Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza Forum

[bp shinners]

Thanks!

Sorry to flood you with questions, but can you also explain PT 17 section 3 #23? What makes A wrong? I can't seem to figure out the difference between A and C. Thanks!

No problem!

Alright, here's the situation:
Arnold had a ticket for a flight.
Arnold was bumped because the flight was overbooked.
Arnold flew on a flight 2 hours later and missed a meeting.
Arnold's original flight was canceled.

Arnold thinks the airline owes him compensation.
Jamie thinks the airline doesn't owe him compensation (because he would have missed his meeting even if he didn't get bumped).

I'm trying to justify Jamie's position that he isn't owed compensation. To do that, I need to adopt a principle that connects her premise (he would have missed the meeting even if he didn't get bumped) to her conclusion (the airline doesn't owe him compensation).

That's what C does. C tells me that the airline is morally obligated to compensate a passenger ONLY IF the passenger wouldn't have needed to take a later flight if the original wasn't overbooked. In other words, American only has to give me a voucher if I'm bumped if I would have been on time had I not been bumped. Here, Arnold would have been late either way - bumped or cancelled, he wasn't getting on that first flight.

A says that JetBlue is morally obligated to give Arnold some cash if the only reason Arnold is on that later flight is because the first was overbooked. Well, the reason Arnold had to take the later flight wasn't only because it was overbooked - he would have had to take a later flight even if that flight wasn't overbooked. So A doesn't apply to my situation, and it can't be right.

For these justify questions, you need something very specific to the situation at hand (generally - there are a few exceptions). You're also simply looking for something that says, "If premise, then conclusion." C does that here, and applies to my situation at hand; A doesn't apply to my situation at hand, so it can't justify my conclusion.

[bp shinners]

Awaiting questions from those of you furiously trying to prep for December after yesterday's thrashing. Though most of you are probably still asleep and soon-to-be hung-over.

[Fianna13]

How about PT 3, game 1? Is this suppose to be a grouping game? and how to solve this efficiently? I spent about 11 min on this one...

[mvonh001]

Can you help me with PT 1 Game 2... I just dont see how inferences could be made regarding the dates of purchase...

[CU44BMD]

Hey Shinners,

not sure if some one has proposed this to to you before. But in regards to RC how do you mark up the passage? Do you even mark at all? Perhaps maybe you could post an image of a unofficial LSAT passage with your note-taking. Just trying to work on obtaining a concrete method, and see how the greats visualize a passage!

Thanks

[Captain Rodeo]

Hey Shinners, hope you're doing well.

I have a quick question- it is for PT 54 S2, #26 (LR).

I got it incorrect, but I understand how (D) works to fill the gap.

However, the conclusion really is bugging me

It says: If the newspaper is right, then the public is going to be safer in the even of a severe weather problem.

Now, the second sentence tells us: The newspaper claims that if new sirens are installed, the public is going to be safer.

So, I see the conclusion stating: If A--->B, then B.

The conclusion isn't claiming concretely that the public is going to be safer. It is a hypothetical. So, I don't see the problem.

Now, I do see the "dangling claim" in the third sentence, concerning the local company that has gone out of business. And, I understand how that should be connected to either replacement being difficult, or to the new sirens being installed, either of which is sufficient to enact the conclusion of increased public safety. The correct answer, (D), connects it with the first of these claims.

But, this would seem a more reasonable issue, if the conclusion had simply claimed "the public is going to be safer." But it didn't do this. It said, if the newspaper's claim is correct, the public will be safer. What's the newspaper's claim? That if new sirens are installed, the public will be safer. Both are in the hypothetical voice, so I don't see the problem.

In fact, isn't this why (B) is wrong? Because the conclusion is in a hypothetical voice, so it doesn't need the activation of its own sufficient condition-- which (B) does?

I hope that all makes sense. I'm probably missing something.

Thanks dude!


Oh... and I have a question about (A)- which is what I originally chose. It's incorrect because it doesn't matter if the new sirens are purchased- but rather if they are actually installed, correct? How would you put this into a conditional? You helped me when there were two necessary indicators, how about something like two sufficient indicators here??


Thanks again!

If this shows I edited the post multiple times it is because I kept thinking of things to ask you!

[bp shinners]

How about PT 3, game 1? Is this suppose to be a grouping game? and how to solve this efficiently? I spent about 11 min on this one...

Alright, I have a grouping game, but there are two sets of groups - the couples, and the genders.

So I'd set this up with the genders in vertical groups, and the couples in horizontal groups, and I'd label each slot with a person:
__ __
__ __
__ __

Those first two lines would be John Kate, then below them Lewis Marie, and below them Nat Olive (sorry, the formatting doesn't work well when I try to type it out on the forum). From there, I fill in Marie and Olive from the rules. From here, it's all about the rules that the guys can't eat the same food, and a couple can't order the same thing. You should have ended up with restrictions under John (no S, no T), Lewis (no S), and Nat (no S, no T, no R).

Nat's the big one - he has to either have Pork or Veal. Other than that, it's time for the questions. They revolve, for the most part, around the men and the couples not being able to eat the same food.

[bp shinners]

Can you help me with PT 1 Game 2... I just dont see how inferences could be made regarding the dates of purchase...

This game comes down (completely) to the rule that the Printer for a given office CANNOT be purchased in an earlier year than the Computer for that office. Since it tells you C1 and P3 are purchased in 85, I know the P1 can't be purchased in '87 (which also means C2 can't be purchased that year, as they were purchased in the same year). There are some other restrictions, and this game comes down to the restrictions. See if you can find them on your own (look for printers/computers from the same year), and then try the game again!

[bp shinners]

Hey Shinners,

not sure if some one has proposed this to to you before. But in regards to RC how do you mark up the passage? Do you even mark at all? Perhaps maybe you could post an image of a unofficial LSAT passage with your note-taking. Just trying to work on obtaining a concrete method, and see how the greats visualize a passage!

Thanks

Sure! Here's my markup for June '99, Passage 1 (Mashpee land suit).

[bp shinners]

What's the newspaper's claim? That if new sirens are installed, the public will be safer. Both are in the hypothetical voice, so I don't see the problem.

This is exactly correct - the newspaper is claiming that If the new sirens are installed, then the public is safer. My conclusion says that if the newspaper is correct, then the public will be safer. Well, I know if the newspaper is correct, then installing the new sirens is sufficient to tell me the public is safer. I still don't know whether those new sirens are installed.

In short, the qualified conclusion ("If the newspaper is correct...") ends up having no effect on the overall argument, since the whole thing is premised on the newspaper being correct. It would matter more if it didn't say that in the conclusion (then the assumption would be that the newspaper is correct), but since it shows up in the premise AND the conclusion, they essentially cancel each other out.

In fact, isn't this why (B) is wrong? Because the conclusion is in a hypothetical voice, so it doesn't need the activation of its own sufficient condition-- which (B) does?

I think what you're saying is correct. Even if I assume B (that the newspaper is correct), then I still don't know that the public will be safer - I still need to know that we're going to install new sirens, which I can't say we're going to do unless that company going out of business means I can't easily get replacement parts.

Oh... and I have a question about (A)- which is what I originally chose. It's incorrect because it doesn't matter if the new sirens are purchased- but rather if they are actually installed, correct? How would you put this into a conditional? You helped me when there were two necessary indicators, how about something like two sufficient indicators here??

That's one reason. We've also got causality in A that isn't in the stimulus. More of a problem in Necessary assumption questions, but it hurts it here, as well.

[mvonh001]

Can you help me with PT 1 Game 2... I just dont see how inferences could be made regarding the dates of purchase...

This game comes down (completely) to the rule that the Printer for a given office CANNOT be purchased in an earlier year than the Computer for that office. Since it tells you C1 and P3 are purchased in 85, I know the P1 can't be purchased in '87 (which also means C2 can't be purchased that year, as they were purchased in the same year). There are some other restrictions, and this game comes down to the restrictions. See if you can find them on your own (look for printers/computers from the same year), and then try the game again!

Thanks for that... I'll give it another try now.

also, How valuable are the early PT's (pre-40) for Logic Games. I know they are different now, but im reviewing by going over every LG section of every PT and these first couple of ones I have done are a bit confusing and not like the current LSAT, so my question is this, Would you recommend I do PT's 40-65 3x or 1-65 1x... obviously im going over the LG sections after i finish them and again 3 days later, but then im moving onto the next section. I dont want anyone to think im just doing each section only once, the 1x means how many times im doing it now, and the 3x means 3 times the amount im doing each one now.

and would you say that the LR sections of the tests have been the same relatively over the past 65 PT's. So if i was doing PT20-65 for LR that would be ok compared to 40-65 x 2?

Thanks

[meandme]

Hey Matt
I am currently understanding the RC passages and MP of the passages but I am having difficult time with questions referring to specific lines. I reread the sentence before and after the mentioned lines but no luck. How should I attack these questions?

Thanks

[CU44BMD]

Thanks So much Matt, this is perfect stuff!!!

In regards to the uploaded image of your RC note-taking

[meandme]

Hey Matt
I need help with PT39 S1 G2. It's the Capital employees.

Thanks

[bp shinners]

Hey Matt
I need help with PT39 S1 G2. It's the Capital employees.

Thanks

Alright, so a bit of a crazy game here. I have three employees (M, S, and T) who are each going to 2 seminars over a three-day period. Each seminar is given on each day. So my setup is a 3x3 grid - the bottom is labeled 1 2 3 (for the days), the vertical is labeled H, I, and R (for the topics). I'm trying to place the employees onto the slot that represents the topic and day (so if Maria goes to the session on Investing on Day 2, she's in the slot in the middle of the 3x3 grid). Also, I can have more than 1 person on the same slot.

Rules:
1) I already noted the first part of this rule, but I still need the second - you can't have the same person go on the same day, or on the same topic.
2) M and S are restricted on I. Since they each have to go to 2 separate session on different topics, I know that they're each going to an H session and an R session.
3) T can't go on day 3. Since he has to go twice on different days, he's going on Day 1 and Day 2.
4) At most, 2 people can go together.

So my rules are mostly limiting my options for the people so that I know either a) which days they go on, or b) which topics they go to (but not both). The only rule that I don't really have in there is the second part of the first one - they have to go to different topics.

And that's all I really have. A ton of restrictions (three for each player), but I'm expecting the questions to really rely on that second part of the first rule - I need the people to go to different seminars on different days. And when I look at the questions, that's what pretty much all of them come down to.

[BlaqBella]

Hey Matt,

"if and only if" v. "if but only if"...is there a difference? My instructor said there is with "if and only if" introducing just the necessary while "if but only if" introduces both the necessary and sufficient. Other prep companies state there is no such difference. What is the right approach??????

[applemaroon]

.

[bp shinners]

Hey Matt,

"if and only if" v. "if but only if"...is there a difference? My instructor said there is with "if and only if" introducing just the necessary while "if but only if" introduces both the necessary and sufficient. Other prep companies state there is no such difference. What is the right approach??????

If your instructor said that, then he's wrong. "If and only if" means the same thing as "If but only if". They're both biconditional; they both introduce both the sufficient and necessary.

[arcanecircle]

Hey Matt, what's your input on PT43-S2-Q18?

I picked the correct answer, but only from PoE, and when I went back looking over this section I couldn't understand why it was correct, especially as it's a sufficient assumption question, it seems to me like (D) can only prove that Health Education is not education, not that it "is usually propaganda" (Maybe it's to do with the word "solely" in this sentence)

Thanks again.

[BlaqBella]

Hey Matt,

"if and only if" v. "if but only if"...is there a difference? My instructor said there is with "if and only if" introducing just the necessary while "if but only if" introduces both the necessary and sufficient. Other prep companies state there is no such difference. What is the right approach??????

If your instructor said that, then he's wrong. "If and only if" means the same thing as "If but only if". They're both biconditional; they both introduce both the sufficient and necessary.

This is what I thought. Thanks, Matt!

[bp shinners]

Hi, can you take a look at PT 67, section 1 #24? This is the sovereign having unlimited power passage. Why is the answer A an not D?

Fourth paragraph down is where I'm looking. I know that they could just say they weren't going to pay back the debt, so they were charged huge interest rates. They were also struggling to expand their empires. That lines up with it being difficult to finance the expansion.

This is a MBT question, and D tells me that they borrowed than they would have had they had restricted powers. You may think that's true because who cares how much they borrow, right? They can just forgive themselves the debt. But in order to draw that comparison, you need to make way too many assumptions. Since the passage never draws a comparison, and it doesn't make any absolute comparative statements, so you can't pick an answer that compares two things.

Also, section 4 #15 from the same PT. I can't even seem to narrow the answers choices down. Thanks so much!

The garden compost one, right?

So it's a ~MBT question - I have some facts, I need to find an answer that is supported by them.

Facts:
1) All good composts can be used for soil drainage/fertility.
2) The best compost is between 40 and 60% organic matter and dark brown
3) Compost that smells like ammonia should not be used for drainage/fertility
4) Compost that smells like ammonia hasn't fully decomposed organic matter

Looking at those statements, I notice that 1 and 3 both mention drainage/fertility. Putting them together, I get compost that smells like ammonia is not good compost (since all good compost can appropriately be used for those purposes, and ammonia-smelling compost cannot). I'm expect that to be my answer because the other statements are explanatory (4) or weakly comparative (2 - I could only come to an AC that says something else isn't the best, but that seems to obvious to me).

A - I don't know if the percentage of organic matter goes down at it decomposes - it could stay at the same level and just become rotten. Since I don't know how decomposition affects %, A is out.

B - I know the compost described here isn't the best compost, but that doesn't mean that it would actively hurt my garden. It might make soil more fertile and help soil drainage, just not as much as the best stuff.

C - I need to know about the dark brown-ness of this compost before I can say that it's good.

D - COMPLETELY decomposed is too much - I just need it sufficiently decomposed.

E - Bingo - exactly what I was looking for. A combination of 1 and 3. I don't care about the color - it smelling of ammonia means that the organic matter isn't sufficiently decomposed, which means it should not be used for drainage/fertility, which means it's not good compost.

[bp shinners]

Hey Matt, what's your input on PT43-S2-Q18?

I picked the correct answer, but only from PoE, and when I went back looking over this section I couldn't understand why it was correct, especially as it's a sufficient assumption question, it seems to me like (D) can only prove that Health Education is not education, not that it "is usually propaganda" (Maybe it's to do with the word "solely" in this sentence)

Thanks again.

That's exactly right.

From the argument, this is the relevant info about health education and propaganda:

Propaganda is defined as an attempt to influence behavior through the repetition of simplistic slogans.
__________________________________________________________________
Health "education" is propaganda.

To get to that conclusion, I need to assume that health education meets this definition of propaganda. D is that definition.

[arcanecircle]

I get you there, that's what led me to (D) the first time. Looking at it again, it seems like the premise is saying "A is B" (Propaganda uses repetitive slogans) and the conclusion is saying "C is A" (Health Ed. is propaganda, usually), but the credited answer is only telling us "C is B" (Health Ed. uses only repetitive slogans), this is where I get lost.

[M.M.]

Hey BP, how much would it cost for you to tutor me in LG per hour?

I'm 3 weeks away from either being able to move on to law school this year, or stagnating in undergrad for another year, and LG literally is the only thing holding me back ... if I could do as well in LG as I do in LR / RC I could go 173 + and I only even want 170. I've done so many games and it's just not working.

[bp shinners]

I get you there, that's what led me to (D) the first time. Looking at it again, it seems like the premise is saying "A is B" (Propaganda uses repetitive slogans) and the conclusion is saying "C is A" (Health Ed. is propaganda, usually), but the credited answer is only telling us "C is B" (Health Ed. uses only repetitive slogans), this is where I get lost.

Ah, gotcha. The problem with the way you're looking at it is the "A is B" part. The stimulus says propaganda is nothing but influence through repetitive slogans. That's not just saying P->ITRS; it's also saying ITRS->P. It's definitional, which is the same as biconditional. When I say it's 'nothing but', I'm saying that anything that meets that definition counts as propaganda. So when health education meets that definition, that's equivalent to calling it propaganda. There's nothing else I need to qualify it as propaganda but the influencing of others through repetitive slogans.