. Doubt = not backed by evidence of an extraordinarily high standard. No evidence of this kind is discussed. The only "evidence" offered is that Hanlon is a trusted member of the community. That is hardly enough, and this answer choice thereby weakens the reasoning given.
(B) Irrelevant. What does an intermediate source have to do with anything? We aren't told this information was gathered through an intermediate source so therefore this does not give the paper the justification it needs to be skeptical.
(C) Possibly tricky, but the passage doesn't say that Hanlon is a trusted source. He is merely a trusted member of the community. That is different from being a source.
(D) Irrelevant. Hanlon didn't publish anything.
(E) Irrelevant. This question is about bias, not criteria for publication.

Hope this helps you a bit.

User avatar
m27
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:58 pm

Re: PT74 Discussion Thread

Postby m27 » Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:28 am

I don't understand question 23 in the second section (LR), beginning with "Geologist: the dominant view that petroleum..."

Can someone shed some light on this one?

User avatar
leslieknope
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:53 pm

Re: PT74 Discussion Thread

Postby leslieknope » Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:38 am

m27 wrote:I don't understand question 23 in the second section (LR), beginning with "Geologist: the dominant view that petroleum..."

Can someone shed some light on this one?


Okay so 23 is a weaken question, which means it's in the assumption family. The argument core goes:

Premise: Biomarkers (indicating past or present presence of a living thing) have been found in petroleum.
Conclusion: Those that challenge the dominant theory that petroleum formed from living things by saying it formed from carbon deposits deep in the Earth's crust are wrong.

Since it's an assumption family question, you know there's already a gap between the premise and the conclusion. In this case, the argument assumes that living things cannot possibly be found deep in the Earth's crust- that is, if carbon deposits were responsible for petroleum, biomarkers wouldn't be in it.

Answer choice D hits directly on that. If bacteria can live in the carbon deposits, then there's no reason that petroleum can 't both have formed from the carbon deposits AND have biomarkers. If you insert it into the argument, the conclusion doesn't follow.

A correct answer could also have something about the biomarkers being added later, etc.

Does that make sense?

User avatar
Dave Hall
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:18 pm

Re: PT74 Discussion Thread

Postby Dave Hall » Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:31 pm

ilikebaseball wrote:someone explain passage 4 plz cuz its a damn bitch

When the author of a passage opens with "Inigo Montoya recently published a study that said...", there are pretty much two ways the author can go from there.

1. Inigo Montoya is a smart guy and I think you would all benefit from knowing about his cool study.

or

2. Inigo Montoya is wrong.

This passage is an example of the latter: the main point is that García's work suffered from two flaws:

First, García attributes more cohesion to the groups of activists (taken as a whole) than they actually showed—that is, these groups were in opposition to each other on many issues, but he acts as though they were all reading from the same page.

Second, García writes as though the activists he studied represented all Mexican Americans, when the fact is that we don't know whether or not they really did. In other words, just because the activists held certain views does not mean that those views were shared by the majority of non-activist Mexican Americans at the time.

So, if you bear in mind that the author disagrees with García on these two central points, I think you'll find that enough to answer most of these questions (just make sure you're answering the question you've been asked! For example, Q 24 asks what García thinks, then 25 switches to asking what the author thinks. Tricksy bastards).

Does that help?

kang
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:51 am

Re: PT74 Discussion Thread

Postby kang » Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:57 pm

Dave Hall wrote:
ilikebaseball wrote:someone explain passage 4 plz cuz its a damn bitch

When the author of a passage opens with "Inigo Montoya recently published a study that said...", there are pretty much two ways the author can go from there.

1. Inigo Montoya is a smart guy and I think you would all benefit from knowing about his cool study.

or

2. Inigo Montoya is wrong.

This passage is an example of the latter: the main point is that García's work suffered from two flaws:

First, García attributes more cohesion to the groups of activists (taken as a whole) than they actually showed—that is, these groups were in opposition to each other on many issues, but he acts as though they were all reading from the same page.

Second, García writes as though the activists he studied represented all Mexican Americans, when the fact is that we don't know whether or not they really did. In other words, just because the activists held certain views does not mean that those views were shared by the majority of non-activist Mexican Americans at the time.

So, if you bear in mind that the author disagrees with García on these two central points, I think you'll find that enough to answer most of these questions (just make sure you're answering the question you've been asked! For example, Q 24 asks what García thinks, then 25 switches to asking what the author thinks. Tricksy bastards).

Does that help?


thank you! This actually helps a lot. I found this passage a little odd in that it went against the norm of positively speaking of underrepresented minorities. Oh well..

kang
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:51 am

Re: PT74 Discussion Thread

Postby kang » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:04 pm

Just did this PT today. Unlike some, I thought the RC and LG wasn't too bad. Instead, I got destroyed in the first LR section. I noticed that I missed relatively easy questions, even one that is level one difficulty... Aghh.

Anyways, let's kill this test on Saturday!! :)

af0890
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 4:09 pm

Re: PT74 Discussion Thread

Postby af0890 » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:12 am

.
Last edited by af0890 on Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hopeboaltberkeley
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:44 pm

Re: PT74 Discussion Thread

Postby hopeboaltberkeley » Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:11 am

I found this one to be quite difficult overall. I don't know why but I always mess up the second LR for this.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bcapace, cherrygalore, cianchetta0, Google [Bot], Instrumental and 8 guests