PT 25 Sec-4 #11

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

PT 25 Sec-4 #11

Postby ltowns1 » Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:15 pm

Can somebody explain why c is not correct by my logic. If these stock brokers have been successful in consulting on multi-million dollar accounts, I would think they would know what measurables to use??? Since they don't, that would seem to show a lack of preparation/know how to me, and therefore strengthen the argument? Can someone help me out on this one thanks.

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

Re: PT 25 Sec-4 #11

Postby msp8 » Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:46 pm

Since you've said you read MH forum explanations, what about their explanation would you like clarification on?

The discussion on that forum is precisely about (C), and why it's not correct.

Specifically, though, (C) isn't saying that the stock brokers are confused about anything. (C) is a weakener because it's saying performance wasn't measured on an apples-to-apples basis and, consequently, it leaves the door open to the stock brokers' picks outperforming the market (or, at least, not underperforming) over the past 12 years.

I'm not certain where you got the idea that the stock brokers were using any measures in this question.

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

Re: PT 25 Sec-4 #11

Postby ltowns1 » Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:40 pm

msp8 wrote:Since you've said you read MH forum explanations, what about their explanation would you like clarification on?

The discussion on that forum is precisely about (C), and why it's not correct.

Specifically, though, (C) isn't saying that the stock brokers are confused about anything. (C) is a weakener because it's saying performance wasn't measured on an apples-to-apple,ls basis and, consequently, it leaves the door open to the stock brokers' picks outperforming the market (or, at least, not underperforming) over the past 12 years.

I'm not certain where you got the idea that the stock brokers were using any measures in this question.


1. I would like clarification on why my logic is wrong.. I know what manhattan said, but I'm asking about what my thought process was.

2. (C) says the "performances of the stocks recommended on the television show was measured by stock dividends" . I assumed that the stock brokers were the ones who implemented those measures, but now typing it out, I can kinda see why that may have been too much to assume.

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

Re: PT 25 Sec-4 #11

Postby msp8 » Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:46 pm

Well, I think I told you where your thought process was wrong. ;) The AC didn't say anyone implemented any measures. Fwiw, if you read the MH explanations, and they address your question more or less (as was the case here), it's helpful to note what it is about their explanation that you don't see.

Do you see why (C) is wrong now?

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

Re: PT 25 Sec-4 #11

Postby ltowns1 » Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:58 pm

msp8 wrote:Well, I think I told you where your thought process was wrong. ;) The AC didn't say anyone implemented any measures. Fwiw, if you read the MH explanations, and they address your question more or less (as was the case here), it's helpful to note what it is about their explanation that you don't see.

Do you see why (C) is wrong now?


Lol, and yeah the explantion seemed a little similar, and I thought I understood what they were saying about (c), but to me it wasn't saying the exact same thing as what I was thinking. So yeah thanks, you answered my question lol.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], galeatus, Roverse, theboringest and 1 guest