PT 32, Section 1, #23

barrydukakis
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:55 pm

PT 32, Section 1, #23

Postby barrydukakis » Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:41 pm

I have some serious issues with double negations apparently.

I cannot even see how to un-negate this one and make the CR true. Anyone?

Are double negations in the LR bible, and would someone care to point me in the right direction in that regard?

barrydukakis
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:55 pm

Re: PT 32, Section 1, #23

Postby barrydukakis » Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:55 am

man. I somehow was reading 'compromises' from comprises... no wonder I was having issues. Wow.

bakemono
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 3:54 am

Re: PT 32, Section 1, #23

Postby bakemono » Wed Sep 09, 2009 6:37 pm

hey, i once read facilities as fatalities. the stimulus had like 4 fatalities, then answer choice D said facilities. Literally misread it 5 times in a row... crazy.

User avatar
doinmybest
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:59 pm

Re: PT 32, Section 1, #23

Postby doinmybest » Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:42 pm

bakemono wrote:hey, i once read facilities as fatalities. the stimulus had like 4 fatalities, then answer choice D said facilities. Literally misread it 5 times in a row... crazy.


AHH I did that too on the exact same question!! I think it was a mid 30s PT. It was about Australian Emergency rooms or something. I started at that q for like 15 minutes during my review.

User avatar
jlnoa0915
Posts: 428
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:25 pm

Re: PT 32, Section 1, #23

Postby jlnoa0915 » Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:49 pm

Was between A and D on that one, A seemed like the conclusion so went with D and got it right. None of the other answers seemed to be contenders, didn't do negation or any of that.

ballents
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 1:01 am

Re: PT 32, Section 1, #23

Postby ballents » Fri Jun 04, 2010 1:58 pm

I know it's been a while but does anyone care to explain this? I was in the same situation as op, but i chose a.

User avatar
LSAT Blog
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: PT 32, Section 1, #23

Postby LSAT Blog » Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:12 pm

Doesn't matter how old it is if it's still relevant to you :)

The problem with A is that the conclusion of the stimulus is about a political party's policy. The stimulus does not discuss the actions of specific legislators (which choice A does).

The credited response, in other words, would be something like the following:

"If you're a political party, and you believe something is a good goal, it would be inconsistent of your policy (in English, "of you") to believe that this good goal shouldn't be pursued."

ballents
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 1:01 am

Re: PT 32, Section 1, #23

Postby ballents » Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:47 pm

Thanks a lot. I had been staring at that problem for far too long without seeing anything new, and the double negation was throwing me off.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 20172017, 34iplaw, Alexandros, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], chargers21 and 4 guests