PT 51, S1 (LR), Q 17. Best way to answer it? Forum

[flash21]

Hello,

I often have trouble with questions like these, mainly because they are super time consuming not because they are actually difficult (although maybe that is what makes them hard?). Anyway, I was wondering how you guys go about solving questions like this.

For example, do you just keep the conditions in your head? I was thinking about next time encountering something like this, reading the stim and basically referring back to it while looking at the answer choices without trying to memorize them in my head. This sounds like a really time consuming approach though.

I essentially skipped this question in timed but got it pretty easily in blind review.

Any thoughts?

[rbrown0824]

I tend to loathe these types of question as well. They tend to eat major time. When attacking them, I generally just keep the rules in my head then apply them to each answer choice.

[Christine (MLSAT)]

I change my approach depending on how complex the conditionals themselves are. If there are multiple conditionals that link together, for instance (more likely on a parallel reasoning question), I'm much more likely to diagram it out to keep myself sane.

For this particular question, the conditionals are pretty annoying to diagram - there are multiple triggers, the second one is presented as a nested conditional, etc. It's not at all important to really sort that out formally to get through the question, and you could easily get caught in the swamplands trying to decide exactly how it should all be diagrammed. Also, the two conditionals have nothing to do with each other which means I'm far less concerned about getting turned around later on. Not only would I not diagram, I wouldn't get overly caught up in what the formalized diagramming would look like. I'd keep focused instead on the outcome each conditional is targeting, and what elements are in play for each (regardless of whether they are restrictions on the outcome or guarantees of the outcome).

In doing this, I'm accepting from the beginning that my eyes are going to have to pop back up to the conditional to check the elements against it.

So here's how I'd solve this question in real-time:

• 
  Read stimulus, noting that we have two, unconnected conditionals. Draw line separating them. Note that first conditional is about choosing one process over another, considering comparative cost and env. damage. Second conditional is about retooling for a new process, considering cost of retooling, comparative env damage, legal req'ts, long term savings compared to cost of retooling. Reject idea of diagramming annoying conditionals. Reject even formalizing the relationships.
  
  Since the two conditionals are entirely separate, scan quickly to see which outcome each answer targets. (C) and (D) target Process A over B, first conditional. This conditional seems easier than the second to check quickly. Both answers fulfill similar costs, but (D) goes with the worse environmental option. Eliminate (D), and circle (C).
  
  Circle back to (A), (B), (E) for paranoia's sake.
  
  (A) Substantial cost of retooling, check. Reading the second conditional again, notice that we should retool ONLY IF legally req'd OR awesome longterm $$. (A) has only slight longterm $$ and a tax credit law, not a legal requirement. Eliminate.
  (B) No legal requirement AND longterm LOSSES. Eliminate.
  (E) No legal requirement. Middling long term savings. Recheck long term savings from conditional - yep, needed to be AWESOME savings; this isn't good enough. Eliminate.

Whenever I hit a Principle-Example question, the very first thing that I check for is what the final outcome of each answer is. It's amazing how many answers you can often eliminate because they give you an outcome that doesn't match the results of your conditional at all, no matter what the trigger situation is. Here, all answers match one or the other, but grouping them helps keep me focused on one conditional at a time, reducing my chance for error.

[flash21]

Thanks, Christine. I typically will link up the condition statements like this if they lend themselves to be connected (more often see this in parallel flaw).

Great idea to look for the situation and outcome -starting with the easier one. Appreciate that.