PT 45 LR questions Forum

[roballen]

Can someone please explain the following:

Section 1:
8. Why is it A and not C?

12. Why does C weaken the argument?

18. I picked C, but now I realize that probably strenghthens the argument, but why D?

21. Why is it A?

22. Got this one right, but how does lack of rain turn into drought, wouldn't that be too extreme?

Section 4:

#'s 16, 17, 20

If someone can please explain how you arrived at the correct answers, I'd appreciate it.

[harut44]

Section 1:

8- So this has a shitton of diagramming. Here is how I diagrammed:
Long lasting relationship-->Trust
Trust-->Mutual respect
Personal relationship--> Trust+Mutual respect+Natural Affinity
Personal relationship is to endure-->Mutual respect + Affinity

A. Is the correct answer because it is necessary to have Trust+Mutual respect+Natural Affinity to have an enduring friendship. If you don't have those you cannot have an enduring friendship. Which is what A says, it lists 2/3 of the items so it must be true.
C. Confuses necessary and sufficient causes, diagrammed it looks like this: Mutual respect+ affinity-->enduring friendship. Which is not what we diagrammed from the stimulus so it doesn't have to be true.

12- The argument depends on the assumption that dioxon sticks around in the water because it decomposes very slowly. And even when the mill shuts down its operation of pumping the dioxon into the water the fish recover. So it can't possibly be the cause of genetic abnormalities created by dioxon since it's already in the water, because it decomposes slowly. Answer choice C says that the normal current carries the dioxon downstream in a few hours which destroys the assumption made by the argument, thus weakening it.

21- A is the correct answer because it links everything in the stimulus together. It says that if there was a constant causal link b/w meteor impacts and mass extinctions then every meteor impact would be followed by a mass extinction. Now think about it for a second, the stimulus says that sometimes there are mass extinctions and sometimes there are not. So since it's not constant/consistent there cannot be a causal link b/w the two. <--A is this assumption saying that if there were a mass extinction following every major meteor impact it would be followed by a mass extinction- filling the assumption in the stimulus, which leads the argument to be valid.

22- Not necessarily, a drought, by definition, is a lack of rain (over a long period of time).

[Sandro]

I thought #12 on LR was pretty damn tough. I think my problem was I didn't strongly identify the premises/conclusion and their relationship before I attacked the question - Dioxin ISNT the culprit because when the plant is stopped, the fish go back to normal levels EVEN THOUGH dioxin doesnt decompose quickly (aka it hangs around). I think this question asks you to make some jumps in assumptions and assume what the author means when he says doesnt decompose quickly = its always hanging around. And also if dioxin WAS the culprit you would expect the fish to go back to normal when dioxin was stopped - which doesnt make sense when combined with the fact that dioxin is always around due to slow decomposing. So in order to weaken and show dioxin IS the culprit or may be or that this reasoning is false, you have to show that dioxin doesnt stick around which is C.


I'd be interested to see how many people of the LSAT takers at large got this. Just seems like a lot of things they are asking you to connect and infer - def a tough one.

[Patriot1208]

I thought #12 on LR was pretty damn tough. I think my problem was I didn't strongly identify the premises/conclusion and their relationship before I attacked the question - Dioxin ISNT the culprit because when the plant is stopped, the fish go back to normal levels EVEN THOUGH dioxin doesnt decompose quickly (aka it hangs around). I think this question asks you to make some jumps in assumptions and assume what the author means when he says doesnt decompose quickly = its always hanging around. And also if dioxin WAS the culprit you would expect the fish to go back to normal when dioxin was stopped - which doesnt make sense when combined with the fact that dioxin is always around due to slow decomposing. So in order to weaken and show dioxin IS the culprit or may be or that this reasoning is false, you have to show that dioxin doesnt stick around which is C.


I'd be interested to see how many people of the LSAT takers at large got this. Just seems like a lot of things they are asking you to connect and infer - def a tough one.

I missed this one as well. According to my kaplan material less than half of LSAT takers got this right. They don't go any more extreme then that.