I feel like I got to the fact that B is incorrect because the stimulus doesn't tell us anything about the state of what the ocean was like before phosphorous doubled. Is that correct? It seemed like J.Y.'s explanation contradicted my reasoning.
I don't know if it's good to do this, but for POE I tell myself "can we know this from the info provided" and if it's not, I eliminate it. It's been working and I'm meeting the time on most (or fairly close).
A) Yes - the stimulus states and follows this
B) No - fish might have not have been able to survive prior regardless - we don't know
C) No - bacteria could be on the ocean floor because of some source other than agricultural runoff - we don't know
D) No - we don't know how much runoff poured out to double the phosphorous - could be .5x, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x - we don't know
E) No - we know bacteria eating plankton consumes oxygen - we have no idea from the stimulus if that could be a general rule happening elsewhere
I'm treating the stimulus as the entirety of the information we need and if an answer choice mentions something not in the stimulus, it's out.
i'm having a hard time going from growth of plankton to decaying of plankton. i saw it as a contrapositive, so i was trying to map it out oppositely. any help?
I got it right! "A" seemed obvious to me this time. I know that won't always be the case. I chose it because it directly referenced the runoff pollution from rivers and the plankton growth at the ocean's surface. I drew the causal chain before I looked at the answers, and it definitely helped. My area of concern is how do I know what to look at from the causal chain?
Quick question — In E, it says "inversely proportional." Should we interpret this to mean simply that "if one goes up, the other goes down"? For example, what if oxygen changes cause phosphorus to change exponentially? Mathematically, that wouldn’t be considered an inversely proportional
Writing B out to make sure I fully understand, because even with the comparative claim, I feel I wouldve still put it as wrong:
"Before phosphorus levels doubled in the ocean region, most fish were able to survive in that region."
'Most fish' is wrong because, its trying to tell us a number. What if only a few more fish survive, but the area is still not a great place for fish to survive?
'More fish' is not trying to give us a number, but it would break the chain we have set up for conditional logic.
"Before phosphorus level doubled" = Before we had this conditional chain that lead to few fish surviving.
If we break the chain, or the chain had not yet existed, we can safely say more fish would have survived, because the phosphorus was not yet effecting their habitability.
having 'More' instead of 'Most' would have made that chain correct. Not more correct than A, because this is an MBT question, but if A wasn't there, B with the word 'More' would have been the correct answer.
#help I don't get JY's explanation for why B is wrong. i feel like B: "Before phosphorus levels doubled in the ocean region, most fish were able to survive in that region." would be wrong even if it said 'more' fish instead of 'most' fish.
Because we simply can't make any inferences about before phosphorus levels doubled. The contrapositive of the conditional chain would be / few fish survive --> / oxygen loss --> /bacteria buffet --> /decaying plankton (floor) --> growth plankton (surface ) -->/2x Phos --> /Agricultural RO
So we still don't know what happens when 'before phosphorous levels doubled'. I guess the only thing we could say is that there would be no agricultural run off because if there's no 2x phos, then there's no agricultural run off, but we definitely can't say that before phosphorous levels doubled, more fish would be able to survive. Maybe there was never any fish to begin because a fish-eating bacteria killed them all.
So isn't jy wrong when he says this:
"What’s true of that time? If we follow our chain of consequences, we can say for certain that before the phosphorus doubled, less plankton growth, less decaying plankton, less bacteria buffet, less oxygen loss, and ultimately more fish survived vs. the present."
Speaking from a more "lawgic-oriented" perspective, I said that C is wrong because it confuses necessity for sufficiency (oldest mistake in the book as he always says) - based on the stimulus we can only that if there is no bacteria eating plankton that guarantees that there is no agricultural runoff (contrapositive of what is said in stimulus: /agricultural runoff → /bacteria) but not having agricultural runoff does not ensure that there will not be any bacteria to devour plankton
Wouldn't B also be wrong because we have no way of knowing from the stimulus what occurred before the past few decades? Like there could have been some even greater ecological issue?
I'm asking because that's the reason I eliminated it, and now I want to make sure I didn't do the right thing for the wrong reasons :)
I get all the drill questions right but when the time comes to do a practice test, I end up falling short of my goals by a lot. I think it's because these drills are one at a time and the tests are 25 or so at once and I get fatigued.
I think E is also wrong because the stimulus doesn't tell us how much/the amount of oxygen in the body of water discussed in the ocean was left after phosphorous doubled. There is no numerical figure referring to the amount oxygen in the water. From what I read online, "inversely proportional," more specifically means two things that move in opposite directions each by the same amount. So we can't infer that oxygen is depleted to levels 2X less than it was before after phosphorous doubled. ~
I am very confused on what exactly our job is with MBT questions. I know with PAI it's to identify where the gap is, MSS it's to find what would be the conclusion in one of the answer choices, MC it's to find the conclusion that's stated in the stimulus, but what do we do for MBT?
Reminder that we are allowed scratch paper and pencil during the multiple choice part of the exam! I've found that answering these questions by writing on paper rather than using the highlights in the drills has helped me and more closely simulates the exam. Recommend trying it out :)
12
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
87 comments
I feel like I got to the fact that B is incorrect because the stimulus doesn't tell us anything about the state of what the ocean was like before phosphorous doubled. Is that correct? It seemed like J.Y.'s explanation contradicted my reasoning.
This was an easy one for my #realenvironmentalsciencegeezers #environmentallaw #unemployablewithoutaJD
I don't know if it's good to do this, but for POE I tell myself "can we know this from the info provided" and if it's not, I eliminate it. It's been working and I'm meeting the time on most (or fairly close).
A) Yes - the stimulus states and follows this
B) No - fish might have not have been able to survive prior regardless - we don't know
C) No - bacteria could be on the ocean floor because of some source other than agricultural runoff - we don't know
D) No - we don't know how much runoff poured out to double the phosphorous - could be .5x, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x - we don't know
E) No - we know bacteria eating plankton consumes oxygen - we have no idea from the stimulus if that could be a general rule happening elsewhere
I'm treating the stimulus as the entirety of the information we need and if an answer choice mentions something not in the stimulus, it's out.
i'm having a hard time going from growth of plankton to decaying of plankton. i saw it as a contrapositive, so i was trying to map it out oppositely. any help?
Does anyone else get it where their computer glitches and it doesn't allow them to scroll up or choose an AC?
Anyone else having a hard time mapping this out mentally? I notice I get the right answers, but I'm still 20 seconds over target time.
I got it right! "A" seemed obvious to me this time. I know that won't always be the case. I chose it because it directly referenced the runoff pollution from rivers and the plankton growth at the ocean's surface. I drew the causal chain before I looked at the answers, and it definitely helped. My area of concern is how do I know what to look at from the causal chain?
Quick question — In E, it says "inversely proportional." Should we interpret this to mean simply that "if one goes up, the other goes down"? For example, what if oxygen changes cause phosphorus to change exponentially? Mathematically, that wouldn’t be considered an inversely proportional
maybe this is a dumb question, but- is there anyway to BR these questions? still figuring out this new site.
Writing B out to make sure I fully understand, because even with the comparative claim, I feel I wouldve still put it as wrong:
"Before phosphorus levels doubled in the ocean region, most fish were able to survive in that region."
'Most fish' is wrong because, its trying to tell us a number. What if only a few more fish survive, but the area is still not a great place for fish to survive?
'More fish' is not trying to give us a number, but it would break the chain we have set up for conditional logic.
"Before phosphorus level doubled" = Before we had this conditional chain that lead to few fish surviving.
If we break the chain, or the chain had not yet existed, we can safely say more fish would have survived, because the phosphorus was not yet effecting their habitability.
having 'More' instead of 'Most' would have made that chain correct. Not more correct than A, because this is an MBT question, but if A wasn't there, B with the word 'More' would have been the correct answer.
"alas, all things that live must one day die."
JY with his inner Shakespeare.
"Big fish, small fish"... red fish blue fish.
JY with his inner Dr Seuss.
A man of many letters indeed.
#help I don't get JY's explanation for why B is wrong. i feel like B: "Before phosphorus levels doubled in the ocean region, most fish were able to survive in that region." would be wrong even if it said 'more' fish instead of 'most' fish.
Because we simply can't make any inferences about before phosphorus levels doubled. The contrapositive of the conditional chain would be / few fish survive --> / oxygen loss --> /bacteria buffet --> /decaying plankton (floor) --> growth plankton (surface ) -->/2x Phos --> /Agricultural RO
So we still don't know what happens when 'before phosphorous levels doubled'. I guess the only thing we could say is that there would be no agricultural run off because if there's no 2x phos, then there's no agricultural run off, but we definitely can't say that before phosphorous levels doubled, more fish would be able to survive. Maybe there was never any fish to begin because a fish-eating bacteria killed them all.
So isn't jy wrong when he says this:
"What’s true of that time? If we follow our chain of consequences, we can say for certain that before the phosphorus doubled, less plankton growth, less decaying plankton, less bacteria buffet, less oxygen loss, and ultimately more fish survived vs. the present."
Speaking from a more "lawgic-oriented" perspective, I said that C is wrong because it confuses necessity for sufficiency (oldest mistake in the book as he always says) - based on the stimulus we can only that if there is no bacteria eating plankton that guarantees that there is no agricultural runoff (contrapositive of what is said in stimulus: /agricultural runoff → /bacteria) but not having agricultural runoff does not ensure that there will not be any bacteria to devour plankton
i am finally getting must be true feels so good!
This is a funny question to me bc I wrote a paper on this exact topic and came up with the same conclusion LOL. Felt like I cheated on this question
Wouldn't B also be wrong because we have no way of knowing from the stimulus what occurred before the past few decades? Like there could have been some even greater ecological issue?
I'm asking because that's the reason I eliminated it, and now I want to make sure I didn't do the right thing for the wrong reasons :)
I get all the drill questions right but when the time comes to do a practice test, I end up falling short of my goals by a lot. I think it's because these drills are one at a time and the tests are 25 or so at once and I get fatigued.
I got this right by rejecting the implication that growth of plankton had anything to do with decaying plankton. Like I had:
AgRun--> 2xPL--> growth at surface
SEPARATE from the long chain:
decaying plankton--> floor--> bacteria eat--> consumes oxygen --> depletion --> fish die
Is this wrong to do?
I think E is also wrong because the stimulus doesn't tell us how much/the amount of oxygen in the body of water discussed in the ocean was left after phosphorous doubled. There is no numerical figure referring to the amount oxygen in the water. From what I read online, "inversely proportional," more specifically means two things that move in opposite directions each by the same amount. So we can't infer that oxygen is depleted to levels 2X less than it was before after phosphorous doubled. ~
NO.
The question asks for an INFERENCE.
Answer A is literally stated in the stimulus., and is therefore NOT AN INFERENCE, and is therefore WRONG.
Finally getting the trick of this :)
Got this one right. Let go we've got this! =)
Found this one to be easy 💪🏽(gets the next 2 wrong)
I am very confused on what exactly our job is with MBT questions. I know with PAI it's to identify where the gap is, MSS it's to find what would be the conclusion in one of the answer choices, MC it's to find the conclusion that's stated in the stimulus, but what do we do for MBT?
Reminder that we are allowed scratch paper and pencil during the multiple choice part of the exam! I've found that answering these questions by writing on paper rather than using the highlights in the drills has helped me and more closely simulates the exam. Recommend trying it out :)