LSAT language can be so convoluted

Gatorade
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:00 pm

LSAT language can be so convoluted

Postby Gatorade » Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:21 am

maybe it is just me, but some of the sentences just make my head spin, here is one:

All bridges built from 1950 to 1960 are in serious need of rehabilitation. (ok, nice and concise) Some bridges constructed in this period, however, were built according to faulty engineering design. (pretty good,easy to comprehend). That is the bad news. The good news is, that at least some bridges in serious need of rehabilitation are not suspension bridges, since no suspension bridges are among the bridges that were built according to faulty engineering design.

what can one conclude from the sentence in red exactly??

"in serious need of rehabilitation" vs "faulty engineering design", was there supposed to be a correlation? the stimulus says ALL bridges from 1950 to 1960 need rehabilitation, some were built wrong to begin with. what exactly does the last sentence have to do with the first 2 sentences of the stimulus?

thx

User avatar
blhblahblah
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:54 pm

Re: LSAT language can be so convoluted

Postby blhblahblah » Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:32 am

I think you can draw that some bridges which are not suspension bridges were built according to faulty design.

One of the premises is that out of all bridges, all of which are in need of rehabilitation, some of them were built according to faulty engineering design. Now, some of the bridges are suspension bridges, some arn't. But those that are suspension bridges were not built according to faulty engineering design. Therefore, since some bridges must've been built according to faulty design, and no suspension bridges are placed under this category, some of the remaining bridges, which are those that arn't suspension bridges, must've been built according to faulty engineering design.

paranoidjet
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:05 pm

Re: LSAT language can be so convoluted

Postby paranoidjet » Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:48 am

This is my least favorite question on the LSAT. There's this one and there's another one involving mail and delivery times correlating with damaged and improperly addressed mail that it's tied with. These are both questions I've seen more than once and gotten wrong more than once, which is fairly monumental.

User avatar
blhblahblah
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:54 pm

Re: LSAT language can be so convoluted

Postby blhblahblah » Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:18 am

I thought the mail question, while tricky, was pretty clever and a great learning opportunity. Tests your ability to recognize sets and sub-sets.

markakis
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:34 am

Re: LSAT language can be so convoluted

Postby markakis » Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:19 am

Gatorade wrote:maybe it is just me, but some of the sentences just make my head spin, here is one:

All bridges built from 1950 to 1960 are in serious need of rehabilitation. (ok, nice and concise) Some bridges constructed in this period, however, were built according to faulty engineering design. (pretty good,easy to comprehend). That is the bad news. The good news is, that at least some bridges in serious need of rehabilitation are not suspension bridges, since no suspension bridges are among the bridges that were built according to faulty engineering design.

what can one conclude from the sentence in red exactly??

"in serious need of rehabilitation" vs "faulty engineering design", was there supposed to be a correlation? the stimulus says ALL bridges from 1950 to 1960 need rehabilitation, some were built wrong to begin with. what exactly does the last sentence have to do with the first 2 sentences of the stimulus?

thx


This question is pretty straightforward to me. Here is my understanding of it, correct me if you think I'm wrong:

Using numbers for simplicity, 100 bridges, which were built between 1950 and 1960 are in serious need of rehabilitation.

55 of these bridges, which were constructed btwn 1950 and 1960, were built according to faulty engineering design (bad news)

Some of the 100 bridges in need of rehabilitation (built btwn 1950-1960) are not suspension bridges - why is this good news?
because these suspension bridges were not among the 55 buildings that were built according to faulty engineering design.

what we know:
suspension bridges -----> not built according to faulty design | take contrapositive

what we don't know:
That the remaining number of bridges (45) are all necessarily suspension bridges - the passage doesn't say this much.

I think with what we know (that the suspension bridges are not among the number (55) of the faulty design bridges) we can tackle the question.

User avatar
blhblahblah
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:54 pm

Re: LSAT language can be so convoluted

Postby blhblahblah » Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:25 am

Given that no suspension bridges were built according to faulty engineering design, and that some bridges were built according to faulty engineering design, we can deduce that if there is a bridge built according to faulty engineering design, then it must be a non-suspension bridge, which is what markakis succinctly pointed out in his conditional representation.
Last edited by blhblahblah on Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

paranoidjet
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:05 pm

Re: LSAT language can be so convoluted

Postby paranoidjet » Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:28 am

blhblahblah wrote:I thought the mail question, while tricky, was pretty clever and a great learning opportunity. Tests your ability to recognize sets and sub-sets.


Completely agree with you. There's nothing better than questions that can trip you up more than once - it exposes an error in your thinking in total clarity.

markakis
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:34 am

Re: LSAT language can be so convoluted

Postby markakis » Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:46 am

markakis wrote:
Gatorade wrote:maybe it is just me, but some of the sentences just make my head spin, here is one:

All bridges built from 1950 to 1960 are in serious need of rehabilitation. (ok, nice and concise) Some bridges constructed in this period, however, were built according to faulty engineering design. (pretty good,easy to comprehend). That is the bad news. The good news is, that at least some bridges in serious need of rehabilitation are not suspension bridges, since no suspension bridges are among the bridges that were built according to faulty engineering design.

what can one conclude from the sentence in red exactly??

"in serious need of rehabilitation" vs "faulty engineering design", was there supposed to be a correlation? the stimulus says ALL bridges from 1950 to 1960 need rehabilitation, some were built wrong to begin with. what exactly does the last sentence have to do with the first 2 sentences of the stimulus?

thx


This question is pretty straightforward to me. Here is my understanding of it, correct me if you think I'm wrong:

Using numbers for simplicity, 100 bridges, which were built between 1950 and 1960 are in serious need of rehabilitation.

55 of these bridges, which were constructed btwn 1950 and 1960, were built according to faulty engineering design (bad news)

Some of the 100 bridges in need of rehabilitation (built btwn 1950-1960) are not suspension bridges - why is this good news?
because these suspension bridges were not among the 55 buildings that were built according to faulty engineering design.

what we know:
suspension bridges -----> not built according to faulty design | take contrapositive

what we don't know:
That the remaining number of bridges (45) are all necessarily suspension bridges - the passage doesn't say this much.

I think with what we know (that the suspension bridges are not among the number (55) of the faulty design bridges) we can tackle the question.


Or

1st statement: 50/60 -----> SNOR
Bad news : 50/60 <--s---> FED
Good news : a) SNOR <---s----> not SB, bcos b) SB----> not FED

Looks like the good news a) was an inference made from b)
Anyway at this point make inferences by making connections and take the contrapositive if necessary; but i bet the correct answer to the question will be embedded in the inferences you make or the contrapositive of those inferences. good luck

key:
50/60 - bridges built from 1950 to 1960
SNOR - serious need of rehabilitation
FED - faulty engineering design
SB - Suspension bridge
<--s--> - use of 'some' in conditional statement

reference: powerscore logical reasoning bible

Gatorade
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: LSAT language can be so convoluted

Postby Gatorade » Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:49 am

Some of the 100 bridges in need of rehabilitation (built btwn 1950-1960) are not suspension bridges - why is this good news?
because these suspension bridges were not among the 55 buildings that were built according to faulty engineering design.


that's how I took it too, but then it makes the part " that at least some bridges in serious need of rehabilitation are not suspension bridges, since" un-necessary? is it just trying to say, bad news is, some of the bridges were built according to faulty engineering design, but the good news is, none of those bridges were suspension bridges.

am I taking it right?

User avatar
lsatnotes.com
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 4:34 pm

Re: LSAT language can be so convoluted

Postby lsatnotes.com » Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:51 am

I think the entire trick to this question is to ignore suspension bridges completely. Nowhere in the stimulus does it even mention, or infer, that SB were built between 1950 and 1960 (they COULD have been, but the stimulus surely does not say so with certainty).

So, we only know (FOR SURE) that:
Bridges between 1950 and 1960 need serious rehab.
SOME of these were made using faulty engineering.

That's it!!

We can try to expand or compress sets or subsets, but if you make assumptions about the period in which SB were built using premise 3, then this is where the wrong answers will come from.

The only other conclusion we can make if SB is included in our analysis, is exactly what premise 3 says itself: If there's a SB > then it does not have faulty engineering.

Are the following answer choices correct or not:

F: Some suspension bridges were built between 1950 and 1960
G: No suspension bridges were built between 1950 and 1960
H: At least some suspension bridges that need serious rehab were built between 1950 and 1960
I: Some suspension bridges built in 1955 do not have faulty engineering.
Last edited by lsatnotes.com on Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
nycgal73
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: LSAT language can be so convoluted

Postby nycgal73 » Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:10 pm

it seems convoluted until you realize its a formal logic problem and separate the mosts somes and alls

markakis
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:34 am

Re: LSAT language can be so convoluted

Postby markakis » Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:23 pm

lsatnotes.com wrote:I think the entire trick to this question is to ignore suspension bridges completely. Nowhere in the stimulus does it even mention, or infer, that SB were built between 1950 and 1960 (they COULD have been, but the stimulus surely does not say so with certainty).

So, we only know (FOR SURE) that:
Bridges between 1950 and 1960 need serious rehab.
SOME of these were made using faulty engineering.

That's it!!

We can try to expand or compress sets or subsets, but if you make assumptions about the period in which SB were built using premise 3, then this is where the wrong answers will come from.

The only other conclusion we can make if SB is included in our analysis, is exactly what premise 3 says itself: If there's a SB > then it does not have faulty engineering.

Are the following answer choices correct or not:

F: Some suspension bridges were built between 1950 and 1960
G: No suspension bridges were built between 1950 and 1960
H: At least some suspension bridges that need serious rehab were built between 1950 and 1960
I: Some suspension bridges built in 1955 do not have faulty engineering.


You can't ignore the SB because the stimulus makes a connection between the SB and Faulty Engineering design, which is the bad news associated with the bridges built btwn 1950 and 1960. I guess it all depends on what type of LR question this stimulus is associated with. If it is an inference question, then you most definitely cannot ignore the SB.

User avatar
lsatnotes.com
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 4:34 pm

Re: LSAT language can be so convoluted

Postby lsatnotes.com » Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:31 pm

markakis wrote:
lsatnotes.com wrote:I think the entire trick to this question is to ignore suspension bridges completely. Nowhere in the stimulus does it even mention, or infer, that SB were built between 1950 and 1960 (they COULD have been, but the stimulus surely does not say so with certainty).

So, we only know (FOR SURE) that:
Bridges between 1950 and 1960 need serious rehab.
SOME of these were made using faulty engineering.

That's it!!

We can try to expand or compress sets or subsets, but if you make assumptions about the period in which SB were built using premise 3, then this is where the wrong answers will come from.

The only other conclusion we can make if SB is included in our analysis, is exactly what premise 3 says itself: If there's a SB > then it does not have faulty engineering.

Are the following answer choices correct or not:

F: Some suspension bridges were built between 1950 and 1960
G: No suspension bridges were built between 1950 and 1960
H: At least some suspension bridges that need serious rehab were built between 1950 and 1960
I: Some suspension bridges built in 1955 do not have faulty engineering.


You can't ignore the SB because the stimulus makes a connection between the SB and Faulty Engineering design, which is the bad news associated with the bridges built btwn 1950 and 1960. I guess it all depends on what type of LR question this stimulus is associated with. If it is an inference question, then you most definitely cannot ignore the SB.


Yes, i also alluded to this in my post.. on a 'Must be True' question, i have trained (after a LOT of trial and error) myself to recognize that there is always something in the stimulus to throw us off and once you're caught in it, the wrong choices seem so plausible. So, on a MBT question, factors which can go either way (there's no certainty of it in the stimulus unless we ourselves somehow infer that there really is a connection) make up the wrong choices, and only the 'certainty' element makes the CR. It's a simplistic way of thinking about it, but what i've started to do is make (kind of) venn diagrams, and anything which i'm not able to place on it with certainty i know will make as a wrong answer. Only which fits into the venn without a doubt is always the CR on every MTB that i have seen so far at least (unless of course someone corrects this and posts an example of it and hence i'll stand corrected).

justadude55
Posts: 963
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:23 am

Re: LSAT language can be so convoluted

Postby justadude55 » Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:22 pm

Gatorade wrote:maybe it is just me, but some of the sentences just make my head spin, here is one:

All bridges built from 1950 to 1960 are in serious need of rehabilitation. (ok, nice and concise) Some bridges constructed in this period, however, were built according to faulty engineering design. (pretty good,easy to comprehend). That is the bad news. The good news is, that at least some bridges in serious need of rehabilitation are not suspension bridges, since no suspension bridges are among the bridges that were built according to faulty engineering design.

what can one conclude from the sentence in red exactly??

"in serious need of rehabilitation" vs "faulty engineering design", was there supposed to be a correlation? the stimulus says ALL bridges from 1950 to 1960 need rehabilitation, some were built wrong to begin with. what exactly does the last sentence have to do with the first 2 sentences of the stimulus?

thx


if you're a bridge from 1950-1960 you need rehab.
if you're at least 1 bridge from 1950-60 you were built according to a faulty design.

if you're a suspension bridge, you don't have a faulty engineering design.
so if you're at least 1 bridge in need a rehab, you're not a suspension bridge.

we know that at least 1 of these bridges that was built according to a faulty design in the 1950s was not a suspension bridge... we have no idea about which bridge it is or what kind so any choice about that is automatically false.

Hedwig
Posts: 835
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:56 am

Re: LSAT language can be so convoluted

Postby Hedwig » Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:33 pm

Gatorade wrote:maybe it is just me, but some of the sentences just make my head spin, here is one:

All bridges built from 1950 to 1960 are in serious need of rehabilitation. (ok, nice and concise) Some bridges constructed in this period, however, were built according to faulty engineering design. (pretty good,easy to comprehend). That is the bad news. The good news is, that at least some bridges in serious need of rehabilitation are not suspension bridges, since no suspension bridges are among the bridges that were built according to faulty engineering design.

what can one conclude from the sentence in red exactly??

"in serious need of rehabilitation" vs "faulty engineering design", was there supposed to be a correlation? the stimulus says ALL bridges from 1950 to 1960 need rehabilitation, some were built wrong to begin with. what exactly does the last sentence have to do with the first 2 sentences of the stimulus?

thx


My little diagram went:

1950-1960 ---> SNoR
B(50-60) <--S--> FED
SB -->FED
FED <--S--> B

I don't really remember what I meant by that last one (Not faulty engine design, some are not bridges? Maybe SB was what I meant. Some faulty engine designed bridges aren't suspension bridges?).

I think the point of the suspension bridge was to introduce a lot of possible wrong answers into the stimulus. Once you read some bridges that need serious rehab aren't suspension bridges, you're kind of thinking that suspension bridges are excluded from the whole 1950-1960 rehab thing - but they're not, they're just excluded from having faulty engine design. So they could have been made in 1955 or 1975 - you really don't know and you can't conclude anything on that basis, except some bridges made with faulty engine design are not suspension bridges. The answer to the question could be chosen based on the first two sentences alone, really. You have an ALL - SOME kind of thing going on there.

The rest is just LSAT mumbo jumbo to trip you up. But of course you don't know that until you've read the stem/answer choices.

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: LSAT language can be so convoluted

Postby Anaconda » Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:57 pm

I didn't need a diagram for this one (if you could grasp the last sentence, a mental map is all you need). I think this is an example of a convoluted stimulus with a fairly easy answer choice set. I liked this one because although convoluted, it wasn't abstract. Abstract + Convoluted is like getting the death sentence.

For those that don't know, this Q is from PT 23 Section 2 #10.

A- no way to tell. All the stimulus says is that some suspension bridges aren't built w/ a fault engineering design. They could all still be in serious need of rehabilitation.

B- All we know is that some bridges in need of serious rehabilitation are NOT suspension bridges. For all we know, NONE of the bridges are suspension bridges (I thought this answer choice was tricky)

C- this is the right answer. If we have a lot of bridges that are in serious need of rehabilitation, and the stimulus states that some were built w/ a faulty engineering design, then this can obviously be inferred since it was actually stated!

D- Directly contradicts the stimulus. ALL 1950-1960 bridges are in need of rehabilitation.

E-Directly contradicts the stimulus, and even if it didn't there would be no way to tell.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], bearedman8 and 7 guests