Logical Reasoning Explanation

eli2015
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:03 pm

Logical Reasoning Explanation

Postby eli2015 » Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:14 pm

so, I am currently drilling LR using the Cambridge drill packets, however I do not understand a question and would like it if you guys helped me with it. If you have the drill packet it is question 16 in the flaw drill packets.

From a book review: The authors blithely claim that there are "three basic ways to store energy: as heat, as electricity, or as kinetic energy."

A- there is no reason to consider any particular way to store energy any more basic than any other.

B-The list given of ways to store energy is possibly inaccurate and certainly not exhaustive.

C- It is overly limiting to treat basic ways to store energy as a question of effective ways to use energy.

D-What needs to be considered is not whether various ways to store energy are basic but whether they are effective.

E-Except possibly for electricity, all ways to store energy are equally effective and therefore equally basic.
Last edited by eli2015 on Sun Feb 15, 2015 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mcleemz
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Explanation

Postby mcleemz » Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:55 pm

B.

The trick here is "basic" vs. "effective." It's meant to throw you off and get you to pit one versus another, when in reality, the reviewer means them to be almost the same thing, where a way's being"basic" presupposes it's also "effective."

A is wrong because the reviewer doesn't comment on any of the ways' "basicness" relative to one another.
C is wrong because the reviewer is not comparing "basic" to "effective."
D is wrong because that's not what the reviewer is considering at all.
E could be partially correct--the reviewer indicates electricity is not effective, but B is more correct because it addresses the 2nd part of his argument, that there are other ways.

B is correct because it addresses both parts of the reviewer's argument: 1) that electricity is probably not effective, and therefore possibly inaccurate, and 2) that the book's list is not exhaustive, because it's missing the other ways the reviewer mentions.

eli2015
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:03 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Explanation

Postby eli2015 » Fri Feb 13, 2015 3:01 pm

mcleemz wrote:B.

The trick here is "basic" vs. "effective." It's meant to throw you off and get you to pit one versus another, when in reality, the reviewer means them to be almost the same thing, where a way's being"basic" presupposes it's also "effective."

A is wrong because the reviewer doesn't comment on any of the ways' "basicness" relative to one another.
C is wrong because the reviewer is not comparing "basic" to "effective."
D is wrong because that's not what the reviewer is considering at all.
E could be partially correct--the reviewer indicates electricity is not effective, but B is more correct because it addresses the 2nd part of his argument, that there are other ways.

B is correct because it addresses both parts of the reviewer's argument: 1) that electricity is probably not effective, and therefore possibly inaccurate, and 2) that the book's list is not exhaustive, because it's missing the other ways the reviewer mentions.

What was your train of thought when attacking this question? I fell for the basic/effective trap.

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

Re: Logical Reasoning Explanation

Postby msp8 » Fri Feb 13, 2015 3:13 pm

The basic/effective trap works because it is a term shift and is a flaw. But it's not the flaw that the reviewer is emphasising (in fact, we're not supposed to identify a flaw in the reviewer's comments anyway!). When reading this stimulus, think about the core of the reviewer's argument. Try just looking at what the reviewer says, and put in your own words what they're saying. You'll see that it aligns w/ (B) entirely.

User avatar
Clearly
Posts: 4166
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Explanation

Postby Clearly » Fri Feb 13, 2015 3:20 pm

lol stop over analyzing it. The trick is not basic v effective at all. This is a method of reasoning question! What is he doing? He's saying that one of the things on the list might be wrong, and suggesting its incomplete by adding more things to the list. That's it. B.

eli2015
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:03 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Explanation

Postby eli2015 » Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:58 pm

msp8 wrote:The basic/effective trap works because it is a term shift and is a flaw. But it's not the flaw that the reviewer is emphasising (in fact, we're not supposed to identify a flaw in the reviewer's comments anyway!). When reading this stimulus, think about the core of the reviewer's argument. Try just looking at what the reviewer says, and put in your own words what they're saying. You'll see that it aligns w/ (B) entirely.

hmm, thank you. I will have to really keep looking over this question as it is hard for me to grasp for some reason. I am missing something for me to fully understand why B is correct.

eli2015
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:03 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Explanation

Postby eli2015 » Fri Feb 13, 2015 6:02 pm

Clearly wrote:lol stop over analyzing it. The trick is not basic v effective at all. This is a method of reasoning question! What is he doing? He's saying that one of the things on the list might be wrong, and suggesting its incomplete by adding more things to the list. That's it. B.

It is not a method of reasoning question. It is listed on the Cambridge drill packets as "Flaw." Also, I agree with the insight I have been given by the previous posters because I actually did fall for the Basic v. effective trap. Although I do appreciate your input sometimes oversimplifying something is not the way to go considering I am a beginner and have only been studying for the LSAT for about a month on and off.

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

Re: Logical Reasoning Explanation

Postby msp8 » Fri Feb 13, 2015 6:23 pm

eli2015 wrote:
Clearly wrote:lol stop over analyzing it. The trick is not basic v effective at all. This is a method of reasoning question! What is he doing? He's saying that one of the things on the list might be wrong, and suggesting its incomplete by adding more things to the list. That's it. B.

It is not a method of reasoning question. It is listed on the Cambridge drill packets as "Flaw." Also, I agree with the insight I have been given by the previous posters because I actually did fall for the Basic v. effective trap. Although I do appreciate your input sometimes oversimplifying something is not the way to go considering I am a beginner and have only been studying for the LSAT for about a month on and off.


Sometimes it's difficult to categorise questions neatly. I'd agree with Clearly; this is a method question. The question itself isn't asking what the flaw is -- it's asking what the reviewer is criticising. Do you see anything in the question stem that indicates that it's asking for a flaw? No. It's simply asking you to put the reviewer's criticism into more abstract terms, right? So that makes it more of a method question.

I think that may be where your hangup is on this Q. If you look at it from a method Q standpoint, then look at what the reviewer's main point is, you'll be able to arrive at the correct answer choice, I suspect.

User avatar
Clearly
Posts: 4166
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Explanation

Postby Clearly » Fri Feb 13, 2015 6:52 pm

eli2015 wrote:
Clearly wrote:lol stop over analyzing it. The trick is not basic v effective at all. This is a method of reasoning question! What is he doing? He's saying that one of the things on the list might be wrong, and suggesting its incomplete by adding more things to the list. That's it. B.

It is not a method of reasoning question. It is listed on the Cambridge drill packets as "Flaw." Also, I agree with the insight I have been given by the previous posters because I actually did fall for the Basic v. effective trap. Although I do appreciate your input sometimes oversimplifying something is not the way to go considering I am a beginner and have only been studying for the LSAT for about a month on and off.


No offense, but I teach this thing for a living. Trust me on this. Its not a flaw question, its categorized incorrectly. I'm not over-simplifying, you are over-complicating. It's more of a method+main conclusion question. There is no basic/effective trap because the question isn't asking you whats wrong with his statement. This presupposes nonsense you are reading is not what is going on in this question, and doesn't make any sense at all. Forget the question stem for a minute:

Statement: This can't be right because that one on the list might not even be right, and also there are more that should be on the list.

Answer: suggested the list might not be accurate, and isn't complete.

see what I'm getting at?

eli2015
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:03 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Explanation

Postby eli2015 » Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:54 pm

Clearly wrote:
eli2015 wrote:
Clearly wrote:lol stop over analyzing it. The trick is not basic v effective at all. This is a method of reasoning question! What is he doing? He's saying that one of the things on the list might be wrong, and suggesting its incomplete by adding more things to the list. That's it. B.

It is not a method of reasoning question. It is listed on the Cambridge drill packets as "Flaw." Also, I agree with the insight I have been given by the previous posters because I actually did fall for the Basic v. effective trap. Although I do appreciate your input sometimes oversimplifying something is not the way to go considering I am a beginner and have only been studying for the LSAT for about a month on and off.


No offense, but I teach this thing for a living. Trust me on this. Its not a flaw question, its categorized incorrectly. I'm not over-simplifying, you are over-complicating. It's more of a method+main conclusion question. There is no basic/effective trap because the question isn't asking you whats wrong with his statement. This presupposes nonsense you are reading is not what is going on in this question, and doesn't make any sense at all. Forget the question stem for a minute:

Statement: This can't be right because that one on the list might not even be right, and also there are more that should be on the list.

Answer: suggested the list might not be accurate, and isn't complete.

see what I'm getting at?

When you explain it that way it is so much easier to accept what you are saying lol. Sorry if I sounded like a douche I am just a skeptic. When someone says something to me, and does not explain, I get into a defensive mode until I can not argue anymore.

I am unfortunately am a nooby still and do not fully know how to identify every question type. However, I am now worried that drilling in these packets might make me develop bad habits.

eli2015
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:03 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Explanation

Postby eli2015 » Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:59 pm

Also, while we are on this topic, do you guys think it is more effective to drill question types as I learn the questions or wait until I learn all of the question types? and if you guys there is a dif way of doing it, can you point me in the right direction.

mcleemz
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Explanation

Postby mcleemz » Sun Feb 15, 2015 1:07 am

What was your train of thought when attacking this question? I fell for the basic/effective trap.

I mean, I don't know what "type" of question this is like some other posters seem to, but on almost all LR, 3 answers make no sense, 1 could possibly apply and one applies better than that. So I parsed the argument the reviewer was making and picked the one that most completely applies.

It could just be my perception, but the basic/effective thing is clearly a trap, because so many of the options focus on it, and it causes you to go back and re-read it, and possibly read too much into it. I meant "trick" as in a trick by the test makers, not the trick to understanding this question, sorry if that wasn't clear.

What Clearly said is obviously the most concise way to think about it, but not everyone's brain is going to work that way. If everyone could instantly identify the simplest, most logical explanation, there wouldn't be an LSAT prep industry. Sometimes you have to use process of elimination.

User avatar
jetsfan1
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:14 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Explanation

Postby jetsfan1 » Sun Feb 15, 2015 7:15 am

Clearly is right on this one, IMO.

Couple of things to add: Qs like this are why I think its more effective to read to stem before the argument. It really allows you to focus in on what your looking for as you read the argument (in this case, the flaw in the reasoning vs. what the criticisms the author is actually making). This can make a big difference in terms of timing, and accuracy as well.

Also, I would be drilling as I learn the Q types. It allows you to 1) get practice with all of them, but more importantly 2) really identify the Q types that give you the most trouble so you can focus on them further.

Also OP, I would take down the quoted question, you can't post full LSAT Qs word for word on here.

eli2015
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:03 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Explanation

Postby eli2015 » Sun Feb 15, 2015 12:59 pm

jetsfan1 wrote:Clearly is right on this one, IMO.

Couple of things to add: Qs like this are why I think its more effective to read to stem before the argument. It really allows you to focus in on what your looking for as you read the argument (in this case, the flaw in the reasoning vs. what the criticisms the author is actually making). This can make a big difference in terms of timing, and accuracy as well.

Also, I would be drilling as I learn the Q types. It allows you to 1) get practice with all of them, but more importantly 2) really identify the Q types that give you the most trouble so you can focus on them further.

Also OP, I would take down the quoted question, you can't post full LSAT Qs word for word on here.

Thank you, I did not know about posting full question. I took it down. Also, I have the cambridge drill packets and I have been drilling a little bit so that I may get somewhat familiar with the question, however I feel if I drill alll of the questions now, I wont have many to practice with later. What do you suggest I do, so that I will not run out of practice material. I want to take as many pts as I can under real conditions.

User avatar
jetsfan1
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:14 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Explanation

Postby jetsfan1 » Mon Feb 16, 2015 2:39 am

eli2015 wrote:
jetsfan1 wrote:Clearly is right on this one, IMO.

Couple of things to add: Qs like this are why I think its more effective to read to stem before the argument. It really allows you to focus in on what your looking for as you read the argument (in this case, the flaw in the reasoning vs. what the criticisms the author is actually making). This can make a big difference in terms of timing, and accuracy as well.

Also, I would be drilling as I learn the Q types. It allows you to 1) get practice with all of them, but more importantly 2) really identify the Q types that give you the most trouble so you can focus on them further.

Also OP, I would take down the quoted question, you can't post full LSAT Qs word for word on here.

Thank you, I did not know about posting full question. I took it down. Also, I have the cambridge drill packets and I have been drilling a little bit so that I may get somewhat familiar with the question, however I feel if I drill alll of the questions now, I wont have many to practice with later. What do you suggest I do, so that I will not run out of practice material. I want to take as many pts as I can under real conditions.


I'm using the Cambridge drilling packets as well. What I'll do is after I learna Q type drill about 30 questions, see how I did, and move on to the next (supplementing with the Manhattan guide). This way I was able to ID my weaknesses without running through too much material. It took me more than a month to get through all the Q types (you should be BRing HEAVILY while you do this). Except for a few odd Q types, you have minimum 100 questions in the packets. Using 30 to see where you are still leaves significant drilling material left over if you need it. Unless your studying for half a year, I think you should have more than enough material.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros and 10 guests