pt 11, s.4 , q.15 --> "a certain experimental fungicide..

User avatar
flash21
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

pt 11, s.4 , q.15 --> "a certain experimental fungicide..

Postby flash21 » Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:35 pm

Hi guys, having trouble with this Q. Two of the answer choices look perfectly fine to me, even after reading Manhattan forums.

(B) and (E).

So, with this Q after reading it, I was anticipating that the fungicide would indirectly hurt the roses. This actually ended up being partially why I got it wrong, because I looked for an answer like this which made me blow over (E). Anyway, I digress.

(B) here is where my suspicion was after reading the stim. So I thought -- oh it hurts beneficial plants - this must damage the roses indirectly, and therefore, if it was negated would make the argument fall apart. Is the issue with my reasoning really that it is a reach? Seems pretty reasonable of a connection to me to make.

After seeing (E) I can see why it is right - if it DID depend on it being more concentrated , then it would damage the rose.

Can someone help? I get to these type of questions and feel really stuck because these answers seem equally plausible to me.

User avatar
Kinky John
Posts: 1106
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 10:52 am

Re: pt 11, s.4 , q.15 --> "a certain experimental fungicide..

Postby Kinky John » Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:42 pm

B is irrelevant because we don't care about the fungicide's effects on those things. In other words, B doesn't have a "horse in the race."

User avatar
flash21
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: pt 11, s.4 , q.15 --> "a certain experimental fungicide..

Postby flash21 » Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:47 pm

How is it irrelevant though? If there is beneficial insects it kills, it is indirectly hurting the plant

User avatar
Clyde Frog
Posts: 7050
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 2:27 am

Re: pt 11, s.4 , q.15 --> "a certain experimental fungicide..

Postby Clyde Frog » Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:50 pm

Regardless if you believe the beneficial insects parts to be true, it is not required that the fungicide does not present any risks to animals or humans.

User avatar
PeanutsNJam
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: pt 11, s.4 , q.15 --> "a certain experimental fungicide..

Postby PeanutsNJam » Sat Apr 25, 2015 7:45 am

The conclusion states "no risk of harming the plants". Even if the fungicide killed beneficial insects, it's too much of a stretch to say that it would harm the roses. E is a very direct and clear answer.

B can be right if you really stretch the definition "beneficial insects" and "harm", but E doesn't require those mental gymnastics.

User avatar
flash21
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: pt 11, s.4 , q.15 --> "a certain experimental fungicide..

Postby flash21 » Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:20 am

Okay - so is it safe to say the lesson to take from this is that if between two answers, take the one that requires absolutlely no extra work on my part in terms of assuming things, etc

User avatar
appind
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:07 am

Re: pt 11, s.4 , q.15 --> "a certain experimental fungicide..

Postby appind » Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:07 pm

i just did LRs of PT-11 and thus this question. B is wrong because B makes assumptions that are not required for the argument to be sound. B states that when the fungicide is suff diluted, it poses no harm to "people, animals,..." The conclusion is only about "harming the plants."

so whether the fungicide harms "people, animals" or not when sufficiently diluted is not required to be true for the conclusion to be correct.

yes, the correct answer to an assumption question should not assume anything that the argument doesn't need to assume for it to hold.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chipotle85, MSNbot Media and 15 guests