Top Law Schools

Practice Test/ Preptest 22, section 4 (IV), second LR section, LR section 2, number 9

B is eliminated because even if people watch for other reasons, it doesn't affect the argument (that few people ever fully understand current events)
D is eliminated because even if there are disadvantages to being directly involved, it doesn't affect full understanding necessarily
E is eliminated because the argument says that few people seek out both and therefore few people will understand, independent of whether or not when people seek out both they could learn depth and direct involvement.

A seems wrong because it seems plausible to me that direct involvement and depth of coverage CAN REASONABLY BE mutually exclusive.

C seems right because we have
Premise 1: TV gives sense of direct involvement without depth of coverage
Premise 2: Newspapers give depth of coverage without direct involvement
Premise 3: Full understanding of current events requires both appreciation of significance (?) and direct involvement.
Premise 4: Few people seek out things other than TV and newspapers
Conclusion: Few people get a full understanding.

Seems to me that there are really two flaws:
1. (not addressed) There are other ways to get an appreciation of significance and sense of involvement than just TV and Newspapers.
2. (I thought addressed by 'C') Ambiguity of term "depth of coverage"/"appreciation of significance."

I can agree that C would be more credited if it said "makes crucial use of the term 'appreciation of significance' without defining it" but I still don't see how A is the answer.

***

Practice Test/ Preptest 22, section 4 (IV), second LR section, LR section 2, number 14.

I can eliminate C because it's actually an opposite answer.
D is eliminated because it's not necessarily true that the seeds need to be redeposited just under the surface.
E is eliminated because it's sort of an opposite answer as well.

My question: what is wrong with B?

If the field is not plowed at all, then there is no prolonged darkness followed by sunlight, so no seeds ought to germinate. On the other hand, if you plow at night, you still have the prolonged darkness and one of two circumstances: either a) there is not enough light to cause the receptors to trigger at night, so the "prolonged darkness" is extended and then sunlight the next day causes germination or b) there is enough light at nighttime to cause germination. Either way, I don't think it's too much to assume that the sun will rise tomorrow and then cause the seeds to germinate.

Meanwhile, with A, the same reasoning holds...we can't assume that the delay of exposure to sunlight is going to cause LESS of them to germinate. We only know that they require darkness then sunlight, but not specified is how long the sunlight must be.

Can someone please clarify these two questions for me?

Thanks so much.

theZeigs wrote:Practice Test/ Preptest 22, section 4 (IV), second LR section, LR section 2, number 9

B is eliminated because even if people watch for other reasons, it doesn't affect the argument (that few people ever fully understand current events)
D is eliminated because even if there are disadvantages to being directly involved, it doesn't affect full understanding necessarily
E is eliminated because the argument says that few people seek out both and therefore few people will understand, independent of whether or not when people seek out both they could learn depth and direct involvement.

A seems wrong because it seems plausible to me that direct involvement and depth of coverage CAN REASONABLY BE mutually exclusive.

C seems right because we have
Premise 1: TV gives sense of direct involvement without depth of coverage
Premise 2: Newspapers give depth of coverage without direct involvement
Premise 3: Full understanding of current events requires both appreciation of significance (?) and direct involvement.
Premise 4: Few people seek out things other than TV and newspapers
Conclusion: Few people get a full understanding.

Seems to me that there are really two flaws:
1. (not addressed) There are other ways to get an appreciation of significance and sense of involvement than just TV and Newspapers.
2. (I thought addressed by 'C') Ambiguity of term "depth of coverage"/"appreciation of significance."

I can agree that C would be more credited if it said "makes crucial use of the term 'appreciation of significance' without defining it" but I still don't see how A is the answer.

***

Practice Test/ Preptest 22, section 4 (IV), second LR section, LR section 2, number 14.

I can eliminate C because it's actually an opposite answer.
D is eliminated because it's not necessarily true that the seeds need to be redeposited just under the surface.
E is eliminated because it's sort of an opposite answer as well.

My question: what is wrong with B?

If the field is not plowed at all, then there is no prolonged darkness followed by sunlight, so no seeds ought to germinate. On the other hand, if you plow at night, you still have the prolonged darkness and one of two circumstances: either a) there is not enough light to cause the receptors to trigger at night, so the "prolonged darkness" is extended and then sunlight the next day causes germination or b) there is enough light at nighttime to cause germination. Either way, I don't think it's too much to assume that the sun will rise tomorrow and then cause the seeds to germinate.

Meanwhile, with A, the same reasoning holds...we can't assume that the delay of exposure to sunlight is going to cause LESS of them to germinate. We only know that they require darkness then sunlight, but not specified is how long the sunlight must be.

Can someone please clarify these two questions for me?

Thanks so much.

I'm sorry I didn't read your long post, just skimmed.

Question #9:

Essentially the stimulus is saying that TV provides direct involvement and newspapers depth. To fully understand something one has to be directly involved and to have covered the event in depth. Now, the conclusion is that few people people ever have full understanding since only few seek out other news sources.

The assumptions here are that 1) those other sources actually provide that full understanding 2) that people who watch TV don't read newspapers and vice versa.

A points out the second assumption.

C is wrong because author does NOT HAVE to define any terms, and depth of knowledge has no bearing here. It just doesn't matter how in depth is something.

Question # 14:

B is wrong because we know NOTHING about seeds' germination when it's not plowed. AND we know NOTHING about seeds germination when it's not plowed vs when it's plowed at night. The stimulus doesn't deal with it, it just says that in order for them to germinate there must be prolonged darkness --> sun.


Sorry for the babbling... If the above doesn't make sense, I will try to be more clear.

#9

OK, I understand. What the answer is referring to as "mutually exclusive" is watching TV and reading newspapers, NOT the fact that direct involvement and depth of coverage are exclusive.

#14

I can see how we don't know what will happen if it is not plowed at all, so we can dismiss answer B. Besides the fact that the other answers are eliminated, I don't understand how the first answer is "100%" correct....we don't know the difference necessarily between being plowed in the morning vs. being plowed at night.

theZeigs wrote:#9

OK, I understand. What the answer is referring to as "mutually exclusive" is watching TV and reading newspapers, NOT the fact that direct involvement and depth of coverage are exclusive.

#14

I can see how we don't know what will happen if it is not plowed at all, so we can dismiss answer B. Besides the fact that the other answers are eliminated, I don't understand how the first answer is "100%" correct....we don't know the difference necessarily between being plowed in the morning vs. being plowed at night.

We are given this info; read the last sentence of the stimulus... there is no sun at night.

BTW, regarding #9, it's both. According to the stimulus TV = Direct involment and newspapers = depth.

Yeah, I guess I see your point. But this is actually not a true assumption. Moonlight is actually sunlight reflected and stars are all suns....technically there is sun at night That's the problem with the LSAT, it says to make commonplace assumptions, but I'm a scientist, and this is not true. Furthermore, the fact that "less" will germinate versus "none" I think is a little bit hazy.

Thanks for the help anyways.

theZeigs wrote:Yeah, I guess I see your point. But this is actually not a true assumption. Moonlight is actually sunlight reflected and stars are all suns....technically there is sun at night That's the problem with the LSAT, it says to make commonplace assumptions, but I'm a scientist, and this is not true. Furthermore, the fact that "less" will germinate versus "none" I think is a little bit hazy.

Thanks for the help anyways.

"It(LSAT) is smarter than you. In the short time that you have to learn it, your job is not to change it but to figure it out".
-- Susan Estrich
Good Luck!

haha. nice. I also like:

"The LSAT is a jealous mistress."