Sept. 2014 LSAT (Preptest 73) Question Discussion Forum

[BillsFan9907]

PT73 is now on Cambridge LSAT.

I'll start off with LR, Q14. Please let me know if my reasoning is solid.

I was down to A and B. I originally read A as saying "takes for granted sales would be EVEN lower if the campaign weren't done." On second glance, I realized it was saying "takes for granted that sales would be lower even if the campaign was not done."

To me, this seems like a cause and effect argument in which it is suggested that the other viewed the campaign as the sole cause of the bad situation. The author doesn't go that far, however. For certain, he is committed to the claim that the campaign is ineffective. There are some implications that he MIGHT think it is a causal factor in the poor sales. The connection is not entirely clear. Even if, however, this is true, there are absolutely no grounds for holding the author thinks that the campaign was the ONLY cause.


I saw B as doing one of two things depending on how strong you wanted to read the causal implication:


1) Assuming that the author makes a commitment to a causal argument, B eliminates it. Campaign was not a cause.
2) Assuming that the author did not go so far as to make a commitment, B leaves open the possibility that there is so much negative pressure on sales, that perhaps the campaign is making it such that the sales have not fallen as much as the otherwise would have.

I feel much better about interpretation 1.

[nlee10]

PT73 is now on Cambridge LSAT. Is there any doubt whatsoever that we can now discuss?

I think you guys have been able to discuss ever since scores came out. lol

[BillsFan9907]

PT73 is now on Cambridge LSAT. Is there any doubt whatsoever that we can now discuss?

I think you guys have been able to discuss ever since scores came out. lol

That was obvious from the BEGINNING. Except nobody was willing to talk about it.

[HRomanus]

Missed the damn crayfish question (my S4 LR2 #15) and still don't understand the reasoning. I understand that A is logical within the sense that it means there is still water for the larvae, but it seems counterintuitive that this would help them survive because the only place they would be able to grow is inside the homes of their predators.

[BillsFan9907]

Missed the damn crayfish question (my S4 LR2 #15) and still don't understand the reasoning. I understand that A is logical within the sense that it means there is still water for the larvae, but it seems counterintuitive that this would help them survive because the only place they would be able to grow is inside the homes of their predators.

1) All the other possibilities sucked.

2) The correct answer does a great job of linking with an element mentioned in the passage (water).

3) We aren't told the degree of predation. Maybe they eat the dragon flies for 1/1000000 meals.

I was hesitant too, but again, the other answers were terrible and the correct answer properly linked up with the stimulus.

[DetroitRed]

PT73 is now on Cambridge LSAT.

I'll start off with LR, Q14. Please let me know if my reasoning is solid.

I was down to A and B. I originally read A as saying "takes for granted sales would be EVEN lower if the campaign weren't done." On second glance, I realized it was saying "takes for granted that sales would be lower even if the campaign was not done."

To me, this seems like a cause and effect argument in which it is suggested that the other viewed the campaign as the sole cause of the bad situation. The author doesn't go that far, however. For certain, he is committed to the claim that the campaign is ineffective. There are some implications that he MIGHT think it is a causal factor in the poor sales. The connection is not entirely clear. Even if, however, this is true, there are absolutely no grounds for holding the author thinks that the campaign was the ONLY cause.


I saw B as doing one of two things depending on how strong you wanted to read the causal implication:


1) Assuming that the author makes a commitment to a causal argument, B eliminates it. Campaign was not a cause.
2) Assuming that the author did not go so far as to make a commitment, B leaves open the possibility that there is so much negative pressure on sales, that perhaps the campaign is making it such that the sales have not fallen as much as the otherwise would have.

I feel much better about interpretation 1.

You're thinking too hard. The author infers from poor sales that one factor among numerous factors that might produce poor sales was so. Without further evidence indicating the advertising campaign's ill-conception, you can't draw this conclusion. That is why B is correct.

[Colonel_funkadunk]

PT73 is now on Cambridge LSAT. Is there any doubt whatsoever that we can now discuss?

I think you guys have been able to discuss ever since scores came out. lol

this is actually wrong

[BillsFan9907]

PT73 is now on Cambridge LSAT. Is there any doubt whatsoever that we can now discuss?

I think you guys have been able to discuss ever since scores came out. lol

this is actually wrong

Proof please.

[Clyde Frog]

Any TLSers 180 this test?

[HRomanus]

PT73 is now on Cambridge LSAT. Is there any doubt whatsoever that we can now discuss?

I think you guys have been able to discuss ever since scores came out. lol

this is actually wrong

Is this the first time they have made the PDFs available to download immediately from LSAC's website? I don't remember seeing that in Oct 2013.

[rbrown0824]

PT73 is now on Cambridge LSAT.

I'll start off with LR, Q14. Please let me know if my reasoning is solid.

I was down to A and B. I originally read A as saying "takes for granted sales would be EVEN lower if the campaign weren't done." On second glance, I realized it was saying "takes for granted that sales would be lower even if the campaign was not done."

To me, this seems like a cause and effect argument in which it is suggested that the other viewed the campaign as the sole cause of the bad situation. The author doesn't go that far, however. For certain, he is committed to the claim that the campaign is ineffective. There are some implications that he MIGHT think it is a causal factor in the poor sales. The connection is not entirely clear. Even if, however, this is true, there are absolutely no grounds for holding the author thinks that the campaign was the ONLY cause.


I saw B as doing one of two things depending on how strong you wanted to read the causal implication:


1) Assuming that the author makes a commitment to a causal argument, B eliminates it. Campaign was not a cause.
2) Assuming that the author did not go so far as to make a commitment, B leaves open the possibility that there is so much negative pressure on sales, that perhaps the campaign is making it such that the sales have not fallen as much as the otherwise would have.

I feel much better about interpretation 1.

You're thinking too hard. The author infers from poor sales that one factor among numerous factors that might produce poor sales was so. Without further evidence indicating the advertising campaign's ill-conception, you can't draw this conclusion. That is why B is correct.

I got this one right on test day, but now that I look back on it, I don't really know how I eliminated A. What would you say?

[BillsFan9907]

Yeah are you saying that of the two options, option A can be eliminated because the author does not go so far as to assert that the advertising campaign is the sole cause?

[The Avatar]

PT 73...Mistakenly believed to be easy by most test-takers when they first took it, until they got back their score.

[hillz]

PT73 is now on Cambridge LSAT. Is there any doubt whatsoever that we can now discuss?

I think you guys have been able to discuss ever since scores came out. lol

this is actually wrong

Is this the first time they have made the PDFs available to download immediately from LSAC's website? I don't remember seeing that in Oct 2013.

We had PDFs to download in June, too.

[GreenTee]

PT 73...Mistakenly believed to be easy by most test-takers when they first took it, until they got back their score.

[rbrown0824]

PT 73...Mistakenly believed to be easy by most test-takers when they first took it, until they got back their score.

180

[Clyde Frog]

Why was this test deceptively hard? Was there a weird game, hard RC?

[Louis1127]

Why was this test deceptively hard? Was there a weird game, hard RC?

I think it has something to do with RC. I haven't reviewed RC yet, but I thought I went -4, and I would have put money on me not missing more than 6 tops. I missed 8.

[Clyde Frog]

Why was this test deceptively hard? Was there a weird game, hard RC?

I think it has something to do with RC. I haven't reviewed RC yet, but I thought I went -4, and I would have put money on me not missing more than 6 tops. I missed 8.

That's not too bad, usually RC scores dip on the test.

[schmelling]

Post removed.

[The Avatar]

Why was this test deceptively hard? Was there a weird game, hard RC?

It was the LR which makes up 50% of test. The second one especially was hard. A lot of tricky answers.

RC- Photography Passage did it in for most people. It was just so abstract and confusing.

LG- All medium difficulty games. People took 8-10 minutes to complete one. Third game was the hardest with a backward-forward rule.

But seriously, it was the LR. RC is only 27 questions and LG is 23. LR is 51.

[MadwomanintheAttic]

Why was this test deceptively hard? Was there a weird game, hard RC?

It was the LR which makes up 50% of test. The second one especially was hard. A lot of tricky answers.

RC- Photography Passage did it in for most people. It was just so abstract and confusing.

LG- All medium difficulty games. People took 8-10 minutes to complete one. Third game was the hardest with a backward-forward rule.

But seriously, it was the LR. RC is only 27 questions and LG is 23. LR is 51.

So happy to see I'm not the only one who thought that LR was hard/ I went -5 on the first LR and -14 on the second. I've never in life gotten -14 on LR. And I knew it was going bad when I got to question 2 and felt like all hope was lost.

[lawstud24]

Actually, I found this RC section relatively straightforward. I usually go -4 to -7 on RC and I got -2 on this one.

[Valamar]

Why was this test deceptively hard? Was there a weird game, hard RC?

I think what made this test deceptively hard was that there was no killer game or passage, but nothing was a cakewalk either, which made it hard to get a read on where you were scoring while taking the test. I bet I'm not the only one who after a few months of prep could more or less know when a test was going my way or not, and where I was losing points or picking some up. On this test I was in the dark until I got my score.

Definitely agree, I walked out of the test center thinking I could have scored anything within a 10 point range, despite PTing pretty consistently in the months leading up to it. Had the tricky LR as my last section, felt really good about the test overall up to about the last 10 or so questions. Felt like Matt Damon in the opening scene of Rounders, could see Vegas and the f*cking Mirage then bam... run into the nuts

[Dave Hall]

Missed the damn crayfish question (my S4 LR2 #15) and still don't understand the reasoning. I understand that A is logical within the sense that it means there is still water for the larvae, but it seems counterintuitive that this would help them survive because the only place they would be able to grow is inside the homes of their predators.

I think the big thing to note is that we're told (second sentence) that the larvae can survive only in water.

So, when the other parts of the wetland dry up, 100% of larvae in those dry areas die.

Thus, even if they're predated (this sounds like something tweens do) heavily, if any of them at all survive the predation, then the population is healthier than it would be in all those dried up areas.

Does that help?