LSAT Prep Test 28 (June 1999) - S2 - Logic Game 3

As explained in the video, there are so many probabilities on where to put the entities that attempting to make all of the inferences at the beginning becomes an hindrance because too much time is taken up.

I am getting a lot better at games because I attempt to make as many inferences as possible at the beginning.

My question is, what should I look for when a game is designed, such as LSAT Prep Test 28 (June 1999) - S2 - Logic Game 3, to make a person waste a lot of time making inferences?

Skipping making inferences/ not splitting up boards seems to be very dangerous!

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*Premise(s):* There are several unsuccessful immature works by Renoir and Cezanne that should be sold because they are inferior quality and add nothing to the overall quality of the museum’s collection.

*Conclusion:* The board’s action (to sell some works from its collection in order to raise the funds necessary to refurbish its galleries) will not detract form the quality of the museum’s collection.

*What I am looking for:* The benefit of keeping the unsuccessful immature works?

*Answer A:* No. This is attacking the premise, so I am skeptical. This answer talks about directors of art museums in general, and how they can raise funds through other ways. The Federici Art Museum may have its own reason why it cannot do that, we don’t know. This answer would have been right if it said Federici Art Museum can raise funds through other ways, but it talks about directors of art museums in general.

*Answer B:* Yes, quality is subjective, so selling these art pieces may detract form the quality of the museum’s collection.

*Answer C:* No. This is just a history lesson on the art pieces. This extra information does nothing to the argument.

*Answer D:* No. This is other information that is irrelevant to the argument. The issue at hand is not whether or not inflation happens.

*Answer E:* No. Yet again, this is information we don’t need. This answer is talking about what the artist demands in the art market.

So for questions where they ask you to refer to a given statement in the question stem, are we looking for a subtle answer that's not too specific in general?

I didn't like any of the answer choices, but I comfortably eliminated D. I still fail to see how D is even remotely parallel to the stimulus. Additionally, what makes A incorrect? Isn't the general point of the argument that you shouldn't do things too quickly? Doesn't A do this? How does the reasoning in D capture this idea?

I've looked at a several games in this type. Are there common inferences that we usually see in this set of categorized game? Most seem like rule driven games for the most part

The first section of the PT59's logical reasoning is quite killing me.

Anyway, I was stuck between B and C and then chose C. But the answer is A.

I thought B or C can block another possibility which can weaken the argument and enhance the argument that nutritious breakfasts can the only reason to increase productivity of Plant A.

So I still have no idea why B or C can't be an answer and why A is correct.

Can someone explain me A, B and C?

Thanks in advance!

As far as I remember about conditional reasoning, if:

1. A-> B

2. C-> ~A

I can combine 1 and 2 (~B-> ~A: Contrapositive #1 and C-> ~A) and turn out C-> ~B.

So the diagram about the stimulus I thought was:

1: B-> A

2: L-> ~B

So contrapositive #1: ~A-> ~B

And I combined 1+2 and turned out L-> ~A, so that's why I chose E, but the answer is C.

So I have no idea why E is wrong. Am I missing something?

And why is C an answer?

Please someone explain me.

Thanks!

I processed POE, chose B and know why it is an answer, but I can't entirely understand why E is wrong. E kept bugging me.

If more people choose cheddar cheese more than ice cream just as the stimulus said and which means people choose cheese over ice cream, can E be an answer too?

Why can't E be an answer?

Please someone enlighten me.

Thanks!

Hi Everyone! This is my first time writing in the forums. I am totally struggling with understanding Law passages in Reading Comprehension and I'm not sure what to do. I am taking the October LSAT and I am trying to clean up some of the areas that are hard for me. Any suggestions?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-2-question-14/

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Strengthen

*Paraphrased question:*

Kim:

During eighteenth century, northern Europe had a change of attitude on expression both in adoption of less solemn and elaborate death rites by the pop. at large and in a more optimistic view of the human condition as articulated by philosophers. This change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century.

Lee:

Your explanation that “this change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century,” could not be correct unless the ppl of the time were aware their life expectancy had increased.

*What I am looking for:* Something to prove strengthen the relationship between “change of attitude on expression both in adoption of less solemn and elaborate death rites” and “this change being because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century.”

*Answer A:* Yes, this strengthens Kim’s arguments because it directly addresses a relationship between “increase in life expectancy in a population,” “rise to economic changes,” and “influence on people’s attitudes.” I circled this one, but reviewed the other ones just incase.

*Answer B:* No, but this is tricky for me because it gave an explanation of why ppl’s attitudes toward life change in response to information about their life expectancy. This answer seems to strengthen Lee’s argument rather than Kim’s because Lee argues “change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century,” could not be correct unless the ppl of the time were aware their life expectancy had increased. That is what Answer B is saying.

*Answer C:* No, this has nothing to do with Kim’s argument. Philosophers making conjectures that did not affect the ideas of the population does not strengthen or even do anything to Kim’s conclusion.

*Answer D:* No, but thanks for information. This weakens Lee’s argument, but does not strengthen Kim’s.

*Answer E:* No. We are talking about strengthening Kim’s idea that “change is because of a result of dramatic increase in life expectancy that occurred in northern Europe early in the eighteenth century.” The influence of religious teaching vs demographic phenomena on attitudes of Northern Europeans is broad and does not focus on Kim’s conclusion.

I didn't mark this for BR, so I was pretty surprised I missed it. I still don't see how E doesn't strengthen the argument. Here is my breakdown:

Public health dudes have waged a long term education campaign to get people to eat their vegetables. The campaign isn't working since people haven't changed their diet. This is probably due to the fact that vegetables taste terrible. Thus, the campaign would be more successful if included ways to make vegetables more appetizing.

What I am looking for: We want to strengthen the argument. The argument is pretty prescriptive, so any evidence that making vegetables appetizing would lead to people eating more vegetables would strengthen the argument.

Answer A: Who cares about the people who already love vegetables? This isn't the group the conclusion is concerning itself with.

Answer B: This would weaken the argument I think since making the vegetables appetizing would defeat a purpose of the campaign.

Answer C: I think this weakens the argument as well since it suggests that making the vegetables appetizing wouldn't do anything.

Answer D: This is apparently the correct answer, but I take issue with the word "how." The conclusion/prescription isn't talking about the PEOPLE making the vegetables more appetizing, but the CAMPAIGN making the vegetables appear more appetizing. I don't see how this shift allows you to conclude that this is the correct answer.

Answer E: I just don't see what is wrong with this one. If the only way to make the campaign more effective is to ensure that ALL people (which would encompass the people in line 5-6 since it is a "many"/some statement) who dislike the taste of certain vegetables learns to find those vegetables appealing, then wouldn't this hugely strengthen the prescription? This to me is an obvious answer choice.

I think I am making this one way harder than it needs to be, but I have been spinning my wheels for a half hour on this one. I don't understand how B weakens the argument? The conclusion only states that "it is clear why humans have some diseases in common with cats." So what if B is true? What about the some diseases that humans have in common with cats that do have a genetic basis? B to me is completely consistent with the argument. The argument isn't concluding that ALL diseases or MOST of the diseases are common. I have watched the video on this one 2-3 times, and I am still dumbfounded how B even slightly weakens the argument.

Hi all!

I'm registered for the December LSAT but im thinking of pushing it back to February. Any thoughts on applying and then just sending in my February score. Most schools that i'm looking into have March/April deadlines. So I'm not sure if i'll still be ok.

I took a year off, and I just really don't want to take another one.

Thanks!

I chose D but the answer is E. I still don't understand why D is wrong.

If the bear population in areas of the Abbimac Valley outside the Kiffer Forest Preserve has decreased, I think it can weaken the conclusion.

So Why can't D be an answer? And why is E right?

What's the difference between them?

Please someone explain me.

Thanks!

I got this question correct by POE since B-E were totally irrelevant. However, during BR, I am having a very hard time explicitly justifying why A is correct. How does this strengthen the idea that Homer was not translated into Arabic? Doesn't it sort of suggest the opposite since the translators had possession of the epics? I know that I am assuming too much when I say that it suggests that the translators actually translated the epics, but wouldn't this be a more reasonable assumption than assuming that they either consciously didn't translate them? or they just left them on their shelves forgotten?

I picked E but the answer is C. And I still don't understand why E is wrong.

I think E also can weaken the conclusion since it says "The physical effort~~~~does not stimulate circulation enough to warm your hands."

So Why can't E be an answer? And why is C right?

What's the difference between them?

Please someone explain me.

Thanks!

Hey! So I think I'm confusing myself but the game states: Telemarketing will not be given until both Goals and Objections have been given.

then the next rule:

Negotiating will not be given until Persuasion has been given.

I thought I could make both Telemarketing and Negotiating the sufficient, negate them, then make the others the necessary...Why is that not the case?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Hello,

I do not know of anyone else taking the lsat so i am just posting my concerns here ;)

I took my 1st lsat on Feb of last year got a 141. (hardly studied, and was full time study and work)...i retook the next lsat in June and got a 149 with almost 2 months of studying. English is not my 1st language and its very hard for me to sometime understand the sayings or tone in the lsat. Since my immigration status does not allow me to have private or federal loans in this country I need at least more than 160 to get some money for law school. I live in South Florida with T4/5 law schools that will freely give money. The tier of school is not an issue for me.

Im planning to take the lsat in june of 2016. I have been trying to get back to it since august. I am working on LR since its my hardest section but cannot get out of 15-17 right in timed sections . I need at least 20 or more right. I have gone trough the whole curriculum and seems that I am getting most MBT/SA/NA mid to hard questions right but then the easy or mid main conclusion or weakening questions I sometimes get wrong..with stupid mistakes. When I do the blind review I usually get the right answer but I keep making the same mistakes. I go over everything and the lessons but still same mistakes. I do not know if its my concentration or i need more timed practice. Can you guys advice on what techniques to use for these 8 months leading to the test and to get out of the 15-17 range? Thank you ;)

I have the hardest time with these questions. It's like I can't find the relevant paragraph because the statement/statements is so subtle under time constraints that they are easy to miss. By nature I tend to overthink everything which doesn't help. Does anyone have any advice on these questions?

Hey guys I just started started studying for the LSAT and I've watched some 7Sage videos for LR and I've noticed that J.Y usually reads the question before the stimulus and I was just wondering whether or not if that was recommended for test takers or if that is just a technique he uses for the videos. Thank you.

This is another one that just baffles me. I don't understand how D is a necessary assumption. I also don't really understand how C is not correct. Here was my breakdown:

Country X should institute a nationwide system of air/ground transportation for getting seriously hurt people to trauma centers (this is the MP). Why should they do this? Quick access to the medical care that only these specialized centers can provide can save lives (this seems like a pretty good reason). The earnings of these people would increase country X's GNP. Also, the taxes on these earnings would increase government revenues.

What I am looking for: The argument is assuming that the reasons why country X should put in the system are good reasons. Additionally, the argument is assuming that the new air/ground system wouldn't cost the government more than the increase in tax revenue from the earnings of the saved people.

Answer A: Why do we need to assume that per-capita income is the same? Sure, this would strengthen the argument (I think), but it isn't necessary.

Answer B: This also isn't necessary. In fact, I think the argument weakly implies that specialized trauma centers already exist in country X. If they didn't, where would the air/ground systems link to?

Answer C: After typing this out, I think I get why this one is wrong. This answer choice doesn't paraphrase one of the things I was looking for very well at all. We don't need to assume that the trauma centers are more costly, but that the air/ground system is. Also, this answer choice isn't even talking about costs to the government, so you would have to assume that is, which we can't do.

Answer D: This is the correct answer, but whaaa? I looked up the GNP formula (it's been a while since Econ101), but it is consumption+Gov Exp+Investments+Exports+Foreign Production by domestic companies-Domestic Production by foreign companies. Why must there be a net increase in employment? Even if this answer choice wasn't referencing the GNP formula (which I don't really think this answer was since the passage would have probably defined GNP if it were relevant), I still don't see how net employment MUST increase. What if the surviving people just kept their same job/didn't get fired/didn't leave because of the injury? Couldn't net employment stay the same? For this answer to even possibly work, don't you have to make the dubious assumption that the earnings of the surviving people increase net employment? Huh?

Answer E: Automobile accidents? Way to specific for a NA

I don't understand how A is better than D. Isn't the conclusion in the passage stating that the belief is incorrect? Doesn't D mirror this? A's conclusion isn't parallel since it states that the actual thing (unicorns) don't exist. Shouldn't it say that the belief in unicorns is false?

PT 52 is the first PT with comparative passages (I think), and although I didn't think the one in 52 was that bad, I still somewhat struggled keeping the two passages straight in my mind. What are your strategies for attacking comparative passages? Do you read them exactly the same way as "normal" RC passages?

I just recently decided to take the LSAT and I am studying for the Dec. test. I am nervous that I will not be ready for the Dec. test and end up taking the Feb. test. For personal reasons, I really want to start school in Fall 2016 and not wait another year. My top two school choices both are still accepting applications until the beginning of April and one is accepting until May. However, both are on rolling admissions, which I know significantly will lower my chances.

I guess I need some guidance if it is unrealistic to think that applying that late in the game will still get me in for the upcoming Fall. Taking the test in February would give me more time to prepare and I would most likely get a higher LSAT score but it puts me applying so late in the process.

Any advice or opinions is greatly appreciate!

OKAY WHAT IS THIS QUESTION????? I've looked it up on Manhattan's forum, cause they have most of the questions already written out, but I STILL don't understand it. This whole test was a beast to be honest...

I know this is a sufficient assumption question. So far, I have:

~SS

C --> IH

~IH --> ~C

--------------------------------

D --> IH

(SS = send spacecraft) (C = communicate) (IH = intelligent as humans) (D = determine existence)

How do we get to answer D, or I guess a better way to put it would be how do I figure out what the assumption is using the formal logic like JY does?

P.S. Sorry I'm needy tonight