feblsat10 wrote:Anybody else having trouble with the following questions?
1st Section LR:
Question #7: Why E, not C?
Question #15: I can understand why A is right, but didn't get the question correct my first time around. How can I be sure when the question is asking about a 'kep term shifts illicitly during the course of the argument.'? Any tips? Is it b/c in the first sentence it said Anarchy was the absence of govt. and then it mentioned anarchy as a social philosophy?
Question #25: Still having trouble with this. The argument says that 3 billion years ago, the methane was higher than it is today. So why would question B weaken the argument? Wouldn't that strengthen the argument?
Help appreciated!
Question 7:
This is a trick question in that the wording is meant to confuse you. You need to break down the stem carefully to get this one. The columnist starts by presenting an observed phenomenon (the relative richness of attending a musical performance when compared to listening to music on the radio). He then presents one proposed explanation of this phenomenon--the fact that we don't see the performers when we are listening on the radio. He goes on to discount this explanation by presenting an analogous situation in which this explanation is not appropriate.
Answer C says that the columnist is trying to explain the observed phenomenon. The columnist actually does not propose any explanation at all of the phenomenon--instead he discounts an explanation that someone else has proposed. Answer E is convoluted, but it identifies the phenomenon correctly as the phenomenon that is explained by a position that the columnist is trying to refute (the argument regarding being able to see the performer). Does that make sense?
Question 15:
When you read the stem, you notice that the author twice defines anarchy; he first defines at as "the absence of government." He later defines it as "chaos." Anytime that the author includes two definitions of a key term within a passage, I'd check carefully to see if the definitions match up and, if not, whether the change from one definition to another seems to serve the purposes of the author.
Question 25:
The stem leads us to believe that hydrogen and methane are equivalent with regard to their effect on trapping heat in the atmosphere. The stem states that the earth could have been prevented from freezing (a situation that we know from the stem to have been the case) only by levels of greenhouse gases higher than current levels. The stem then goes on to state the conclusion that there must have been more carbon dioxide. B weakens the argument by introducing an alternative--that there was more methane. Since methane is also a greenhouse gas that would have prevented freezing, the existence of higher levels of methane would explain the observed phenomenon without requiring elevated hydrogen levels.
Hope that helps!
