Deleted Post Forum
-
PJam1989
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 8:39 pm
Deleted Post
Deleted Post
Last edited by PJam1989 on Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
TylerJonesMPLS
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:20 pm
Re: Help With 3 LR Questions On PT # 51
These are hard questions. I hope this helps.
LSAT PT 51.1.16
First, simplify the Conclusion by eliminating the term “misguided.”
The Conclusion becomes:
There are certain things that are sometimes not MB in an individual. (From the first sentence.)
Premise 1: Certain things are not always UtC of an individual. (From the second half of the second sentence.)
Premise 2: Things not UtC of an individual are things that the individual is not R for. (Contrapositive of 1st half of 2nd sentence)
Premise 3 we don’t yet have. Our job is to find an answer choice for Premise 3 that connects Premise 2 to the Conclusion. The contrapositive of answer choice (B) does this. So the whole argument becomes:
Premise 1. Some things are ~UtC.
Premise 2. ~UtC > ~R (Contrapositive of R > UtC).
Premise 3. ~R > ~MB (Contrapositive of (B)).
Conclusion. Some things are (sometimes) ~MB.
Your choice, answer choice (D), is a contender because it links two key terms from the argument. But this is a trick. The LSAC hopes that students will read too quickly to notice that, while (D) does supply a link between key terms, it does not supply the required link, namely the link between ~R and ~MB. None of the other answer choices are contenders.
LSAT PT 51.1.21
Answer choice (D) is correct because what (D) says can happen, does in fact happen, in the summer, as the first two sentences state. Strong visual interest is not necessary for this to happen in the summer. It is only in the colder months that strong visual interest and a second criterion are required for the effect to remain strong, as the third sentences states. (D) is correct, but the way (D) is stated is a trick. The LSAC wants students to think that (D) is referring to the colder months, because it mentions one of the requirements for the effect to remain strong in the colder months. So it looks as if (D) cannot be the correct answer choice. But (D) is the correct answer choice, because even without strong visual interest, (D) is true, because (D) it is true in the summer. Your choice, (B), is definitely a contender, but again, the language of (B) is a deliberate trick. The stimulus says that the effect remains strong in *colder months*… (B) says in *cold weather*… The LSAC hopes that students will assume that cold weather is the same as colder months, but since cold weather can happen sometimes even in the summer, they are not the same. If (B) had said “colder months” instead of “cold weather,” (B) would have been true and a correct answer choice.
LSAT PT 51.1.22
The first two sentences say that people were advised not to consume anch. last summer because anch. had harmful amounts of d.a. The third sentence appears to change the subject and says that the numbers of P. a. are now normal and much lower than they were. The rest of sentence three says that people can now consume anch. again.
So our job is to choose the answer choice that best explains this. The explanation must include the big drop in the numbers of P.a. Answer choices (A) and (C) don’t mention the big drop in numbers so they are not contenders and can be eliminated. We are left with (B), (D) and (E) as contenders. Your choice, (E) doesn’t explain why we can now consume anch. but could not last summer. (D) doesn’t explain this either, and also is wrong because it mentions a drop in the anch. population that is not mentioned in the stimulus. That leaves (B) as the only remaining contender. (B) is the correct answer choice because (B) does explain why we can now consume anch. and (B) includes in its explanation the drop in the numbers of P. a.
LSAT PT 51.1.16
First, simplify the Conclusion by eliminating the term “misguided.”
The Conclusion becomes:
There are certain things that are sometimes not MB in an individual. (From the first sentence.)
Premise 1: Certain things are not always UtC of an individual. (From the second half of the second sentence.)
Premise 2: Things not UtC of an individual are things that the individual is not R for. (Contrapositive of 1st half of 2nd sentence)
Premise 3 we don’t yet have. Our job is to find an answer choice for Premise 3 that connects Premise 2 to the Conclusion. The contrapositive of answer choice (B) does this. So the whole argument becomes:
Premise 1. Some things are ~UtC.
Premise 2. ~UtC > ~R (Contrapositive of R > UtC).
Premise 3. ~R > ~MB (Contrapositive of (B)).
Conclusion. Some things are (sometimes) ~MB.
Your choice, answer choice (D), is a contender because it links two key terms from the argument. But this is a trick. The LSAC hopes that students will read too quickly to notice that, while (D) does supply a link between key terms, it does not supply the required link, namely the link between ~R and ~MB. None of the other answer choices are contenders.
LSAT PT 51.1.21
Answer choice (D) is correct because what (D) says can happen, does in fact happen, in the summer, as the first two sentences state. Strong visual interest is not necessary for this to happen in the summer. It is only in the colder months that strong visual interest and a second criterion are required for the effect to remain strong, as the third sentences states. (D) is correct, but the way (D) is stated is a trick. The LSAC wants students to think that (D) is referring to the colder months, because it mentions one of the requirements for the effect to remain strong in the colder months. So it looks as if (D) cannot be the correct answer choice. But (D) is the correct answer choice, because even without strong visual interest, (D) is true, because (D) it is true in the summer. Your choice, (B), is definitely a contender, but again, the language of (B) is a deliberate trick. The stimulus says that the effect remains strong in *colder months*… (B) says in *cold weather*… The LSAC hopes that students will assume that cold weather is the same as colder months, but since cold weather can happen sometimes even in the summer, they are not the same. If (B) had said “colder months” instead of “cold weather,” (B) would have been true and a correct answer choice.
LSAT PT 51.1.22
The first two sentences say that people were advised not to consume anch. last summer because anch. had harmful amounts of d.a. The third sentence appears to change the subject and says that the numbers of P. a. are now normal and much lower than they were. The rest of sentence three says that people can now consume anch. again.
So our job is to choose the answer choice that best explains this. The explanation must include the big drop in the numbers of P.a. Answer choices (A) and (C) don’t mention the big drop in numbers so they are not contenders and can be eliminated. We are left with (B), (D) and (E) as contenders. Your choice, (E) doesn’t explain why we can now consume anch. but could not last summer. (D) doesn’t explain this either, and also is wrong because it mentions a drop in the anch. population that is not mentioned in the stimulus. That leaves (B) as the only remaining contender. (B) is the correct answer choice because (B) does explain why we can now consume anch. and (B) includes in its explanation the drop in the numbers of P. a.
