To me it seems like your problem here is how you interpreted the stem. I read "Hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by [gill diseases]" to mean — it's not really a big deal if lobsters contract gill diseases because gill diseases would only affect them, say, a year after they contract it, but lobsters only live, say, 11 months. No lobster would ever be harmed by gill diseases, so why would we care whether or not they contract them? E weakens the argument a whole lot because it basically states that, even if the lobsters in the harbor don't live long enough to be affected THEMSELVES by the disease, if it affects the humans who eat those lobsters then they should still definitely try to prevent the lobsters from getting the disease.Miracle wrote:We can relate in that aspect. If i miss a question I'm usually between the two answers where one is correct, and one is incorrect. In another words, the correct answer is always at play.xylocarp wrote:Do you have a specific example maybe? My LR mistakes tend to be ones for which I was between two, and one had something wrong with it that I just didn't think of. Understanding why four answers are wrong is much more practically useful!Miracle wrote:Guys,
I've noticed that with a lot of four level questions i understand why the four choices are incorrect, but do not understand why the one correct choice is correct.
Does this happen to anyone else?
Now, to my current issue.
PT35-S1-Q8 or question 197 in Weaken bundle from Cambridge.
A)-what's "equally" harmful to lobsters is irrelevant to our central argument
B)-we are not concerned with open ocean... we are concerned with harbor and how sewage impact lobsters in the harbor.
C)-How often they breed is irrelevant…it doesn't address why the proposal would be pointless.
D)-how diseases can be detected is irrelevant-id doesn't address our concern.
Now, E-which is the correct answer. I picked this one, because i knew the other four were irrelevant, and did not weaken the argument. This one however is also "blehhh"… it doesn't hold any meeting to me what so ever. If they are claiming that hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those disease, how can they live long enough to influence the health of humans which is what E states. I don't see the connection, therefore have no idea why, or how it could weaken the argument. How could they eat the lobsters if lobsters die?
I was looking for something that would weaken the conclusion-directly attack the living situation (length) of lobsters, and thats not what i got.
I think MAYBE where you're missing something is where it says that the lobsters won't live long enough to be harmed by the disease — not that they won't live long enough to contract it. So they could easily get the disease, not show any symptoms, end up on a human's plate and make that human sick, which is still a problem even if the lobster was never harmed by the disease.
This is the type of question, if I didn't quite get it the first time, I would circle and go back to at the end. I find that sometimes if I'm just not reading something correctly, I can go do other questions, get my mind off it, and most times catch what I missed when I come back to it later.
Things I learned today: I am much worse at explaining logical reasoning questions than I am at doing logical reasoning questions.
I've recommended it to a few people, and they've benefited from it.
