PT 29 section 1 Q18

User avatar
ltowns1
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 1:13 am

PT 29 section 1 Q18

Postby ltowns1 » Sat Jan 31, 2015 12:22 am

I'm having a hard time understanding why (d) is incorrect. It's not even really that I don't understand why (e) is correct, I just don't get why (d) is not correct? Can somebody break it down in dummy language lol

msp8
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:59 pm

Re: PT 29 section 1 Q18

Postby msp8 » Sat Jan 31, 2015 12:51 am

There's a long thread on the MH forums on this Q. Did you read that?

User avatar
ltowns1
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 1:13 am

Re: PT 29 section 1 Q18

Postby ltowns1 » Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:06 am

msp8 wrote:There's a long thread on the MH forums on this Q. Did you read that?


Yeah I did

js1663
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 2:13 pm

Re: PT 29 section 1 Q18

Postby js1663 » Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:10 am

I'll take a stab at this.. I remember this tripped me up when I was studying.

The first sentence tells us that there are some (read: at least 1, arguably minimum 2 since they use the term members) who along with being members of the committee have significant financial interests in it's decisions

The second sentence gives us the following:

If you're a planning committee member then you do not live in the suburbs.

Some members of the planning committee work in the suburbs

The inference and what must be true is gathered from combining the two above:

1) There are some planning committee members who have a significant financial interest in it's decisions
2) If you are on the planning comittee you do not live int he suburbs

If you combine the two above you can conclude E that there are some planning committee members who have a significant financial interests in it's decision who do not live in the suburbs. E leaves out that they have to be planning committee members but is a perfect combination of the two, since we know that there are people who both have an interest in the committee's decisions but also do not live in the suburbs.

As for D and why it's wrong.
"Some planning committee members who represent the construction industry do not work in the suburbs"
All they tell us is that many planning committee members work there. We have no clue which members they are, if they do or don't represent the construction industry, or anything like that. In fact, it's possible that all the members who represent the construction industry do work in the suburbs, and those that don't work in the suburbs only includes members who do not represent the construction committee - it's possible but not inferable, since they don't mention it.

All we know is that out of the group of planning committee members, there are two subgroups, those who represent the construction industry and those who don't (like logic games, either you're in or your out). From those two groups there are many who work in the suburbs. We don't know if many means 1% (which can be many depending on the population size) or 99%. However regardless, we have no way of knowing which of the two subcategories the two pools come from, so we certainly can't conclude that all of one of the two subcategories is included in that many.

Really the bottom line for D is it's impossible to conclude D is true without adding in information such as what percentage represent the construction industry or how many total members there are, and even then it's hard to draw the conclusion that D must be true.

js1663
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 2:13 pm

Re: PT 29 section 1 Q18

Postby js1663 » Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:17 am

ltowns1 wrote:
msp8 wrote:There's a long thread on the MH forums on this Q. Did you read that?


Yeah I did


https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... t1607.html

I don't know if this is the thread you read but further down in the thread christine.defenbaugh does a much better job of explaining it in simpler and clearer terms than mine both why E is correct and why A, B, C, and D are incorrect.

User avatar
ltowns1
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 1:13 am

Re: PT 29 section 1 Q18

Postby ltowns1 » Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:35 am

js1663 wrote:
ltowns1 wrote:
msp8 wrote:There's a long thread on the MH forums on this Q. Did you read that?


Yeah I did


https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... t1607.html

I don't know if this is the thread you read but further down in the thread christine.defenbaugh does a much better job of explaining it in simpler and clearer terms than mine both why E is correct and why A, B, C, and D are incorrect.



Ok thanks for all your help

User avatar
ltowns1
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 1:13 am

Re: PT 29 section 1 Q18

Postby ltowns1 » Sat Jan 31, 2015 11:49 am

Ok so let me try to unpack this so I can be clear about it goin forward, and if someone could clarify or confirm my logic I would appreciate it. Ok... So we're told that some members on the planning committee represent the construction industry, and some of those members have financial interests. Among those people none live in the the surburbs, but some work there..

What we can/can't infer

Now we cannot say that planning committee members that have financial interests work in the surburbs for sure.. Because it might be a different group of people. The word "some"allows for it. However, we can say that the committee members do not live in the the surburbs because there is no wiggle room in the word "none"???? Do I have the logic correct, or am I still missing something?

User avatar
ltowns1
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 1:13 am

Re: PT 29 section 1 Q18

Postby ltowns1 » Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:14 pm

[quote="ltowns1"]Ok so let me try to unpack this so I can be clear about it goin forward, and if someone could clarify or confirm my logic I would appreciate it. Ok... So we're told that some members on the planning committee represent the construction industry, and some of those members have financial interests. Among those people none live in the the surburbs, but some work there..

What we can/can't infer

Now we cannot say that planning committee members that have financial interests work in the surburbs for sure.. Because it might be a different group of people. The word "some"allows for it. However, we can say that the committee members do not live in the the surburbs because there is no wiggle room in the word "none"???? Do I have the logic correct, or am I still missing something?[/quote

User avatar
LSAT Hacks (Graeme)
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:18 pm

Re: PT 29 section 1 Q18

Postby LSAT Hacks (Graeme) » Sat Jan 31, 2015 11:50 pm

I wrote about this question here: http://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat- ... ng-1/q-18/

Mods, let me know if that link is improper. It seems pretty relevant to the discussion.

This question is a good demonstration of how "some" statements can be combined with conditionals. Here's what I wrote in my explanation:

-----------

You can combine “some” statements with conditionals. For instance, if all americans like cheese, and some americans wear orange, then some people who wear orange like cheese. As a diagram, it looks like this: Orange SOME Americans ➞ Cheese

You combine the left part of the some statement with the necessary condition. “Americans” is both part of the some statement, and also the sufficient condition. Here are the two combined statements we can make from the stimulus.

Work Suburbs SOME Members ➞ Live in suburbs

Financial interest SOME members ➞ Live in suburbs

So some people who work in the suburbs don’t live there, and some people with a financial interest in the suburbs don’t live there.
--------

That's why E is right. I encourage you to think about some statements this way. It's very clear what you can deduce when you draw them left to right. It's also ALL you can deduce.

ltowns1 wrote:
What we can/can't infer

Now we cannot say that planning committee members that have financial interests work in the surburbs for sure.. Because it might be a different group of people. The word "some"allows for it. However, we can say that the committee members do not live in the the surburbs because there is no wiggle room in the word "none"???? Do I have the logic correct, or am I still missing something?


Yup. Basically, you can't conclude anything from two "some" statements. There could be 1000 members of the planning committee. "Some" members with a financial interest could be one or two people.

We know that "many" work in the suburbs. Maybe that's 300. So those 1 or 2 people who have an interest could be part of that 300, or not part of it. We simply have no idea.

Likewise, I could say that some americans are members of congress, and some americans suck on pacifiers. But it's absurd to say that congresspeople suck pacifiers. Babies suck pacifiers, and there's no overlap between congresspeople and babies.

Hope that helps! Btw, using real life examples like the one above is a good way to think through "some" and get an intuitive sense of how it works.

User avatar
ltowns1
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 1:13 am

Re: PT 29 section 1 Q18

Postby ltowns1 » Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:03 am

LSAT Hacks (Graeme) wrote:I wrote about this question here: http://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat- ... ng-1/q-18/

Mods, let me know if that link is improper. It seems pretty relevant to the discussion.

This question is a good demonstration of how "some" statements can be combined with conditionals. Here's what I wrote in my explanation:

-----------

You can combine “some” statements with conditionals. For instance, if all americans like cheese, and some americans wear orange, then some people who wear orange like cheese. As a diagram, it looks like this: Orange SOME Americans ➞ Cheese

You combine the left part of the some statement with the necessary condition. “Americans” is both part of the some statement, and also the sufficient condition. Here are the two combined statements we can make from the stimulus.

Work Suburbs SOME Members ➞ Live in suburbs

Financial interest SOME members ➞ Live in suburbs

So some people who work in the suburbs don’t live there, and some people with a financial interest in the suburbs don’t live there.
--------

That's why E is right. I encourage you to think about some statements this way. It's very clear what you can deduce when you draw them left to right. It's also ALL you can deduce.

ltowns1 wrote:
What we can/can't infer

Now we cannot say that planning committee members that have financial interests work in the surburbs for sure.. Because it might be a different group of people. The word "some"allows for it. However, we can say that the committee members do not live in the the surburbs because there is no wiggle room in the word "none"???? Do I have the logic correct, or am I still missing something?


Yup. Basically, you can't conclude anything from two "some" statements. There could be 1000 members of the planning committee. "Some" members with a financial interest could be one or two people.

We know that "many" work in the suburbs. Maybe that's 300. So those 1 or 2 people who have an interest could be part of that 300, or not part of it. We simply have no idea.

Likewise, I could say that some americans are members of congress, and some americans suck on pacifiers. But it's absurd to say that congresspeople suck pacifiers. Babies suck pacifiers, and there's no overlap between congresspeople and babies.

Hope that helps! Btw, using real life examples like the one above is a good way to think through "some" and get an intuitive sense of how it works.



Thanks so much this really helped!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BEng,MBA,FRM,JD(?), bigv and 3 guests