PT #30, Section 2, Question 22 Forum
-
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:33 pm
PT #30, Section 2, Question 22
Classic question, lol...
I have looked around to see if anyone has a sufficient explanation as to why (A) is not correct, but I feel as if I can argue for (A).
If rattlesnakes do not molt exactly once a year, that means that rattlesnakes could molt 12 times a year or once every 12 years, varying with each rattlesnake. Which means that there is no consistent way to measure how many years a rattlesnake is depending on the number of sections in its rattle.
I mean, I can understand why (E) is correct, however, (A) is, in my mind, a lot stronger than (E).
...and bravo to anyone who can effectively answer this question; its one of the toughest questions I've answered. Moreover, Manhattan LSAT does not even have an explanation, and their explanations usually clear up most issues.
Thanks!
I have looked around to see if anyone has a sufficient explanation as to why (A) is not correct, but I feel as if I can argue for (A).
If rattlesnakes do not molt exactly once a year, that means that rattlesnakes could molt 12 times a year or once every 12 years, varying with each rattlesnake. Which means that there is no consistent way to measure how many years a rattlesnake is depending on the number of sections in its rattle.
I mean, I can understand why (E) is correct, however, (A) is, in my mind, a lot stronger than (E).
...and bravo to anyone who can effectively answer this question; its one of the toughest questions I've answered. Moreover, Manhattan LSAT does not even have an explanation, and their explanations usually clear up most issues.
Thanks!
-
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 12:19 am
Re: PT #30, Section 2, Question 22
This is a famous necessary assumption question (notice the "requires" in the question stem). If E is false, and rattlesnake molting is affected by food scarcity, then it would destroy the argument that age can be reliably determined.lifeprincess13 wrote:Classic question, lol...
I have looked around to see if anyone has a sufficient explanation as to why (A) is not correct, but I feel as if I can argue for (A).
If rattlesnakes do not molt exactly once a year, that means that rattlesnakes could molt 12 times a year or once every 12 years, varying with each rattlesnake. Which means that there is no consistent way to measure how many years a rattlesnake is depending on the number of sections in its rattle.
I mean, I can understand why (E) is correct, however, (A) is, in my mind, a lot stronger than (E).
...and bravo to anyone who can effectively answer this question; its one of the toughest questions I've answered. Moreover, Manhattan LSAT does not even have an explanation, and their explanations usually clear up most issues.
Thanks!
There's an interview on LSATBlog of a logical reasoning writer who cited this as his favorite question b/c it really requires the ability to differentiate necessary and sufficient conditions. (Also the question stem is written pretty deceptively to mask the question type.)
Hope this helps
-
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:33 pm
Re: PT #30, Section 2, Question 22
Yes, Steve; this is his favorite question. I have read what he says, but he does not explain why (A) is not right completely.
I understand why (E) is right; what I do not understand is why (A) is wrong. In my earlier post in this thread, I explained why I think (A) is absolutely necessary and I still do not get why it is not, compared with (E).
I understand why (E) is right; what I do not understand is why (A) is wrong. In my earlier post in this thread, I explained why I think (A) is absolutely necessary and I still do not get why it is not, compared with (E).
-
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:47 pm
Re: PT #30, Section 2, Question 22
The question asks for a necessary assumption. (A) is sufficient but not necessary. (A) could just as easily say rattlesnakes molt exactly twice a year, and that would also be sufficient, i.e. the (A) we have is not necessary.
-
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:33 pm
Re: PT #30, Section 2, Question 22
But even without saying that rattlesnakes molt once, twice, whatever a year, no matter what we are assuming that they molt at a certain distinguishable rate. Whether that is once a year or twice a year, it has to be consistent. (E) just maintains that other aspects of their life do not change that consistency. But (A) establishes a consistency.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 12:19 am
Re: PT #30, Section 2, Question 22
Saying that they molt EXACTLY ONCE a year is far too strong and specific to be necessary to the argument. Take the negation, if rattlesnakes do not molt exactly once a year, is the argument false? of course not, it could be any number of different rates what makes "exactly once" so special?lifeprincess13 wrote:But even without saying that rattlesnakes molt once, twice, whatever a year, no matter what we are assuming that they molt at a certain distinguishable rate. Whether that is once a year or twice a year, it has to be consistent. (E) just maintains that other aspects of their life do not change that consistency. But (A) establishes a consistency.
Remember this is a necessary assumption question, not a sufficient, not a strengthen. Think of it as what must be true.
-
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:47 pm
Re: PT #30, Section 2, Question 22
(A) is actually not even sufficient, on second thought, since the rattle could conceivably break off for a reason other than brittleness. And there are other holes in the argument. (E) is necessary though, since a regular molting pattern unaffected by external factors would be needed.
-
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:33 pm
Re: PT #30, Section 2, Question 22
Ok...I mean, I get it. I see why (E) is better than (A). I guess when I read the stimulus and answer choice (A), I understood that there had to be some type of consistency within how to determine the age of the rattlesnake. Although I believe (E) could be stronger in establishing an actual consistency that is not broken by the amount of food being eaten, I can see why (E) is stronger than (A).
Thanks guys!
Thanks guys!