Prep 26, section 3, # 17, # 18 Forum

[soyeonjeon]

Prep test 26, section 3, #17:
I get that D is more clearly an answer but have difficulty pointing out why C is not the answer.


# 18 on the same section:
I don't quite see why A is the answer. Quite unexpected I must say.

# 19 on the same section:
I chose D as the answer but can someone help me see why C is not an answer?

Thanks!! greatly.

[gaud]

http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/q17 ... a233251383

http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/q18 ... a233251383

and so on and so forth. manhattanlsat is gold for this sort of thing. bookmark it.

[CyanIdes Of March]

Prep test 26, section 3, #17:
I get that D is more clearly an answer but have difficulty pointing out why C is not the answer.


# 18 on the same section:
I don't quite see why A is the answer. Quite unexpected I must say.

# 19 on the same section:
I chose D as the answer but can someone help me see why C is not an answer?

Thanks!! greatly.

I like that people post questions here, gives me a chance to take on the harder ones and talk out the reasoning.

17: C doesn't show why formal instructions would be a bad thing. It only says its a part, so if they only received that part then maybe they didn't receive the rest of the education they needed. It doesn't necessarily cast any doubt on formal instruction being beneficial since it didn't claim that it was the only thing involved.

18: This was a tricky one that I got wrong as well although once the answer was revealed to me it became obvious. If the parasite is dependent on organisms that die under environmentally stressed times then they wouldn't be present in an environmentally stressed place where a stingray lives. You need shrimp for the parasite, but you don't have shrimp with pollution.

19. First, D is a perfect answer so it's probably a waste of time to try to mentally prove C wrong while taking the test. But for practice: Say before 20 = 100 skiers/70 injuries, after 20 = 200 skiers/35 injuries. Even with a 5 percent increase in knee injuries there are still a lot less knee injuries than before. This is shown by 70 x .11 and 35 x .16. You don't have to do that math on the test because it should be easy to see that a 5 percent increase in one type of injury is not going to rise above previous levels after a 50 percent decrease in total injuries occurs.

Also, if anything C would be an attempt to support his argument, not weaken it.