PT 53 LR HELP - Section 1 Question 6 and 8 Forum

[honestabe84]

I looked these questions up in the archives but did not find any of the explanations helpful.

Question 6: Why is "A" right and "D" wrong? It seems like "D" gives us at least a somewhat better reason to agree with the author, because if she prefers rock music and the band is rock, she will be more likely to like the band than if it was polka or something.

Question 8: Why is "E" incorrect? I would think that if some of the people in the new study were nearsighted despite sleeping with a nightlight, it shows that nearsightedness does not disappear with age.

It's strange that I'm having such difficulty with these questions given they are so early in the section. Thanks for the help.

[honestabe84]

bump

[honestabe84]

Anyone?

[Atlas LSAT Brian]

Question 6:

(D) So all the music she likes is rock. So what? This doesn't do much at all to strengthen the idea that she will like this particular band. Sure, maybe it's a better choice than "all the music she likes is polka," but it's not the best choice. The best choice will utilize the logic of the argument in some way.

(A) is right because it is based on the logic of the argument illustrated below:

Conclusion: J will like Cruel Herd's music

Premise: She's a big fan of Moral Vacuum's music.
Cruel heard plays complex rock music, acoustic instrumentation, harmonic sophistication..
Cruel Herd's lyrics are like some of MV's best.

Therefore, by tying MV's music (which she's a big fan of) directly to CH's music, the conclusion that she'll like CH's music is strengthened. This is much better than the vague "all her preferred music is rock."


Question 8:

Again, we must first closely consider the logic of the original argument.

It has to do with CAUSE. Notice the conditional nature of the conclusion, also. "IF night-lights CAUSE nearsightedness, the effect disappears with age."

This is based on the evidence that:
1. Studies compare children who sleep w/nightlights to those who don't
2. In first study, children w/nightlight = more likely nearsighted
3. Next two studies, no correlation.
4. Children in first study = younger than those in other two

Focus on weakening the conclusion when you consider answers.

(E) is close, but ultimately doesn't really weaken the conclusion that IF the nightlight CAUSES the nearsightedness, it disappears with age. Why? Because we don't know what caused the nearsightedness of the "several children" cited.

(D) directly weakens the argument by essentially disqualifying 2 of the 3 studies on which the conclusion is based. Throw out those two and all you're left with is the original, where a correlation was found.