PT 55 RC Question 4

User avatar
iminlstrick
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:37 pm

PT 55 RC Question 4

Postby iminlstrick » Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:21 pm

CR: B, but since the passage strictly focuses on injunctions and their limitations, I don't understand how I can make the seemingly swooping assertion that there is NO way to protect trade secrets.

This reasoning led me to pick A, because though the 'only' threw me off, the passage seemed to imply that since injunctions can be useless against subtle trade secret dissemination, it should be imposed only when strong reason exists to warrant them.

Thoughts?

User avatar
iminlstrick
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:37 pm

Re: PT 55 RC Question 4

Postby iminlstrick » Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:37 pm

bump?

LSAT All Star
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:31 pm

Re: PT 55 RC Question 4

Postby LSAT All Star » Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:59 pm

I did not like any of the options the first time I went through them. I had to go back for a second look to pick out a correct response. Choice A cannot be the correct response because there is nothing in the article which discusses when injunctions should be applied. So, it would be hard to claim it is supported by the article.

I did not like Choice B at first because I felt it was way too strong. The article discussed one possibility that was not entirely working. It did not even address whether there may or may not be other methods which will or will not work.

Then, on second review (after not having found any good answer) I decided the word “apparently” tapered the effect of Choice B more than I first gave it credit for. I guess we are supposed to assume if there was a way to protect those secrets, the author would have mentioned it. So, apparently, there is not one. Therefore, it could be argued this response option is supported by the article. It is the only response option for which such an argument can even be made. So, it must be the correct response.

User avatar
iminlstrick
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:37 pm

Re: PT 55 RC Question 4

Postby iminlstrick » Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:29 pm

Yes okay the whole "if the author had other options in mind, he would have mentioned them" route did come to mind, but it seemed so out of left field in terms of a "legitimate justification" for an RC answer, since usually I am really careful to justify ANY answer with at least a phrase/term/sentence from the passage before selecting it. The idea that the LACK of any of these three things could justify an answer, well, that's new to say the least.

I basically picked A because none of the answers seemed good either. I really dislike going that route, and obviously in this instance it didn't serve me well. Thanks for your input, I'll keep the idea this answer establishes in mind for future tests.

LSAT All Star
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:31 pm

Re: PT 55 RC Question 4

Postby LSAT All Star » Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:44 pm

iminlstrick wrote:Yes okay the whole "if the author had other options in mind, he would have mentioned them" route did come to mind, but it seemed so out of left field in terms of a "legitimate justification" for an RC answer, since usually I am really careful to justify ANY answer with at least a phrase/term/sentence from the passage before selecting it. The idea that the LACK of any of these three things could justify an answer, well, that's new to say the least.

I basically picked A because none of the answers seemed good either. I really dislike going that route, and obviously in this instance it didn't serve me well. Thanks for your input, I'll keep the idea this answer establishes in mind for future tests.


Looking for a legitimate justification by use of a phrase/term/sentence is not necessarily the best plan for an RC inference question. It is time consuming and often times it takes a combination of phrases/terms/sentences to get to the inference (which might not even be that strong). What I think works best is to eliminate the four response options which are furthest outside the scope of the article and go with the remaining one.

User avatar
iminlstrick
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:37 pm

Re: PT 55 RC Question 4

Postby iminlstrick » Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:55 pm

Hrm, I totally respect your expertise regarding the test and appreciate your strategy, but generally I treat "inference-type" RC questions similarly to "Must be True" logical reasoning questions. I agree that this method can be time consuming, but for that reason I always save them until I've completed all of the other questions (I usually have a good grasp on the passage by that point).

When I return to the inference question(s), I automatically eliminate any answer that's "out of scope," but often this leads to two answers remaining. At that point, I always pick the answer that can be directly justified by any one or any combination of statements in the passage, even if in seeking out this definitive evidence, I lose say 20 seconds. To me, it's worth it, because just relying on my intuition to deduce the relevance of an answer to the passage historically has led me to picking wrong answers both in RC and in LR sections.

That said, RC methods are subjective to the strengths of the test-taker; I usually can compensate for any extra time taken on a tricky inference by quickly going through other question types that are easier for me. This timing approach may not work for other people.

cw2010
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:26 pm

Re: PT 55 RC Question 4

Postby cw2010 » Wed Sep 01, 2010 8:33 pm

My support for this question was found in lines 4-9 starting with "Two basic principles ..." Notice the words "appear irreconciable" Then it's followed up with "Nevertheless, the courts have tried..."

I also initially chose A during the PT and see that it does have SOME support, particularly in the last sentence of the passage, but it requires to over-infer, whereas the question asks for what is MOST supported.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”