A Tricky Assumption Question About Nuclear Reactors (PT 17) Forum

[MagnumLifeStyle]

.

[bgdddymtty]

I don't have the PT and don't want to wait for a PM response, so I'm going to assume that this is a question of which answer choice is an implicit assumption on which the argument is based. If that is the case, C is correct because, if it were not the case, sites near minor faults where an earthquake has happened recently wouldn't be the safest places to put nuclear reactors; putting them in sites where there are no faults at all would be. Does that make sense?

EDIT: By the way, it looks like your confusion might have come from incorrectly negating the answer choice. The correct negation is "In a geologically quiet region, not every potential nuclear reactor site is near at least one minor fault. This distinction is crucial because it allows that some may be, but not all are. Your proposed negation changes it from all to none.

[gdane]

You need to start including the other answers and most importantly, the questions. Many of us would love to help you, but we dont have the PT's in front of us so you need to give us all the info to get a quick response.

It seems like the assumption negation technique is still confusing you. People can correct me, but I personally believe the technique is best used for tough questions and questions in which youve narrowed your answer choices to 2. Using the technique for each and every single assumption question is unnecessary and time consuming.

[Cleareyes]

Why doesn't it negate to In a geologically quiet region, NOT every potential nuclear reactor site is near at least one minor fault.

[bgdddymtty]

You need to start including the other answers and most importantly, the questions. Many of us would love to help you, but we dont have the PT's in front of us so you need to give us all the info to get a quick response.

It seems like the assumption negation technique is still confusing you. People can correct me, but I personally believe the technique is best used for tough questions and questions in which youve narrowed your answer choices to 2. Using the technique for each and every single assumption question is unnecessary and time consuming.

This is a TLS no-no, as PT's are copyrighted by LSAC, who will, in the legal sense, kick you in the "el sac" for doing so.

[hax123]

This is a TLS no-no, as PT's are copyrighted by LSAC, who will, in the legal sense, kick you in the "el sac" for doing so.

The OP could just post a sentence verbatim from the question, and we could just google it. LSAT questions are posted on many websites.

[gdane]

You need to start including the other answers and most importantly, the questions. Many of us would love to help you, but we dont have the PT's in front of us so you need to give us all the info to get a quick response.

It seems like the assumption negation technique is still confusing you. People can correct me, but I personally believe the technique is best used for tough questions and questions in which youve narrowed your answer choices to 2. Using the technique for each and every single assumption question is unnecessary and time consuming.

This is a TLS no-no, as PT's are copyrighted by LSAC, who will, in the legal sense, kick you in the "el sac" for doing so.

Yea i know about not posting LSAT questions. Ive read the sticky on top written by Mr. Ken. I should clarify. The poster should try his best to give us as much info as possible. He's been asking for a lot of help this weekend and its a bitch to track down the questions if you dont have a PT in front of you, which many of us dont or are too lazy to go find.

[MagnumLifeStyle]

hey guys,

I'm sorry I can't fully post the argument and the answer choices because it's against LSAC's rule.

But I do quote several sentences verbatim.

I can PM you the argument and the answer choices if you could let me know.

[MagnumLifeStyle]

EDIT: By the way, it looks like your confusion might have come from incorrectly negating the answer choice. The correct negation is "In a geologically quiet region, not every potential nuclear reactor site is near at least one minor fault. This distinction is crucial because it allows that some may be, but not all are. Your proposed negation changes it from all to none.

Hm....but PowerScore negates sentences by putting a "not" after a verb.

[Cleareyes]

hey guys,

I'm sorry I can't fully post the argument and the answer choices because it's against LSAC's rule.

But I do quote several sentences verbatim.

I can PM you the argument and the answer choices if you could let me know.

Going by what you've provided:

If NOT all potential reactor sites are near faults then the safest site may be one that's not near a fault at all rather than near a fault that's had an earthquake recently.

[MagnumLifeStyle]

Cleareyes and bgdddymtty,

thank you all for your contributions.

To be perfectly honest, I'm still a bit confused. But this is most likely due to my own weak logical reasoning skills more than anything else.

The stimulus, or the passage basically states (almost verbatim, I didn't alter the words used)

1. Nuclear reactors are built in "geologically quiet" regions that are distant from plate boundaries and contain only minor faults.
2. Of all potential nuclear reactor sites in such a "geologically quiet" region, those that are least likely to be struck by an earthquake are located near a fault that has produced an earthquake within living memory.

The correct answer, when negated goes:

(C) In a geologically quiet region, not every potential nuclear reactor site is near at least one minor fault.


I do not see how the negated answer choice attacks the argument.

So what if NOT EVERY reactor is located near at least one minor fault?

Some can be located near it, some can be located far away from it.

The negated answer choice doesn't attack the conclusion of the passage, which is that the safest reactors are located near a fault, which means, some of the reactors that aren't the SAFEST wouldn't be near a fault.

[MagnumLifeStyle]

Wait, I think I get it.

[3ThrowAway99]

I do think that the second post ITT clarifies the correct way to read the negation of the answer, and that negating the answer in "assumption" questions is a reliable way of proving the answer (if the negation contradicts the argument then the answer is correct, because it proves that the argument relies on the answer choice as an assumption- if that answer choice wasn't a required assumption its opposite would have no bearing on the argument). This is clearly understood by the OP based on what I have read.

What is not clearly understood I think is how this particular negation does contradict the premises listed for the argument (and actually, I think that both negations given in post 1 and 2 are sufficient to demonstrate that there is a contradiction regardless of which one is technically correct in this case): the argument does rely on the assumption that each reactor placement in a safe zone is conditioned upon the fact that such zones have a minor fault (it is made clear in premises that that it is condition of safe zone that it only has minor fault- excluding the possibility of major fault). As Cleareyes indicated, this leaves the possibility that a reactor could be built where there is no fault whatsoever (which would contradict the argument): if that were a possibility (that not all reactors in the zones mentioned are in an area with a minor fault) it would mean, as far as earthquakes go, that the safest place would obviously be where there has been no fault activity or earthquakes (but that does contradict the argument).

Cool post- this seems like a pretty difficult question to me, and probably one I would really struggle to get correct without being given the answer up front!

[MagnumLifeStyle]

.

[MagnumLifeStyle]

.

[3ThrowAway99]

I think that your below quoted post reflects that you still don't fully understand it- however, with bolded changes being added here I think it makes for a correct response:

If not all reactor site MUST be near at least one minor fault(negated answer choice), the conclusion of the passage, that the safest reactors are located near a minor fault, cannot hold ground.

Thus, Answer (C) must be an assumption (ALL REACTORS IN SAFE ZONES ARE LOCATED NEAR MINOR FAULT) for the conclusion of the argument (THE SAFEST PLACE FOR A REACTOR IS WHERE THERE HAS RECENTLY BEEN AN EARTHQUAKE) to be true.

[3ThrowAway99]

Actually, upon review I don't think that your number 1, 2, 3 in your most recent post ITT are necessarily premises of the actual argument (in that it is not necessarily true based on premises/argument that all reactors are built in these zones; but the argument addresses those reactors that are built in the zones). I think your post basically gets at the idea though.

Assumption Qs are definitely some of the hardest LR IMO. I remember really struggling with these and wish I had better perfected my logic skills before taking the LSAT. There were some questions of this style that I feel I never really came to understand. This is one where I think an actual logic diagram could help (but understanding how to diagram and read the diagrams is a process in itself).

Maybe there is someone on here more skilled than myself who could concisely diagram this problem?

[TheTopBloke]

You need to start including the other answers and most importantly, the questions. Many of us would love to help you, but we dont have the PT's in front of us so you need to give us all the info to get a quick response.

It seems like the assumption negation technique is still confusing you. People can correct me, but I personally believe the technique is best used for tough questions and questions in which youve narrowed your answer choices to 2. Using the technique for each and every single assumption question is unnecessary and time consuming.

This is a TLS no-no, as PT's are copyrighted by LSAC, who will, in the legal sense, kick you in the "el sac" for doing so.

What about Fair Use? It's not he's giving the answers away to a new test not yet administered. That's a bit paranoid I think.

[TheTopBloke]

You need to start including the other answers and most importantly, the questions. Many of us would love to help you, but we dont have the PT's in front of us so you need to give us all the info to get a quick response.

It seems like the assumption negation technique is still confusing you. People can correct me, but I personally believe the technique is best used for tough questions and questions in which youve narrowed your answer choices to 2. Using the technique for each and every single assumption question is unnecessary and time consuming.

This is a TLS no-no, as PT's are copyrighted by LSAC, who will, in the legal sense, kick you in the "el sac" for doing so.

Yea i know about not posting LSAT questions. Ive read the sticky on top written by Mr. Ken. I should clarify. The poster should try his best to give us as much info as possible. He's been asking for a lot of help this weekend and its a bitch to track down the questions if you dont have a PT in front of you, which many of us dont or are too lazy to go find.

Or sometimes we've just scribbled over them a dozen times and eventually threw them in the trash. It shouldn't stop us from assiting someone who has clearly purchased the book for education purposes.

It's as if LSAC is presuming people are going to search the forums just to find a few complete questions rather than paying the $10 to get a complete PT. What preposterous notion.

[TheTopBloke]

To attempt to answer the question. A geologically stable region, in which a earthquake has recently taken place, by definition, would mean that there would be no quake there for another 100,000 years, whereas you could label a region geologically stable, meaning there is one earthquake per 100,000 years, but it may have been 99,999 years have passed since the last earthquake.

[brickman]

read up on the following, op:

logical opposites section in LRB
defender assumption section in LRB

this will allow you do understand why c is correct.