I didn't choose E because I thought it undermined the premise in the stimulus, just as I thought (B) was undermining Azedcorp's steadfast refusal to sell. :/
(D) felt like the right choice because I assumed Morris could buy more shares off others other than Azedcorp but I guess that was too much of a stretch
This question makes no sense. If E is correct and says the company is heading for bankruptcy and will be forced to sell why would it "steadfastly refuse" to sell. If they were going under wouldn't they want to sell in the first place
#feedback why was the blind review portion removed from these drills from the OG version? I feel like I take more time during these drills anyway, but just feel like it gives me an extra moment to decide whether my answer is correct or not.
Why could it not be that while Azedcorp owns a majority of shares that the total percentage owned is still under 50%? What if Azedcorp owns 40%, Morris owns 39% and Bob owns 21%? This makes Azedcorp the current majority owner. But then if Morris buys Bob's shares she will own 60% becoming the majority owner. Why was it assumed that to be a the majority holder you had to currently own more than 50%?
Is it correct that for a lot of these weaken/strengthen questions we can find an alternative hypothesis (like in RRE)? I find that in a lot of these I just looked for an alternative hypothesis/something that would disprove for the weaken questions. However is this the correct approach?
B still feels like the better answer. In E, just because they most likely will be forced to sell doesn't mean those shares are going to Morris. If a company is going bankrupt, then it should be fair to assume it will sell to anyone who wants the shares because they are going under. You know, "whatever just take them I'm done."
But B is saying Morris is directly offering Azedcorp more money than what they paid. A corporation is a corporation, it wants to make a profit no matter how small, and here they get more than what they paid. So if they accept the deal, those shares go directly to Morris, which in turn makes her majority owner. Why is B not correct????
Couldn't B also be wrong because it says that Morris is paying much more than they paid for, but couldn't their shares be valued higher than what they initially paid for them?
I had originally chosen B, but this reason above is what made me wonder if it was the right answer.
Also, does E make a good reasoning basis that "AC with predictions is okay if it is supporting a prediction"? The "will probably soon" language is why I didn't choose it to begin with because it seemed weak.
What is a "majority" exactly: does it mean you own the largest piece of the pie or does it mean you own a larger piece than everyone else? There's a difference. You could have comparatively more shares than everyone else, but if everyone else's shares were combined under one person, that person would suddenly have the most shares.
I chose D. My thinking behind that was that if Azedcorp owns 30% Carol owns 29% and the other for 40% is split between Rob and Sally. Wouldn't Azedcorp still own a majority of the shares and maybe Carol could by half of Rob's shares.
Why is it okay to assume that for E, even if Azedcorp is forced to sell, they WILL sell to Morris? What is the boundary of assumptions made, especially if B is wrong for arguable assumptions as well?
I was between B. and E. but I could not being myself to choose E. because I thought E. was baiting me to make an assumption. E says, "Azedcorp is financially so weak that bankruptcy will probably soon force the sale of its newspaper holdings."
I was trying to be aware of sets/the size of sets, so I thought E. was baiting me to assume that if Azedcorps were to sell its newspaper holdings due to bankrupcy, it would necessarily sell its The Daily holdings. I was trying to be aware that Azedcorp could have many other newspaper holdings, and the sale of its newspaper holdings =/= the sale of all of its newspaper holdings =/= the sale of The Daily. So I thought E. was trying to bait me into making some unreasonable assumptions, but I guess I overthought and ended up being unreasonable about what is unreasonable?
To make E. work, you have to assume that bankruptcy will force Azedcorp to sell The Daily. To make B. work, you have to assume that Morris paying more will make Azedcorp sell. However, we don't know what other holdings Azedcorp has (and therefore what else it can sell to get out of bankruptcy without selling The Daily) and we also don't know why Azedcorps refuses to sell to Morris (i.e. we don't know if it is because Morris' previous offers were too low).
How do you pick between which of these two assumptions is more reasonable?
I am thinking between B and E. I think E denies the premise. Isn't it? Most right choice does not deny the premise. isn't it??? Am I wrong again??? so sad :(
Make sure the AC directly addressing the stimulus and avoiding being influenced by your own assumptions.
4
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.
80 comments
E seemed too obvious that I was scared to pick it because I thought it was a bait and I'm tired of being a dumb, smelly fish.
I spent 5 mins on this question & was so proud to get it right and then I saw it was difficulty level 2...
I didn't choose E because I thought it undermined the premise in the stimulus, just as I thought (B) was undermining Azedcorp's steadfast refusal to sell. :/
(D) felt like the right choice because I assumed Morris could buy more shares off others other than Azedcorp but I guess that was too much of a stretch
This question makes no sense. If E is correct and says the company is heading for bankruptcy and will be forced to sell why would it "steadfastly refuse" to sell. If they were going under wouldn't they want to sell in the first place
#feedback why was the blind review portion removed from these drills from the OG version? I feel like I take more time during these drills anyway, but just feel like it gives me an extra moment to decide whether my answer is correct or not.
#help
Why could it not be that while Azedcorp owns a majority of shares that the total percentage owned is still under 50%? What if Azedcorp owns 40%, Morris owns 39% and Bob owns 21%? This makes Azedcorp the current majority owner. But then if Morris buys Bob's shares she will own 60% becoming the majority owner. Why was it assumed that to be a the majority holder you had to currently own more than 50%?
Is it correct that for a lot of these weaken/strengthen questions we can find an alternative hypothesis (like in RRE)? I find that in a lot of these I just looked for an alternative hypothesis/something that would disprove for the weaken questions. However is this the correct approach?
Ever since we switched to the assumption framework, this has been the most frustrating module.
I've only gotten one of these questions correct. Feeling stuck.
How is E stronger than B? How could we know which is more likely to work?
I was so confident about B...
B still feels like the better answer. In E, just because they most likely will be forced to sell doesn't mean those shares are going to Morris. If a company is going bankrupt, then it should be fair to assume it will sell to anyone who wants the shares because they are going under. You know, "whatever just take them I'm done."
But B is saying Morris is directly offering Azedcorp more money than what they paid. A corporation is a corporation, it wants to make a profit no matter how small, and here they get more than what they paid. So if they accept the deal, those shares go directly to Morris, which in turn makes her majority owner. Why is B not correct????
Couldn't B also be wrong because it says that Morris is paying much more than they paid for, but couldn't their shares be valued higher than what they initially paid for them?
I had originally chosen B, but this reason above is what made me wonder if it was the right answer.
Also, does E make a good reasoning basis that "AC with predictions is okay if it is supporting a prediction"? The "will probably soon" language is why I didn't choose it to begin with because it seemed weak.
This one is very frustrating. How is E correct if it says "probably"? That doesn't mean they are guaranteed to sell or even sell to Carol.
What is a "majority" exactly: does it mean you own the largest piece of the pie or does it mean you own a larger piece than everyone else? There's a difference. You could have comparatively more shares than everyone else, but if everyone else's shares were combined under one person, that person would suddenly have the most shares.
I chose D. My thinking behind that was that if Azedcorp owns 30% Carol owns 29% and the other for 40% is split between Rob and Sally. Wouldn't Azedcorp still own a majority of the shares and maybe Carol could by half of Rob's shares.
Why is it okay to assume that for E, even if Azedcorp is forced to sell, they WILL sell to Morris? What is the boundary of assumptions made, especially if B is wrong for arguable assumptions as well?
I was between B. and E. but I could not being myself to choose E. because I thought E. was baiting me to make an assumption. E says, "Azedcorp is financially so weak that bankruptcy will probably soon force the sale of its newspaper holdings."
I was trying to be aware of sets/the size of sets, so I thought E. was baiting me to assume that if Azedcorps were to sell its newspaper holdings due to bankrupcy, it would necessarily sell its The Daily holdings. I was trying to be aware that Azedcorp could have many other newspaper holdings, and the sale of its newspaper holdings =/= the sale of all of its newspaper holdings =/= the sale of The Daily. So I thought E. was trying to bait me into making some unreasonable assumptions, but I guess I overthought and ended up being unreasonable about what is unreasonable?
To make E. work, you have to assume that bankruptcy will force Azedcorp to sell The Daily. To make B. work, you have to assume that Morris paying more will make Azedcorp sell. However, we don't know what other holdings Azedcorp has (and therefore what else it can sell to get out of bankruptcy without selling The Daily) and we also don't know why Azedcorps refuses to sell to Morris (i.e. we don't know if it is because Morris' previous offers were too low).
How do you pick between which of these two assumptions is more reasonable?
#help
LOCK ME IN 2/5 DIFFICULTY!!!
¯(ᵕ—ᴗ—)/¯
I selected E, but thought it was wayyyy to obvious of an answer. LSAT writers are in my head!
I am thinking between B and E. I think E denies the premise. Isn't it? Most right choice does not deny the premise. isn't it??? Am I wrong again??? so sad :(
I feel like I absolutely crush the majority of 3 stars or left. 4+ I am lucky to get 40% correct.
I literally sat on the right answer for so long cause I was like...mmm this makes too much sense to me rn.
I still think that just because the company is selling its shares doesn't mean that Morris will get them.
This is a W, team
I GOT THIS ONE RIGHT!
Make sure the AC directly addressing the stimulus and avoiding being influenced by your own assumptions.