PT50,LR,SECTION2 13

yuanyuan0807
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:06 am

PT50,LR,SECTION2 13

Postby yuanyuan0807 » Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:36 pm

I wonder what's wrong with B, the reason that the answer is D is because it is better than B or just because B is wrong? I always have trouble with pick answers after I eliminate 3 of them. What should I do after eliminate 3 of them? What do you guys do? Just pick a one you feel better and move on or struggle a bit? I always waste a lot of time during this process, any advice??? Thanks a lot~

User avatar
johnnietran408
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:59 pm

Re: PT50,LR,SECTION2 13

Postby johnnietran408 » Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:53 pm

D is the correct answer because it connects the example of the chemical industry with CFCs to the fossil fuel producers, by saying that it wouldn't significantly cost more.

B is wrong because it doesn't strengthen the argument, which is dependent on the comparison to the chemical industry. It just adds another reason without strengthening the one already given.

When you come down to two, try doing the next problem or two and return to this one...sometimes a short break from the question lets you see things that you missed...

yuanyuan0807
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:06 am

Re: PT50,LR,SECTION2 13

Postby yuanyuan0807 » Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:37 pm

But why does the correct answer need to connect the fossil-fuel and CFC?Isn't CFC just an example of one of the products can find a substitute without prohibitive expense? i still don't know why B is wrong. It acctually said that in some countries there are already ways to reduce the carbondioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels without prohibitive expense.

User avatar
echoi
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:15 pm

Re: PT50,LR,SECTION2 13

Postby echoi » Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:48 pm

bumpppp

yuanyuan0807, B is wrong because it only says other countries reduced the use of fossil fuels without prohibitive expense without qualifying it with the degree to which it was reduced. The reduction needs to be "enough to halt global warming" for it to apply to the argument.

MissLucky
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:48 pm

Re: PT50,LR,SECTION2 13

Postby MissLucky » Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:11 pm

But "D" states that there are ways of reducing CO2 emissions that could halt global warming without hurting profits of fossil-fuel producers "significantly more" than phasing out CFCs hurt those of the chemical industry...while these ways might not be significantly more of a blow to profits, they sure as heck could still entail more of a hindrance to the profits for the CO2 case than for the chemical industry and that would not solidify things for us at all regarding whether or not it would be prohibitively expensive or not. because who knows what the threshold is?

maybe the chemical industry just squeaked by with a level of profit that barely deems it to not be prohibitively expensive and so anything even minutely more costly or more of a blow to profits, would be labeled "prohibitively expensive" ??? in D, just the fact that there are ways of reducing CO2 emissions that aren't significantly more of a hurt to profits, doesn't show anything because they can still HURT profits more which does not help in strengthening the analogy.


help?


thanks in advance!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BOSStongrl, Chipotle85, dj9i27, Majestic-12 [Bot], MSNbot Media, PantoroB, Yahoo [Bot] and 14 guests