Help needed on PT 60 Forum

[pinkdatura]

my kaplan explanation is only until pt 56. So I write my own explanations for pt 57-60. Please correct me or discuss me about these questions below. Thank you. Any suggestion, new thought, and advice would be extremely appreciated.

RC
Passage 1 Suburban Sprawl


New Urbanism Suburban Sprawl
-------------- -----------------------------
1 ss-->civil erode individual legitimate desire
2 ss-->econ de facto
3 concern with long time
social cost
(Author)

Q1 main idea
A distort and partial
B advocate specific reform of zoning law=mix housing NU suggest?
Is this answer wrong due to partial(detail) or bringing up new info as "reform"?
C partial
D correct answer
E result of short sighted policy? advocate changes of policy?
Is this answer wrong because neither reason of sprawl mentioned or advocate change of policy?


Q2 detail
detrimental result of travelling too much?

C is direct quote from line 35, however I am wondering why in line 35, the passage mentions "pedestrians rarely act in this manner towards each other"

E is it wrong because it belong to family issue but this paragraph talks about community member?


Q3 detail

D direct paraphrase of ln 54?

A Is it wrong because no support for "primary factor"? or there's distortion conduciveness vs travel time

Q5 logic (weaken)

weaken NU, line 46-50

D is it right because it means people choose to live in low-density subdivision because of economic factor rather than self enjoyment?

E what exactly E talking about? people don't support zoning policy?

ABC 180

Q 6 inference D and colleagues recommended subdivision
I have a major question on this one
E why E is right, how to get it from line 36-45
A zoning policy is for traffic reason, it is too radical to eliminate it entirely?
B tempting it's not about more apt or low-density, it is about mix price of house
C not true
D no mention of government---i wrongly picked up this one

Q7 ASSUMPTION
the assumption in paragraph 2
A Is it A correct because it is paraphrase of line 20-21 "contain home identical in appearance and price, result in..." people live there don't pay significant less than they afford, so house the same price, the money they afford=income is same?

B inconsistent, if it really does, there would be no segregation at all

CDE irrelevant

[pinkdatura]

RC
Passage 3 Valdez Chicano theater

It's a tough one for me. It took me a while to understand those actors
are farm workers...I am bogged in those Teatro Campesino, Chicano
theater, Chavez.

P1 INTRO Chicano theatre movement, and organizer Valdez
P2 Valdez use acto as a solution
P2 YBG object contribute all to V and trace acto to carpa

Q13
A first half sentence distort; second half sentence partial
E no "bring it recognition"
B no "neglect the role"
D distort most credit to people other than V

Q 14=Q 17 line 31-38
actors=performers

Q 20
B why B is correct, is it a deduction of ln 33-35

A distort carpas flourish~= well analyze
C V doesn't simulate but improvise
D actos weren't not based on script composed by V but from farmer workers
E no other theatrical endeavor

[pinkdatura]

LR 1

PT 60 S1 q6
about the oil spill and sea otter, I know ACDE are out of scope, could anybody explain why B is correct? I got a little bit confused about what'g going on in the stimulus.
so 357 affected +900 died, 222 were saved (18%), but the actually number would be lower if there are more death we didn't discover coz they didn't die immediately to be washed off the beach?
Correct me if I were wrong about the stimulus and pls explain to me about B, thx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PT 60 S1 Q11 inclusiveness history

before now: exclusiveness in history course
now history courses no longer have such limitation (exclusiveness)
conclusion: now: most univ in-dept cosmo edu

A,B irrelevant
C right in link in-depth and ~exclusiveness
D other subject area?
E course alone?

PT 60, S 1, Q 13, "Many economists..."
B I got this one wrong my understanding why b is not correct:

if other things stay the same, people choose the one with higher wage, it doesn't provide any strength that money is the strongest incentive, coz other factors are the same, in order to qualify as the strongest, we need a comparison between other factors with money, so that would be if other factors are different, money plays a big role...


PT60 S1 Q15 water saving faucet

C: run longer-->exaggerate the amount of money saved
R: stands out by showing her water bill is lowered--> not exaggerate

A cost of installing fee is irrelevant, it talks about the capability of faucet saving water, even she pays more for the faucet than the money saved on the bill. the capability faucet saving amount of water is a stable variable

B whether there's controversy between manufactures is out of scope, classic mistake

D satisfy is not relevant

E increase overall saving is not revelant

I am wondering if my logic of eliminating answers is correct?

Thx

PT 60 S1 Q25
I am not quite clear with what the question type? "which of the following is utilized by argument.
A, D, E are out of scope by referring to other customs, ethical or penalty, which are not the argument major talking about.
B is wrong because it talks about adoption of law rather than how law is considered as successful (I am not sure if this explanation hits the point)

Also I am confused about the first half of the second sentence 'just as manners are observed not because of sanctions...unthinkable" what does this sentence has to do with the whole argument? Is it a analog for manner observe-contrary behavior as unthinkable; law obey-uncustomary or manner has sth to do with custom argument?

THX

[pinkdatura]

Section 5 LR2

PT60 S5 Q2
Pls correct me if I think wrong on this question:

Stimulus:
premise: likelihood of purchase a given product:
consumer listen> consumer didn't listen
conclusion: AD --> purchase a given product (C&E)

A scope shift went through checkout line ~= purchase
C,D weaken , AD not involved
E no impact, frequency is irrelevant

My question would be why in stimulus mention within 40 min after airing AD reaching check line vs prior check line? Why just be simple as before the AD and after AD, pardon me, it is exactly the place I think too convoluted and fell in the trap.

PT 60 S5 Q6 test pilot
of many B, none did C, so it's unlikely B will do C.
past and future flaw?

A thought well written~=enjoy
B Suppose to be same group of people, many book reviewers~=most people who buy book
C two reviewers~=next sunday's book review
E reviewers~=anyone in general public

Anybody can give me an easier and quicker way of attacking this question?


PT 60 S5 Q10
kinda bogged by scientific terms and details
radius 49-->450 times per s flickering rate explained
maintain an orbit so close=radius 49-->bh spinning

ring of gas : 450 times per s, stable orbit = radius 49

B bh: spinning

A ~ radius 49-->~spinning
E ~spinning-->~radius 49

Why E is not correct? Pls correct my diagram, thx


PT 60 S5 Q16 wildlife management
I know E is a perfect answer, but why B is wrong? Is it too extreme: non-endangered animal because endanger vs make it harder for non-endangered to survive?


PT 60 s5 q20
could anyone explain to me why E is wrong?
Here's my thoughts about the question
P: criticize-->not harm + do so in hope of benefiting someone other than oneself
I am wondering this oneself refers to? the guy initiate criticism or the guy is criticized?
App: J: ~criticize, so we need to either "harm" or "do so not in hope of benefiting someone other than oneself

I have a hard choice between A and E
A J know the criticism isn't benefiting anyone=not in hope of benefiting anyone
E J didn't expect the criticism to benefit O or if it leaves gap that J do so expecting to benefit someone other than O?

Other choice:
C antagonize O not equal to harm O
B benefit O--> O aware, since there's no mention of O be aware of not
D benefit J (so I guess the "oneself" above refers to J rather than O)?

[pinkdatura]

end of all questions on PT 60, again thank you for the incredible resources on this board, I am so happy to be here
Not so much time left for oct exam, stay healthy and rock on lsat!
anybody studying lsat in peninsular, CA? Palo alto?

[JJDancer]

RC
Passage 1 Suburban Sprawl


New Urbanism Suburban Sprawl
-------------- -----------------------------
1 ss-->civil erode individual legitimate desire
2 ss-->econ de facto
3 concern with long time
social cost
(Author)

Q1 main idea
A distort and partial
B advocate specific reform of zoning law=mix housing NU suggest?
Is this answer wrong due to partial(detail) or bringing up new info as "reform"?
C partial
D correct answer
E result of short sighted policy? advocate changes of policy?
Is this answer wrong because neither reason of sprawl mentioned or advocate change of policy?
E is wrong because they don't advocate changes to TRAFFIC POLICIES to reduce the negative effects of sprawl. They advocate changes such as mixed price housing etc

Q2 detail
detrimental result of travelling too much?

C is direct quote from line 35, however I am wondering why in line 35, the passage mentions "pedestrians rarely act in this manner towards each other"
they mention pedestrians because later in the same paragraph they say want to have stores etc within walking distance
E is it wrong because it belong to family issue but this paragraph talks about community member? E is wrong because the passage never mentions within family considerations, ALSO, the article clearly mentions antisocial behavior


Q3 detail

D direct paraphrase of ln 54? yes

A Is it wrong because no support for "primary factor"? or there's distortion conduciveness vs travel time wrong because civility is mentioned in first paragraph. but we don't know if its the primary factor. ALSO, 1st paragraph states that suburban sprawl leads to less civility because of lack of a communal space (not directly time between places).

Q5 logic (weaken)

weaken NU, line 46-50

D is it right because it means people choose to live in low-density subdivision because of economic factor rather than self enjoyment? yes they are there not because they value that lifestyle/personal mobility but because they can't afford other places

E what exactly E talking about? people don't support zoning policy?

ABC 180

Q 6 inference D and colleagues recommended subdivision
I have a major question on this one
E why E is right, how to get it from line 36-45
Honestly, I wasn't 100% on this when I put E but I put that because it said "small neighborhood schools" which felt like a change from the existing system so I thought they would build more but smaller schools. Line 12-14 mentions schools in separate areas but I'm not 100% sure why they would increase per capita
A zoning policy is for traffic reason, it is too radical to eliminate it entirely?
B tempting it's not about more apt or low-density, it is about mix price of house
C not true
D no mention of government---i wrongly picked up this one

Q7 ASSUMPTION
the assumption in paragraph 2
A Is it A correct because it is paraphrase of line 20-21 "contain home identical in appearance and price, result in..." people live there don't pay significant less than they afford, so house the same price, the money they afford=income is same?
A is correct because the urbanists argue that suburban areas are economically homogenous because all the houses cost the same. But if ppl bought suburban houses that were a lot cheaper than what they could afford, then richer people are living with other people who buy the best house they can afford...The urbanists assume people are buying as much as they can afford so all the people living together can afford the same $
B inconsistent, if it really does, there would be no segregation at all

CDE irrelevant

[JJDancer]

RC
Passage 3 Valdez Chicano theater

Passage overview: most scholars say Chavez's unionizing as the beginning of CHICANO POLITICAL MOVEMNT. By 1965 union workers were famous but in 1965 CHICANO THEATER BEGAN w Valdez asking Chavez to use theater to organize farm workers (chicano political). Valdez created TEATRO CAMPESINO.
Paragraph 2 is how he started it. "Actos" = skits with roots in mime troupe. comical, satirical, suggest solution and came from farm worker turned actor's personal experience.
Para 3: EL teatro campesino is a BOOK, by yolanda broyles-gonzalez. She says Valdez didn't create actos as a genre (author agrees) Actos could be traced to CARPAS - informal and satirical performed in tents to working class. But Valdez contribution was CRUCIAL.

Q13
A - Valdez WAS influenced by earlier forms
E The point is not that Chavez isn't given recognition, it's that Valdez didn't singlehandedly create actos, but he was a crucial player in chicano theater and using that for chicano political motives.
D distort most credit to people other than V
C is CORRECT because paragraph 2 - bulk of passage is about how valdez created the movement and para 3 says he was influenced but CRUCIAL.

Q 20
B is correct because of line 31 - 37
and because actos were influenced by carpas *also comical/satirical.

[JJDancer]

PT 60 S1 q6
6. Background: After oil spill, rebab centers to get oil off and save sea otters. Conclusion: effort not worthwhile. WHy? because 357+900 were found and counted and 18% were saved. (since 900 of the ones they FOUND AND COUNTED were already dead - no chance of being saved...this "support" seemed questionable to me). Then they further support it by saying that they actually saved less than 18% of those affected (meaning put in any danger from the oil whether illness or death) because only a fifth of otters that died immediately were EVER found.

#6 - Let's say they somehow later found that they had counted 357+900 but actually later found 200 more dead otters. How would they know that they had died IMMEDIATELY?? Or that they had died because of the oil spill?
Since they clearly state "only 1/5 of those that died immediately were ever found" means they NEVER found any more dead otters. So how do they know that they even exist? Even if they had found them later, like I said, they don't know the cause of death.


PT 60 S1 Q11
Now unis offer indepth and cosmo edu. How do they know this? Before history courses had culturally limited reading material, now they are culturally diverse in their history reading.
You need to strengthen this arg by connecting "more indepth and cosmo edu at UNIVERSITIES(no subject area defined) to having inclusive history courses. C DOES THIS.


PT 60, S 1, Q 13, "Many economists..."
B I got this one wrong my understanding why b is not correct:

if other things stay the same, people choose the one with higher wage, it doesn't provide any strength that money is the strongest incentive, coz other factors are the same, in order to qualify as the strongest, we need a comparison between other factors with money, so that would be if other factors are different, money plays a big role...YES
ALSO, weakening the argument means you attack the conclusion that economists overestimate the extent to which people are motivatd by money in job choices.

How do you reconcile that they aren't overestimating importance but people don't list high salary as most important consideration? well first sentence of stimulus says "financial rewards" that could be money. But it could also be perks, more paid leave, free childcare, etc. C hits this sweet spot.

PT60 S1 Q15 water saving faucet

C: run longer-->exaggerate the amount of money saved
R: stands out by showing her water bill is lowered--> not exaggerate

A cost of installing fee is irrelevant, it talks about the capability of faucet saving water, even she pays more for the faucet than the money saved on the bill. the capability faucet saving amount of water is a stable variable

This is answer choice CB whether there's controversy between manufactures is out of scope, classic mistake. The stimulus says "manufacturerS say blah blah so they clearly are not just talking about one or some manufacturer(s)

D satisfy is not relevant

E increase overall saving is not revelant - right its about per faucet bought/used

PT 60 S1 Q25
I am not quite clear with what the question type? "which of the following is utilized by argument. I think method of reasoning (analogy) and specifically it asks which analogy

A, D, E are out of scope by referring to other customs, ethical or penalty, which are not the argument major talking about.
B is wrong because it talks about adoption of law rather than OBEYING the law

'just as manners are observed not because of sanctions...unthinkable" - The stimulus says law being succ is primarily because of becoming custom. Custom is followed not because of sanctions *fear of punishment) but because its "habit" or "natural." They talk about manners as an analogy to why things are observed (achieving status of custom)

[JJDancer]

Section 5 LR2

PT60 S5 Q2
You just want to show that those that heard it before getting to the line (because it would be different if you are in line -- would you leave and say "ooh gotta get some of that tide" even though I'll lose my spot in line?) I think they just say the "before reaching the line" thing to avoid this issue. But its basically "while shopping I heard ad and was more likely to buy it than if i didnt hear ad while shopping" shopping = browsing not while in line. B supports this because it shows that at least one other factor besides the ad can be crossed off as a confounding factor in the study -- that htey already planned on getting that item

PT 60 S5 Q6 test pilot
of many B, none did C, so it's unlikely next B will do C.
B - goes from those that read the book to those that buy it.
C - neither of the 2 -- should be different than none of "many"
E - unlikely to offend ANYONE - big jump from "the pilot tomorrow"
A - its the reversal.
D - matches perfectly in many, and none, and unlikely and THE reviewer

PT 60 S5 Q10
kinda bogged by scientific terms and details (I felt this a little too)
A ring of gas emits 450/second flicker + stable orbit.
If 49 radius --> 450/second flicker explained.
Last sentence: if BH NOT spinning --> NOT maintain orbit so close
maintain orbit so close --> BH spinning.

Since we know it has a radius of 49 and it is in stable orbit then the black hole is spinning.
C says this. E is wrong because BH could be stationary and have nothing orbitting it at all -- at least just based on this info (i don't know abt scientificaly)

ALL the stimulus says is that if it is not spinning (means stationary?? that's questionable too -- could it do something else besides be spinning or stationary?) even if not spinning means stationary then all we know is that when stationary --> not maintain orbit so close. But since it IS IN ORBIT (1st sentence) then it's not spinning (then it's stationary if we actually knew that not spinning = stationary, which we don't).

[JJDancer]

LR 2
PT 60 S5 Q16 wildlife management
Why B is wrong? It's wrong because the author seems to actually REALIZE this, rather than FAIL TO realize that nonendangered could become endangered. Meaning, maybe he is saying its harded for nonendangered to survive, if they stop surviving as well, then they could be endangered. Even if this isn't what he is assuming. FLaw questions or "must vulnerable to criticism" questions are about finding THE RIGHT FLAW, so other issues don't matter. You need to find why this argument is weak based on principles it put forth or what it wants to achieve.


PT 60 s5 q20
could anyone explain to me why E is wrong?
Here's my thoughts about the question
P: criticize-->not harm + do so in hope of benefiting someone other than oneself
OTHER THAN ONESELF MEANS: if i criticize BOB, then I do so in the hope that it helps someone other than me (I could think it would help bob, or mary or pedro - anyone)
App: J: ~criticize, so we need to either "harm" or "do so not in hope of benefiting someone other than oneself

E is wrong because JUSTIFY questions are very strong. Meaning it is not a strenghten or support question. When you justify something you prove it, no questions leftover. E leaves the possibility that even if J didn't think O would benefit, maybe he thought others in the class would. A clearly wipes out this possibility WHICH IS NECESSARY to do, to prove that J shouldn't have criticised (based on your correct diagramming)

Other choice:
C antagonize O not equal to harm O
B benefit O--> O aware, since there's no mention of O be aware of not
D benefit J (so I guess the "oneself" above refers to J rather than O)?
yes see my explanation above. They are saying you can't criticise someone else if it's just to your benefit, or to no one's benefit it all. only if it doesnt harm and DOes benefit someone else can you criticize

Whew. That was a lot lol. Hope that helps.

[pinkdatura]

thank you so much, JJDancer. Even I didn't realize how tremendous amounts of questions I posted up. Wow, look like I have a lot to absorb today...Again, thank you so much, I really appreciate it.

[JJDancer]

No problem. Let me know if you don't understand anything I wrote.

[MissLucky]

PT 60, S 1, Q 13, "Many economists..."
B I got this one wrong my understanding why b is not correct:

if other things stay the same, people choose the one with higher wage, it doesn't provide any strength that money is the strongest incentive, coz other factors are the same, in order to qualify as the strongest, we need a comparison between other factors with money

I am just so confused on this question. Don't we see that money is strongest in (B) though? It shows that Money is the thing that made people choose one job over another - it was the one differentiating factor. Ahh, this is so annoying. I feel like I sort of understand what you are saying but not quite...

if you could explain some more that would be aweseome. thnx!

[tomwatts]

Sorry, long thread, didn't read all of it. If there are questions on PT 60 that need explaining, point me to 'em.

S1, Q13: For B, the problem is that the job is otherwise identical. The conclusion is not that money is not a factor at all; the conclusion is that money not the most important factor. So if they choose more money over less in otherwise identical jobs, that just proves that they care about money at least somewhat, which isn't a problem for the conclusion. They'd need to care about money more than something else for this to be a problem for the conclusion, but all the other factors are the same, so money might be a tiny, tiny consideration (but still a consideration).

On the other hand, for C, if "financial benefits" includes much more than just salary, the premise totally doesn't lead to the conclusion. People don't name high salary as the most desirable factor, but they very much might still consider overall financial benefits the most important factor; it's just that high salary is only a part of that, and they want health benefits, etc.

[JJDancer]

I am just so confused on this question. Don't we see that money is strongest in (B) though? It shows that Money is the thing that made people choose one job over another - it was the one differentiating factor. Ahh, this is so annoying. I feel like I sort of understand what you are saying but not quite...

if you could explain some more that would be aweseome. thnx!

I think what you are missing is this: B simply says that if the jobs are the same, then I would rather be paid 80K than 50K for it. but the stimulus says that economists claim that financial rewards provide the strongest incentive in choosing ONE job OVER another.

B is comparing 2 jobs, and it shows that money IS AN incentive to pick one job over another, but you don't know that it's THE STRONGEST incentive. You need something that allows you to compare it to other factors. Like if B said: when choosing between 2 jobs, people surveyed said they would pick the one giving more money over another one that was more prestigious.

A little off topic but its like picking law schools. Let's say you have a full scholarship to NYU and Fordham. One might be able to assume that they would pick the higher ranked school (obvious choice). But what if you had to choose between NYU sticker and Fordham full ride, then if I said $$ is the most important factor and you chose NYU, that would weaken it. But simply saying that you would choose the obviously better school, all else being equal (full ride to both) doesn't weaken it.

[MissLucky]

ahh, i do get it now. thank you!
(i dont mean to hijak this thread, but I have a couple questions from PT58 http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=131318 if you get a chance and can help out that'd be awesome!)

[JJDancer]

ahh, i do get it now. thank you!
(i dont mean to hijak this thread, but I have a couple questions from PT58 http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=131318 if you get a chance and can help out that'd be awesome!)

I took sept 09 as the real test so I could answer stuff but I'm hoping I don't remember the questions because I was planning on doing that as a PT this week. Sorry!

[MissLucky]

ahh, i do get it now. thank you!
(i dont mean to hijak this thread, but I have a couple questions from PT58 http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=131318 if you get a chance and can help out that'd be awesome!)

I took sept 09 as the real test so I could answer stuff but I'm hoping I don't remember the questions because I was planning on doing that as a PT this week. Sorry!

np! yeah don't ruin it for the PT. check it out after then

[bartleby]

I still need help on water faucets. My brain is fried. Two day break is around the corner.

C: Manufacturers of item exaggerate...blah blah blah
R: No, I have lower bills so manufacturers' claims are exaggerated.

I see the flaw that lower bills =/= water saving faucet. But isn't there a flaw that what is "true" for Rebecca and her manufacturer (since they specify multiple) is not necessarily true for all - C's plural manufacturers. R installed a faucet from one and after positive results concludes the claims from C's plural manufacturers are not exaggerated.

I'm dying here.

[JJDancer]

I still need help on water faucets. My brain is fried. Two day break is around the corner.

C: Manufacturers of item exaggerate...blah blah blah
R: No, I have lower bills so manufacturers' claims are exaggerated.

I see the flaw that lower bills =/= water saving faucet. But isn't there a flaw that what is "true" for Rebecca and her manufacturer (since they specify multiple) is not necessarily true for all - C's plural manufacturers. R installed a faucet from one and after positive results concludes the claims from C's plural manufacturers are not exaggerated.

I'm dying here.

No need to die.
C: ManufactereS exxagerate how much you can save. People would run them for longer so the money saved by "low-flow" would be "un-saved" because people would run them longer, thus incurring the same water bill.

R: I have lower bills, even though I run water for longer sometimes (showering) SO MANUFACs CLAIMS are NOT exxagerated.
Rebecca takes for granted that...
It's not E because increasing her savings is not relevant to determining whether manufacs exxagerate claims or to how much she saves per faucet.
D) irrelevant- doesn't matter if people are satisfied or not
C) it doesn't matter if they are consistent as long as if I purchase FAUCET A I save as much money as FAUCETA's manufac says I will.
If she saved as much as she was supposed to , then that does support the argument regardless of other people/other manufacs - I think.
B hits the spot that she TAKES IT FOR GRANTED that she lowered her bills by the same PERCENTAGE or AMOUNT that manufacs said.

[wjun15]

is there only one way to diagram the Intern game?

I put the interrns FGHJKL as the base and got screwed

any tips on figuring out the best way to diagram, f.e. choosing the right base

[Hedwig]

is there only one way to diagram the Intern game?

I put the interrns FGHJKL as the base and got screwed

any tips on figuring out the best way to diagram, f.e. choosing the right base

The interns rotate between a fixed set of places. The places don't "rotate" between the interns. Does that make any sense? Also, since there are "two levels" for the interns (PA and WA) it wouldn't work to use them as the base because you want to be able to see GL on the same level and F/K on different levels.

I diagrammed:

PA:
WA:
____ R __ S ___ T

[JJDancer]

This is how I did interns:

WA . . . . . PA
in - sto .
te - ri . . same on this side
rn - es .