PT43 Section 3, #15, #18, #25

lawduder
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:56 am

PT43 Section 3, #15, #18, #25

Postby lawduder » Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:13 pm

15. I narrowed it down to either A or D and chose A while the credited response was D. I don't see why D is a better answer than A.

18. Can someone explain to me exactly how the term "public interest" is used ambiguously? When I read the stimulus I sort of picked up on that but I was hesitant to choose B because that sort of answer usually appears as a wrong answer but it turns out that it is the credited response. FWIW I chose C.

25. I diagramed this as..

A-->~B
B-->~C
A-->C

and then the answer A as...
A-->B
B-->~C
A-->~C

I guess this is the same pattern of reasoning or did I diagram something wrong here?

edit: I was looking at section 3 not section 2, sorry for the confusion
Last edited by lawduder on Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: PT43 Section 2, #15, #18, #25

Postby JazzOne » Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:22 pm

18. I think this argument is about capturing a fugitive and the subsequent court hearing. The argument states that it is in the public interest to apprehend the fugitive. This use of the term refers to the well-being of the public. Then the argument complains because the trial is not public, thus denying the public interest. In the second sense, the argument is referring to what the public finds interesting. These are two different meanings for the same phrase. The argument turns on a comparison of two as if they meant the same thing.

You are correct that equivocation is rarely the correct answer, but it is the credited response for a few questions. I am explaining this from memory, so I cannot recall answer choice C. Feel free to PM me, or post a vague description.

lawduder
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:56 am

Re: PT43 Section 2, #15, #18, #25

Postby lawduder » Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:43 pm

I PM'd you answer C and yeah, that makes sense. After looking back over this PT and the previous one, PT42, it looks like I didn't choose a lot of the credited answers because I thought they were too obvious to be correct. Now I'm starting to feel as if I'm making this more recent (easier?) LR harder than it should be.

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: PT43 Section 2, #15, #18, #25

Postby JazzOne » Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:06 pm

lawduder wrote:I PM'd you answer C and yeah, that makes sense. After looking back over this PT and the previous one, PT42, it looks like I didn't choose a lot of the credited answers because I thought they were too obvious to be correct. Now I'm starting to feel as if I'm making this more recent (easier?) LR harder than it should be.

It is my opinion that LR has gotten easier in the more recent tests. Perhaps "easier" isn't the right word, but there is less ambiguity in the arguments.

lawduder
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:56 am

Re: PT43 Section 2, #15, #18, #25

Postby lawduder » Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:12 pm

JazzOne wrote:
lawduder wrote:I PM'd you answer C and yeah, that makes sense. After looking back over this PT and the previous one, PT42, it looks like I didn't choose a lot of the credited answers because I thought they were too obvious to be correct. Now I'm starting to feel as if I'm making this more recent (easier?) LR harder than it should be.

It is my opinion that LR has gotten easier in the more recent tests. Perhaps "easier" isn't the right word, but there is less ambiguity in the arguments.

Hopefully I can catch on to this trend and get back to -2, -3 per section by September! I'm going to be testing from PT44-->PT56.

lawduder
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:56 am

Re: PT43 Section 2, #15, #18, #25

Postby lawduder » Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:07 pm

bump for help on #15 and clarification on #25

KIM_SAYS:
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:16 am

Re: PT43 Section 2, #15, #18, #25

Postby KIM_SAYS: » Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:18 pm

#15:

Since choice A says that advertisements that encourage unhealthy behavior should be illegal, it supports the first premise. BUT choice A also contradicts the second premise, which says that cigarette ads should remain legal. Since this answer doesn't support both of the premises, it's not correct.

For D, government are allowed to try to prevent cigarette ads through financial disincentives. So, while they wouldn't directly be making the ads illegal, they would still be trying to prevent them.

#25

Honestly I didn't do any diagramming here. Choice A didn't make sense to me because it doesn't explain why they help each other in raising the larvae. Choice C made the most sense to me out of all the choices because if they can't tell all the larvae apart they wouldn't want to risk destroying their own larvae.

lawduder
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:56 am

Re: PT43 Section 2, #15, #18, #25

Postby lawduder » Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:46 pm

KIM_SAYS: wrote:#15:

Since choice A says that advertisements that encourage unhealthy behavior should be illegal, it supports the first premise. BUT choice A also contradicts the second premise, which says that cigarette ads should remain legal. Since this answer doesn't support both of the premises, it's not correct.

For D, government are allowed to try to prevent cigarette ads through financial disincentives. So, while they wouldn't directly be making the ads illegal, they would still be trying to prevent them.

#25

Honestly I didn't do any diagramming here. Choice A didn't make sense to me because it doesn't explain why they help each other in raising the larvae. Choice C made the most sense to me out of all the choices because if they can't tell all the larvae apart they wouldn't want to risk destroying their own larvae.


Ugh, now I feel retarded because I meant section 3, not 2 like my post says :/

Yoquiero
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: PT43 Section 2, #15, #18, #25

Postby Yoquiero » Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:12 pm

JazzOne wrote:
lawduder wrote:I PM'd you answer C and yeah, that makes sense. After looking back over this PT and the previous one, PT42, it looks like I didn't choose a lot of the credited answers because I thought they were too obvious to be correct. Now I'm starting to feel as if I'm making this more recent (easier?) LR harder than it should be.

It is my opinion that LR has gotten easier in the more recent tests. Perhaps "easier" isn't the right word, but there is less ambiguity in the arguments.


RC's ambiguity has mostly disappeared as well, though the questions are more substantive.

User avatar
servinDizzert
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:27 pm

Re: PT43 Section 3, #15, #18, #25

Postby servinDizzert » Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:23 pm

You ALMOST had 25 right. If you switch around your corresponding variables for answer choice (A) you will see that it is correct.

I believe:

Alex is A
Chess Club is B
Golf is C

Alex loves to golf is the conclusion.

lawduder
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:56 am

Re: PT43 Section 3, #15, #18, #25

Postby lawduder » Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:34 pm

servinDizzert wrote:You ALMOST had 25 right. If you switch around your corresponding variables for answer choice (A) you will see that it is correct.

I believe:

Alex is A
Chess Club is B
Golf is C

Alex loves to golf is the conclusion.

aha! This is what I didn't realize, awesome, thanks!

15 - ?
18 - check
25 - check

User avatar
servinDizzert
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:27 pm

Re: PT43 Section 3, #15, #18, #25

Postby servinDizzert » Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:43 pm

15:

Its not A because while the rate went down, the amount of money that could be taxed would have gone up. Ex: 1,000 before with tax 50%=500. 10,000 before with tax 48%=4800. Tax rate went down but more money bc more prosperous.

D doesnt resolve the discrepancy. Its just restating that last part

lawduder
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:56 am

Re: PT43 Section 3, #15, #18, #25

Postby lawduder » Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:44 pm

servinDizzert wrote:15:

Its not A because while the rate went down, the amount of money that could be taxed would have gone up. Ex: 1,000 before with tax 50%=500. 10,000 before with tax 48%=4800. Tax rate went down but more money bc more prosperous.

D doesnt resolve the discrepancy. Its just restating that last part

You are great, thanks again.

User avatar
capitalacq
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:42 am

Re: PT43 Section 3, #15, #18, #25

Postby capitalacq » Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:19 pm

lawduder wrote:
servinDizzert wrote:15:

Its not A because while the rate went down, the amount of money that could be taxed would have gone up. Ex: 1,000 before with tax 50%=500. 10,000 before with tax 48%=4800. Tax rate went down but more money bc more prosperous.

D doesnt resolve the discrepancy. Its just restating that last part

You are great, thanks again.

I'd disagree a little with why. D mentions "revenue from all taxes," whereas the passage only talks about a discrepancy in "personal income taxes," so it doesn't actually help in resolving it.

and even if you didn't note that distinction and thought they were talking about the same taxes, then it still wouldn't make sense. The passage said that the amount collected was the same in '74 and '75, while D says that it increased.

If you get stuck between 2 and can't figure it out, I recommend moving on and looking back at the question again later. It's often a single word that makes the difference and I find that when you take a fresh look at the question, that word often pops out.

User avatar
servinDizzert
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:27 pm

Re: PT43 Section 3, #15, #18, #25

Postby servinDizzert » Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:25 pm

capitalacq wrote:
lawduder wrote:
servinDizzert wrote:15:

Its not A because while the rate went down, the amount of money that could be taxed would have gone up. Ex: 1,000 before with tax 50%=500. 10,000 before with tax 48%=4800. Tax rate went down but more money bc more prosperous.

D doesnt resolve the discrepancy. Its just restating that last part

You are great, thanks again.

I'd disagree a little with why. D mentions "revenue from all taxes," whereas the passage only talks about a discrepancy in "personal income taxes," so it doesn't actually help in resolving it.

and even if you didn't note that distinction and thought they were talking about the same taxes, then it still wouldn't make sense. The passage said that the amount collected was the same in '74 and '75, while D says that it increased.

If you get stuck between 2 and can't figure it out, I recommend moving on and looking back at the question again later. It's often a single word that makes the difference and I find that when you take a fresh look at the question, that word often pops out.



I took all the "personal income taxes" as "total revenue". They used "most" which could have gotten me in trouble but didnt. The other 4 were pretty obvious that they would resolve it.
'76 it raised but yeah '75 was constant

User avatar
GoldenGloves
Posts: 378
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:02 pm

Re: PT43 Section 3, #15, #18, #25

Postby GoldenGloves » Fri Sep 03, 2010 8:07 pm

Can anyone explain why answer choice (C) for #18 is not correct? I now see the validity of (B) but am just not sure what makes (C) incorrect.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests