PT 54, Section 4 (LR), #4, #23

User avatar
corresponding Cor
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:05 pm

PT 54, Section 4 (LR), #4, #23

Postby corresponding Cor » Tue May 26, 2009 7:15 am

4. Why is (D) correct? This alludes me.
23. What makes choice (B) correct and (E) wrong? I actually got this right, but I don't know why.
Thanks again.

KaplanLSATInstructor
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:53 pm

Re: PT 54, Section 4 (LR), #4, #23

Postby KaplanLSATInstructor » Tue May 26, 2009 2:33 pm

Q. 4. Ray concludes that a pothole did not cause the trunk to pop open. Why? Because the trunk has popped open before for other reasons.

However, just because something else caused the trunk to open in the past doesn't mean it wasn't a pothole THIS time. Ray falsely assumes that if a pothole didn't cause a popped trunk in the past, it can't cause it now. As (D) points out, he fails to consider that the trunk could pop open for different reasons in different cases.

Q. 23. Formal logic at its finest. The entire argument is a series of necessary conditions:

To remain comptetivie, we need to overcome the math crisis.
To overcome the crisis, we need successful teaching methods.
For a teaching method to succeed, we need students to study out of class.

So, we need an answer that follows the logic without confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient condition.

(B) does the job perfectly. (B) states that out-of-class studying is necessary to overcome the math crisis. This follows the logic perfectly.

(E) reverses the logic claming that studying out of class (a necessary condition) will help us remain competitive. It treats the necessary condition (studying) as sufficient, which cannot be properly inferred.

HTH

- Chris

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

Re: PT 54, Section 4 (LR), #4, #23

Postby MissLucky » Mon Oct 04, 2010 4:39 pm

KaplanLSATInstructor wrote:
(E) reverses the logic claming that studying out of class (a necessary condition) will help us remain competitive. It treats the necessary condition (studying) as sufficient, which cannot be properly inferred.



But if (E) were treating the necessary condition as sufficient, it would read: Students spending a significant amount of time outside of class studying mathematics will keep us competitive in the global economy. However, (E) tempers such a reversal by replacing such certain wording with "would help us":

Students spending a significant amount of time outside of class studying mathematics will keep us competitive would help us to remain competitive in the global economy."

Isn't that technically true, though? since students spending a significant amount of time outside of the class studying mathematics is necessary for remaining competitive int he global economy, while it certainly will not guarantee it, its existence HAS to help in regards to that effort. It is, afterall, required for it. so why can't we say it "would help"??!

can you help with this one? thanks




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BOSStongrl, Chipotle85, Yahoo [Bot] and 12 guests