PT 32, Section 1, #23 Forum

[barrydukakis]

I have some serious issues with double negations apparently.

I cannot even see how to un-negate this one and make the CR true. Anyone?

Are double negations in the LR bible, and would someone care to point me in the right direction in that regard?

[barrydukakis]

man. I somehow was reading 'compromises' from comprises... no wonder I was having issues. Wow.

[bakemono]

hey, i once read facilities as fatalities. the stimulus had like 4 fatalities, then answer choice D said facilities. Literally misread it 5 times in a row... crazy.

[doinmybest]

hey, i once read facilities as fatalities. the stimulus had like 4 fatalities, then answer choice D said facilities. Literally misread it 5 times in a row... crazy.

AHH I did that too on the exact same question!! I think it was a mid 30s PT. It was about Australian Emergency rooms or something. I started at that q for like 15 minutes during my review.

[jlnoa0915]

Was between A and D on that one, A seemed like the conclusion so went with D and got it right. None of the other answers seemed to be contenders, didn't do negation or any of that.

[ballents]

I know it's been a while but does anyone care to explain this? I was in the same situation as op, but i chose a.

[LSAT Blog]

Doesn't matter how old it is if it's still relevant to you

The problem with A is that the conclusion of the stimulus is about a political party's policy. The stimulus does not discuss the actions of specific legislators (which choice A does).

The credited response, in other words, would be something like the following:

"If you're a political party, and you believe something is a good goal, it would be inconsistent of your policy (in English, "of you") to believe that this good goal shouldn't be pursued."

[ballents]

Thanks a lot. I had been staring at that problem for far too long without seeing anything new, and the double negation was throwing me off.