Top Law Schools

WTF! If we are to follow this logic, we would be able to justify every other incorrect answer choice in the other questions

Anyone care to have an input?

Oh, come on! Even though I'm ranting about these questions, I still would appreciate someone helping me out with this illogical reasoning Please...

TheLuckyOne wrote:Oh, come on! Even though I'm ranting about these questions, I still would appreciate someone helping me out with this illogical reasoning Please...

Well, to be honest, I'm not sure what exactly you're having a problem with, but I'm guessing it's with justifying why the correct answer is correct (as opposed to having issues with the incorrect answers being incorrect)?

#22.

This one is actually one of the tougher questions you'll come across, if only because (C) doesn't really seem like it's relevant.

But, let's consider the conclusion here first: "this practice greatly increases the health risk to US consumers".

What's this practice? Apparently the practice of manufacturing pesticides that are banned in the US and shipping them off to other countries.

What's the reasoning behind why this practice "greatly increases the health risk" to US consumers? Well, apparently because in these other countries, these bad pesticides are often used on products that end up back in the US.

But, in comes answer choice (C) -- what if the US isn't the only supplier of these pesticides? In other words, what if those other countries could just get those pesticides from elsewhere? In that case, we'd still end up getting those pesticides in products that get shipped into the US.

In other words, that puts into question whether this practice (of US making and exporting banned pesticides) greatly increases the health risk to US consumers, since the same effect would arguably occur with or without that practice.

Now, you might argue that even if others could provide the pesticides, that American participation provides more product, making it easier to access, etc. However, you'll note the conclusion claims the practice "greatly" increases the health risk to Americans. Even if you argue that providing more product and such increases the health risk, if everyone and their grandmother can produce the stuff anyway, it does put into question just how greatly the health risk is increased.

#24

A bit of a non-traditional question, but the principle essentially states that instructions should be written in a way that it should be "much easier" to assemble the product with the instructions than without.

Your job is to find a scenario that shows (or at least strongly implies, given the weaker language of the question stem) you can't always follow that principle.

Well, why would you ever be unable to make instructions that make it "much easier" to assemble the product? Perhaps sometimes it's already as easy as it gets, even without the instructions?

(C) touches on it. It's not exactly a home-run given that it doesn't show it can't be made "much easier", but it's definitely the only one that, by noting it can already be really easy without the instructions, provides reason to believe that instructions won't really make it "much easier".

Yes, you're right, I didn't like any of the answers. I find these answers a long stretch and tons of assumptions which contradicts general principles of LSAT Qs. Like in #22 we have to assume that that is not some small country with little to no production and that those pesticides actually get to the products later imported to the US In #24 I though B was technically no worse than C (even though I think both are horrible). This is so frustrating...

Looks like I had problems with "greatly" (#22) and "much" (#24).
Thanks, yoni.

TheLuckyOne wrote:Yes, you're right, I didn't like any of the answers. I find these answers a long stretch and tons of assumptions which contradicts general principles of LSAT Qs. Like in #22 we have to assume that that is not some small country with little to no production and that those pesticides actually get to the products later imported to the US In #24 I though B was technically no worse than C (even though I think both are horrible). This is so frustrating...

Looks like I had problems with "greatly" (#22) and "much" (#24).
Thanks, yoni.

My pleasure... ^_^

Just one note, regarding #24, the issue with answer choice (B) is largely that it's irrelevant. Even if the store can assemble it for you, that doesn't mean that assembling it couldn't be much easier with the instructions. It's just that here, you're not the one assembling it (the store is), so the advantage of the instructions wouldn't apply to you.

Good luck!

yoni45 wrote:

TheLuckyOne wrote:Yes, you're right, I didn't like any of the answers. I find these answers a long stretch and tons of assumptions which contradicts general principles of LSAT Qs. Like in #22 we have to assume that that is not some small country with little to no production and that those pesticides actually get to the products later imported to the US In #24 I though B was technically no worse than C (even though I think both are horrible). This is so frustrating...

Looks like I had problems with "greatly" (#22) and "much" (#24).
Thanks, yoni.

My pleasure... ^_^

Just one note, regarding #24, the issue with answer choice (B) is largely that it's irrelevant. Even if the store can assemble it for you, that doesn't mean that assembling it couldn't be much easier with the instructions. It's just that here, you're not the one assembling it (the store is), so the advantage of the instructions wouldn't apply to you.

Good luck!

Hmmm...right!
Thank you!!!