Community Profile

PT7.S1.Q15

WillowBound2

Edited Yesterday

Hunting banned in one county.
In that county the deer population has grown to 6 times the amount it was when hunting was allowed.
Deer are becoming problematic and causing wrecks/injuries.
There used to be 0 injuries from hunting deer.
C- Hunting ban has caused danger to public safety.

Well, this argument was indirectly causal until it got to the conclusion where it is just straightforward saying the ban caused the deer spawning problem. But what if there is some other cause? Maybe deer noticed they were losing to bunnies in the population game and decided to step up, maybe people started using a fertilizer on their lawns that was an unknown deer aphrodisiac, maybe the deer have grown completely sentient and have decided to out populate us and take over the world. Albeit extreme this is to show the cause the author is laying out isn't wholly proven. One event happened and then another occurrence happened and the author is trying to pit them together and say one thing caused the other and is to blame.

When you notice the attribution of cause we can attack it like any other causal argument. Is there an alternate explanation, is the chronology off, is the cause effect switched, and is there any proof to strengthen or weaken it?

Chronology and cause and effect seem like they are pretty stable here so really we are looking at alternates and if we can help or hurt the evidence.

A) In surrounding counties, where hunting is permitted, the size of the deer population has not increased in the last eight years. Yeah, this helps the argument by showing that the issue with the deer population is really only happening in the area that decided to not hunt. That looks pretty good for supporting that the hunting ban had that effect. It also blocks alternate explanations like the deer population growing overall (because they want to take over the world or out populate the bunnies ;) )

B) Motor vehicle accidents involving deer often result in damage to the vehicle, injury to the motorist, or both. This is evidence that deer can be a danger. Our premises acknowledge that deer can be a danger already so this isn't really helping us.

C) When deer populations increase beyond optimal size, disease and malnutrition become more widespread among the deer herds. Irrelevant but tricky build. Optimal size for the deer population to be healthy may be a different size than the author thinks is good for humans. Maybe deer optimal size is ten times prehunting levels so this sick deer thing isn't even an issue right now. Do we know if deer diseases cause any issues for humans? Not really, we would need more information for that. This is a great trick answer for people who want answers to work and make assumptions in their head to help it out a little but going off of the direct text of the answer we just don't know enough for this answer to really support the increases in danger from deer.

D) In residential areas in the county, many residents provide food and salt for deer. Was this always happening? This is implying humans are causing some of the deer to stay/return to the residential areas by giving them things that they like. I think this answer focuses on human action to the detriment of the hunting ban causing deer danger issues. If people can be seen as causing the deer to be in the residential areas is there as strong of an argument for the hunting ban being the leading cause of all of the issue? Maybe the giant deer population wood be fine by themselves out in the woods but Karen thinks they are cute and is baiting them into the middle of town.

E) Deer can cause extensive damage to ornamental shrubs and trees by chewing on twigs and saplings. Okay we already know they can cause property damage. Having the specific how they cause the damage isn't really helpful of tying a hunting ban back to the deer explosion dangers.

1

PrepTests ·

PT7.S1.Q14

WillowBound2

Yesterday

Marine Bio think lobsters in traps together will eat each other when hungry.
Auth: traps have had lobsters living together for weeks.
Auth:8 lobsters lasted 2 months in one trap.
Auth: C-Marine Bios are wrong.

Well, for the authors conclusion to be true the lobsters would need to be hungry enough to eat each other. So, are they chilling in the trap eating everything that comes by or are they hungry enough to eye each other?

A) Lobsters not caught in lobster traps have been observed eating one another. So there is at least 1 lobster cannibal out there. Do we need this information about the group of lobsters that we aren't looking at to prove anything about our group? No.

B) Two months is the longest known period during which eight or more lobsters have been trapped together. This is irrelevant. We don't need this information to be true to prove that the marine bios are wrong in thinking the lobsters won't eat each other.

C) It is unusual to find as many as eight lobsters caught together in one single trap. Okay, so maybe 99% of lobster traps have 6 lobsters. This does nothing. Let's try the weaken test on it. Not unusual to have 8 lobsters hanging out in one trap. Maybe 8 is the standard. Does this weaken the reasoning or hurt the chances of the conclusion being true? No.

D) Members of other marine species sometimes eat their own kind when no other food sources are available. Alright. Maybe dolphins are evil cannibals.. Does this do anything to the lobsters not eating another argument? Nope.

E) Any food that the eight lobsters in the trap might have obtained was not enough to ward off hunger. Okay so now we have some hungry lobsters in the traps. Do we need this to be true to make our argument? Yeah, and if those lobsters were perfectly well feed by other things they are not going to eat each other in response to hunger. So this is correct.

1

PrepTests ·

PT7.S1.Q12

WillowBound2

Edited 2 days ago

I figured I would type out explanations on any old tests that I don’t see full explanations for. I am doing this at work in between assignments so apologies for any mistakes. Maybe this will help people prior to 7Sage getting full explanations up on these tests again.

Present mathematicians would not immediately refuse the results of a complex problem as being the truth.
Past mathematicians would completely refuse the results of a complex question as proven true.
Some Past Mathematicians would refuse a complex answer to a simple problem.
Some present Mathematicians believe simple problems should have simple answers.
Some simple problems have had complex answers.

A) Today, some mathematicians who believe that a simple theorem ought to have a simple proof would consider accepting the results of an enormous computation as a demonstration of the truth of a theorem. All Present People consider the results. Some people who are in the present and believe simple problems need simple answers is under that overall category so this is proven.

B) Some individuals who believe that a simple theorem ought to have a simple proof are not mathematicians. We don't know this. We know there are somme mathematicians in the simple question simple answer group but we don't know that our mathematicians are the only ones in that group or not.

C) Today, some individuals who refuse to accept the results of an enormous computation as a demonstration of the truth of a theorem believe that a simple theorem ought to have a simple proof. Okay who is this talking about? people who refuse to accept results. When? Today. Ummm. This goes against the first sentence of the stimulus. Today people don't just refuse results. The rest of it is just that they believe simple questions should have simple answers... Okay but this group shouldn't exist based on our stimulus so C is out.

D) Some individuals who do not believe that a simple theorem ought to have a simple proof would not be willing to accept the results of an enormous computation as proof of a complex theorem. We don't know anything about people who specifically don't believe that and a complex answer for a complex problem isn't what people are fighting about.

E) Some nonmathematicians do not believe that a simple theorem ought to have a simple proof. We know nothing about non mathematicians.

1

PrepTests ·

PT7.S1.Q11

WillowBound2

2 days ago

I figured I would type out explanations on any old tests that I don’t see full explanations for. I am doing this at work in between assignments so apologies for any mistakes. Maybe this will help people prior to 7Sage getting full explanations up on these tests again.

10% of these 70's cars had their engines fixed.
5% of these 60's cars had their engines fixed.

Okay so looks like the older it gets the less likely it is to be repaired. Let's think about why... maybe 10 other things are breaking on the oldest cars and it just isn't worth it. Maybe the new cars have modern marvels like air conditioning so it is worth it to just get a new one. Maybe parts for older cars are ten times the price of the car. You get the point.

A) Government motor vehicle regulations generally require all cars, whether old or new, to be inspected for emission levels prior to registration. Everyone gets their emissions checked. Alright, what do we do with that info? Nothing we have no good or bad or why the difference exists and to make this answer right we have to add to it in our heads to make it work.

B) Owners of new cars tend to drive their cars more carefully than do owners of old cars. Okay, so if we make the jump and assume that the driving carefully should correlate to the engine repair this answer does the opposite of helping us.

C) The older a car is, the more likely it is to be discarded for scrap rather than repaired when major engine work is needed to keep the car in operation. Yeah, after a certain age fixing them just isn't as worth it anymore so people stop doing it. Great, explains the problem.

D) The cars that the National Motor Company built in the 1970s incorporated simplified engine designs that made the engines less complicated than those of earlier models. This does nothing. It is worse if you make the assumption that simple equals not as likely to break.

E) Many of the repairs that were performed on the cars that the National Motor Company built in the 1960s could have been avoided if periodic routine maintenance had been performed. Okay so 2+ could have not needed it if the owners changed their oil like ever. That isn't a big enough potential amount to do much looking at the lowest bar.

2

PrepTests ·

PT7.S1.Q9

WillowBound2

Edited 2 days ago

I figured I would type out explanations on any old tests that I don’t see full explanations for. I am doing this at work in between assignments so apologies for any mistakes. Maybe this will help people prior to 7Sage getting full explanations up on these tests again.

news emphasis the rare/less risk things.
Public sees the news and thinks it is 1:1 to the risks they face.

What can we take from this? People watching the news think dying in a plane crash is a whole lot likelier than it is.

A) Print media, such as newspapers and magazines, are a better source of information than are broadcast media. Do we have any information about news media in print? No. Is it talking about the news channels as their own thing that are the only ones do x (best, worst, whatever) to make a judgement about this based on the authors point of view No.

B) The emphasis given in the commercial news media to major catastrophes is dictated by the public’s taste for the extraordinary. Do we know consumer taste based off of the section? nope just what they see.

C) Events over which people feel they have no control are generally perceived as more dangerous than those which people feel they can avert or avoid. This strikes on something appealing but a little off. We aren't looking at things they feel they have no control over at all versus things they can avoid and deeming their perception as more dangerous on one. We are given that they are just thinking X is more likely X is in real life and Y is less likely than Y in real life. The application of "wow I have no control over this so it is more scary" isn't what the argument is focusing on. It is more "wow a lot of people seem to win the lottery when I watch the news so the odds are probably not that bad"

D) Where commercial news media constitute the dominant source of information, public perception of risk does not reflect actual risk. Perfect.

E) A massive outbreak of cholera will be covered more extensively by the news media than will the occurrence of a rarer but less serious disease. More extensive? This is going against what we are told about how rare exceptional things get all the coverage.

1

PrepTests ·

PT7.S1.Q8

WillowBound2

Edited 3 days ago

I figured I would type out explanations on any old tests that I don’t see full explanations for. I am doing this at work in between assignments so apologies for any mistakes. Maybe this will help people prior to 7Sage getting full explanations up on these tests again.

Conclusion: We are screwed. (currently no solution to healthcare costs)
Everyone in charge is just playing hot potato with the extra bills. (shifting costs instead of alleviating them)
1980's elaboration/balloon example showing movement of costs to other places.
2nd example primary care costs cut and emergency room trip costs increased.
This stim is just one sentence of direct support and two example situations.

This is a MSS so really anything that has at least 1% support should be okay to choose as long as everything else is worse.

A) Under the conditions in which the current system operates, the overall volume of health-care costs could be shrunk, if at all, only by a comprehensive approach. Okay so if we can shrink the costs we have to hit everything at once. So I am going to use the balloon analogy but make it bigger. Let's think about an air mattress. In this world our air mattress has an air release and it needs a lot of pressure to open and release air. So if we push one spot on the air mattress the air just fluffs up the other side and doesn't. You can lay on it and try to hit all the high spots but the high spots just move to where you aren't at. Sound familiar? Let's say we get tired of this air mattress problem and drop a coyote cartoon sized anvil on the air mattress. It squishes everything at once so there is nowhere else for the air to move to and forces the air out of the air release. This is sort of what the answer is getting at. IF the problem can be fixed then we MUST (only) hit it hard and hit it everywhere so the costs can't just be moved down the line. There are other comments on A to read in depth if you want a non analogy explanation so I will leave this as it is and move to the incorrect answers that are not discussed on other comments.

B) Relative to the resources available for health-care funding, the income of the higher-paid health-care professionals is too high. Woah, Okay, Lets ignore the fact that this is talking about a totally other subject for a minute, who says too high? Too high compared to what? This is a relative claim which means that we have to compare it to something else to say what too high is and where is that bar at? It isn't in the argument. They don't say anything oner $100 is too much. So by choosing this you are adding in outside information or your own assumptions about where a line is to judge what is too high or not too high but the fact that we can't draw support from the argument to answer where the bar is and if a judgement such as too high is applicable to that bar then that means that we can't use this answer. So relative claim about completely different topic=0 support.

C) Health-care costs are expanding to meet additional funds that have been made available for them. So the ballon is growing because it has more air. Great. Do we see any evidence of this situation in the argument? No.

D) Advances in medical technology have raised the expected standards of medical care but have proved expensive. Okay, so this is about advance in tech being pricy. There is nothing in the passage to discuss advances in technology at all.

E) Since unfilled hospital beds contribute to overhead charges on each patient’s bill, it would be unwise to hold unused hospital capacity in reserve for large-scale emergencies. So emergency prep is costing patients more money so we should not do it. This seems to correlate with the argument because you have to assume if we stop doing that then when an emergency happens it will costs someone a lot of money. The thing is this implies that we should or should not do something by saying it is unwise to do so. We don't have prescriptive statements (should, should not) like that in the argument. Even if you don't agree that it implies a should statement the argument does not help you make any judgements such as when to say something is unwise. There is no support that we can draw from the more generalized statements in the argument to prove this specific situation and why it is unwise.

1

PrepTests ·

PT7.S1.Q7

WillowBound2

3 days ago

I figured I would type out explanations on any old tests that I don’t see full explanations for. I am doing this at work in between assignments so apologies for any mistakes. Maybe this will help people prior to 7Sage getting full explanations up on these tests again.

Conclusion: We are screwed. (currently no solution to healthcare costs)
Everyone in charge is just playing hot potato with the extra bills. (shifting costs instead of alleviating them)
1980's elaboration/balloon example showing movement of costs to other places.
2nd example primary care costs cut and emergency room trip costs increased.
This stim is just one sentence of direct support and two example situations.
A) showing that shifting costs onto the patient contradicts the premise of health-care reimbursement. Okay... Let's try to point out the premise of healthcare reimbursement? got anything, general healthcare rule? I don't. If this said something like shifting costs onto the patient doesn't fix the healthcare costs system I would look at it a little more but it is acting like there is a general golden rule of how healthcare costs should work and we are breaking it. I just don't see it.
B) attributing without justification fraudulent intent to people. So we are assuming without any reasons that these people have bad motives? The why or intent of people isn't given a moral good or bad. Everyone is trying to cut costs generally but fraudulently is too far to prove here. It isn't supported by what we know of the argument.
C) employing an analogy to characterize interrelationships. Do we have an analogy? yeah, in my head I shortened it to hot potato to make quick sense of the argument but when I got to the next line I found out that they had their own analogy to make their statement clear anyways. Which analogy? Balloons. Are they characterizing the interrelationships like the answer choice wants? Yes. This is perfect and we can back it up by looking at the stim.
D) denying the possibility of a solution by disparaging each possible alternative system. The first part sort of lines up if you assume the situation is current like the question but if the rest of the answer shapes up like a "we will never find them" thing that that is too far. Next part, disparaging each other system, if you picked this I want you to search back through the stem and reference where the other systems mentioned are and what the argument said to say they won't work. If you can't relate the answer back up to the argument and see where it lines up when you check it then it is wrong.
E) demonstrating that cooperation is feasible by citing an instance. This needs analyses in the same way as D. Find the instance and then find the part where it says cooperation is feasible due to that instance. If you can't then you know this isn't an answer you can pick even if you are more unsure about the other answers.

1

PrepTests ·

PT7.S1.Q6

WillowBound2

Edited 3 days ago

I figured I would type out explanations on any old tests that I don’t see full explanations for. I am doing this at work in between assignments so apologies for any mistakes. Maybe this will help people prior to 7Sage getting full explanations up on these tests again.

Everyone knows exercise leads to better performance in physical organs.
Brain=Physical organ so your actions can lead to better performance there too
Read magazine to exercise your brain

Alright, so something leading to another thing is a causal claim. Is it the sole cause? We don't know so we should already be suspicious of claims using sole, primary, etc. What we know is we have some things that all fit into the category of physical organ and they all share this same trait (improves with exercise). Then we get told that there is another thing that belongs to the category physical organ called a brain. Okay. The argument then applies the same general idea that the other physical organs have going on to the brain. It ends with trying to convince you to buy a magazine to exercise your brain. All of this only works if we assume that the brain is similar to the other things in the category of physical organs.

Let's look at this idea another way. I and three of my classmates love NASA. So, if the principle points to a random kid in my class of ten and assumes they love NASA either he landed on one of the four of us that we know have this trait or he assumes everyone in the class also loves NASA (Assumption that everything in group shares trait)

A) It cites experimental evidence that subscribing to the product being advertised has desirable consequences. What would this look like? "We did clinical trials on this magazine and found conclusively that readers improved brain function in 6 months. So you should read this to improve your brain" is this happening this way? No.

B) It ridicules people who do not subscribe to Stimulus by suggesting that they do not believe that exercise will improve brain capacity. Calling anyone out and insulting people? No.

C) It explains the process by which the product being advertised brings about the result claimed for its use. A process in a causal argument would be the causal mechanism. The how it works and happens. In this case that could look something like "anything that requires the use of the physical organ makes the physical organ build more connections on a cellular level enabling improved performance of the organ" We don't really get the how the improvement works just the idea that the things can improve and the assumption by the maker of the argument that their magazine will work to improve the brain.

D) It supports its recommendation by a careful analysis of the concept of exercise. The concept of exercise... Like people juste debating philosophically the merits of exercise and what counts as such? This on is only tempting because of its vagueness.

E) It implies that brains and muscle are similar in one respect because they are similar in another respect. Here is what we are looking for similar things (physical organs) share the similar trait (exercise improves).

1

PrepTests ·

PT7.S1.Q5

WillowBound2

Edited 4 days ago

I figured I would type out explanations on any old tests that I don’t see full explanations for. I am doing this at work in between assignments so apologies for any mistakes. Maybe this will help people prior to 7Sage getting full explanations up on these tests again.

Many (2+) Environmentalists: Urge enviro awareness
Enviro: if accept responsibility then avoid harmful products.
Auth: consumers can't asses if harmful product or not.
Auth: Consumers can't intentionally choose benign products
Auth: because they can't intentionally choose well there must be no moral duty to do so because ______

So just by reading this I would probably expect a principle like "people have no moral obligation to do impossible tasks"

A) a moral duty to perform an action is never based solely on the effects the action will have on other people. One immediately suspicious word is solely. Is the argument trying to say that one thing is the only cause of something? No it is just saying if we want to live by a standard then we should do X thing to help X issue. If the argument is saying one thing is the only thing causing something then this word is no longer suspicious. Moving on "the effects the actions will have on other people" Is this what the subject of the argument is? no. we are talking about causing environmental harm not issues to other people directly. So 2/2 this answer is out.

B) a person cannot possibly have a moral duty to do what he or she is unable to do. This is worded in a different manner than my prediction but it boils down to the same thing when you parse out the language. If the base idea fits your prediction and there aren't any suspicious words or add ons then pick it.

C) moral considerations should not be the sole determinants of what products are made available to consumers. Same issue as A. Saying "sole" for an argument that is not directly looking at the sole cause of something and then going in a different direction idea wise from the argument.

D) the morally right action is always the one whose effects produce the least total harm. Are we making a rule for judging actions? no we are saying we shouldn't have a rule that is impossible to carry out.

E) where a moral duty exists, it supersedes any legal duty and any other kind of duty. Ok so I could see people passing the first part and I will let it slide because there is a rule in the argument even though it isn't the authors. So 1. We have a rule, and 2. Does the rest of the answer go in the same direction our argument is heading? moral beats every other type of rule out there? No. There is nothing else discussed in the argument and no tricky implications that it would. This isn't where we are heading.

Stick to your prediction and you won't waste as much time evaluating answers.

1

Study Groups · Kansas City Metro / JOCO Study Groups

WillowBound2

Thursday, Apr 23

@Thao sure, zoom limits non business members to a certain time limit. If it becomes annoying we may be better off using the study room feature on here.

1

PrepTests ·

PT7.S1.Q4

WillowBound2

Edited Wednesday, Apr 22

I figured I would type out explanations on any old tests that I don’t see full explanations for. I am doing this at work in between assignments so apologies for any mistakes. Maybe this will help people prior to 7Sage getting full explanations up on these tests again.

Nutritionists: People need to eat more fiber
Pill Ad: contains "44% fiber"

I over thought about this one even though I chose the correct answer. My immediate thought was "of the pill itself or of the daily required intake" The ambiguity there is of course the problem. So we need to find an answer that targets that ambiguity. Keep the main focus in mind to keep your timing down.

A) There are other products on the market that are advertised as providing fiber as a dietary supplement. So other things also have the quality thing we are looking at. does this matter for why the ad in our case may be misleading? no.

B) Nutritionists base their recommendation on medical findings that dietary fiber protects against some kinds of cancer. So this is not focusing on what is specified by the question stem. We don't even really need to consider this.

C) It is possible to become addicted to some kinds of advertised pills, such as sleeping pills and painkillers. "Some" do we know if our pills are in the section under "some"? No. So this couldn't be a super strong weakener even if the rest of the sentence looked like the biggest baddest weakener out there because we don't know if our pills fall under that category.

D) The label of the advertised product recommends taking 3 pills every day. This is the one that I over thought. My line of thought was if the total dose is for 44% of the recommended it wouldn't weaken anything and if it was 44% of the pill that is fiber it sucks still. I applied the ambiguity to the answer and considered it for too long for this level of question. It doesn't matter if the recommendation for how many you take is 3 pills.

E) The recommended daily intake of fiber is 20 to 30 grams, and the pill contains one-third gram. This shows that our pills are infinitesimal. Which shows the downside of the ambiguous statement is the true version.

1

PrepTests ·

PT7.S1.Q3

WillowBound2

Wednesday, Apr 22

I figured I would type out explanations on any old tests that I don’t see full explanations for. I am doing this at work in between assignments so apologies for any mistakes. Maybe this will help people prior to 7Sage getting full explanations up on these tests again.

Harry: You (anyone) can now travel by air faster than before.

Focus: travel time

Judith: Henry's info not true. Many flights only accessible to rich ppl.

Focus: Anyone (from henry's statement)

Mismatch is that Henry is looking at the time traveling takes and Judith is getting defensive about who can fly.

A) the majority of people are rich. Nope. Rich is in Judith's reasoning. it isn't in Harrys claim to misinterpret it from there.

B) everyone has an equal right to experience world travel. Is this something we would think from the real world? Yes. Is anyone discussing rights in the argument? No.

C) world travel is only possible via routes serviced by airlines. Henry is only focus on airlines. Neither Judith or Henry make the claim that airlines are the only way to travel around the world.

D) most forms of world travel are not affordable for most people. Same problem as C just going the other way (Overinclusive).

E) anyone can afford to travel long distances by air. Usually it is okay to be suspicious of a generalized qualifier like long distances but in this argument it doesn't misinterpret the group or quality we need because it is assumed world travel=long distances. This is correct.

1

PrepTests ·

PT7.S1.Q2

WillowBound2

Edited Wednesday, Apr 22

I figured I would type out explanations on any old tests that I don’t see full explanations for. I am doing this at work in between assignments so apologies for any mistakes. Maybe this will help people prior to 7Sage getting full explanations up on these tests again.

Sweetener B in large quantities causes cancer in mice
People would have to drink 25 cans of pop with Sweetener B to be equivalent.
C: Sweetener B safe

Okay so we are saying that people won't ingest enough pop for the sweetener B to be an issue and that they aren't getting large doses of sweetener B elsewhere in their diet. Those are the assumptions needed to call it safe in the conclusion. Use MBT and negation tests to check them.

A) Cancer from carcinogenic substances develops more slowly in mice than it does in people. That is irrelevant. We are looking at the safety of it (does or doesn't) not the time it takes to get there.

B) If all food additives that are currently used in foods were tested, some would be found to be carcinogenic for mice. This doesn't fix the gap we need to fix. With the MBT test we can discount this immediately. We don't have to prove mice get cancer from random other foods to make the argument work.

C) People drink fewer than 25 cans of Bevex-sweetened soda per day. People are physically capable of drinking under the toxicity limit is great. What happens if people can't drink under 25? Then we have to assume anyone who drinks that sweetener is going to hit the 25 can of pop limit and go over it into the unsafe zone every day they drink it. If they are drinking unsafe amounts then it ruins the "amount of pop" assumption that we had to make to ensure we could get to the "safe" conclusion. This is correct.

D) People can obtain important health benefits by controlling their weight through the use of artificially sweetened soft drinks. You get a random health benefit by using sweeteners like B in your pop. What if your sweetener was Borax and sugar? Having a random health benefit isn't necessary to prove that the product is safe. This doesn't pass MBT or Negation.

E) Some of the studies done on Bevex were not relevant to the question of whether or not Bevex is carcinogenic for people. We don't need this to be true at all.

1

LSAT · PrepTests Analytics

WillowBound2

Edited Tuesday, Apr 21

Go to your preptest history, scroll down, find your test, click on the three dots on the right of the panel, and hit exclude from analytics.

I think it will remove the entire test from your analytics not just the section your computer failed on.

I got to the point where I was trying to push through and do one more section before bed and they always sucked because I was falling asleep. So, I learned how to do this and to set a time that I don't study after. :)

2

PrepTests ·

PT7.S1.Q1

WillowBound2

Edited Tuesday, Apr 21

I figured I would type out explanations on any old tests that I don’t see full explanations for. I am doing this at work in between assignments so apologies for any mistakes. Maybe this will help people prior to 7Sage getting full explanations up on these tests again.

before printing press people handcopied books
printing press made books cheaper.
demand for cheap printing press books more than manuscript books
C: demand increase means more people learned how to read.

A) During the first years after the invention of the printing press, letter writing by people who wrote without the assistance of scribes or clerks exhibited a dramatic increase. More people learned how to write. Those people could have already known how to read.

B) Books produced on the printing press are often found with written comments in the margins in the handwriting of the people who owned the books. People who own books write in the books.

C) In the first years after the printing press was invented, printed books were purchased primarily by people who had always bought and read expensive manuscripts but could afford a greater number of printed books for the same money. The same ten people who owned books and could read before the cheap books are the main purchasers of the cheap books. this weakens the tie in between cheap books from the printing press and more people learning to read from the conclusion.

D) Books that were printed on the printing press in the first years after its invention often circulated among friends in informal reading clubs or libraries. This is ambiguous as to if the readers were already people who knew how to read but the fact that the books are freely available does help the more people who read theory because there is greater access.

E) The first printed books published after the invention of the printing press would have been useless to illiterate people, since the books had virtually no illustrations. This doesn't really do anything because we are looking at multiple years worth of time. So the first twenty books are picture free, after that there may have been learning how to read prints.

1

PrepTests ·

PT7.S4.Q23

WillowBound2

Edited Tuesday, Apr 21

I figured I would type out explanations on any old tests that I don’t see full explanations for. I am doing this at work in between assignments so apologies for any mistakes. Maybe this will help people prior to 7Sage getting full explanations up on these tests again.

not strike then increase wages
increase wages then sell assets (chains with 1.)
C: will sell assets.

To get to c as a conclusion we have to say not strike to start the whole chain or say increase wages to start the chain from futher down. This is a SA so they want us to fix the argument properly which means we need to get the whole chain working. That means the answer will be some form of not strike. knowing the lsat it will be written in a convoluted manner.

A) Bell Manufacturing will begin to suffer increased losses. This is nowhere in the stim. We can't start a known chain with information we don't have.

B)Bell’s management will refuse to increase its workers’ wages. This gets us (backwards) to will strike not to the conclusion the argument draws.

C)The workers at Bell Manufacturing will not be going on strike. Perfectly matches the prediction

D) Bell’s president has the authority to offer the workers their desired wage increase. Some guy has authority, great. Relevant actions are missing. We need to start the chain and we can't do that by knowing some guy has the power to okay a pay increase. Doesn't match prediction.

E) Bell’s workers will not accept a package of improved benefits in place of their desired wage increase. So no bait and switch benefits games. Do we know if they are striking or not?... because that is the important part.

1

PrepTests ·

PT7.S4.Q22

WillowBound2

Edited Tuesday, Apr 21

I figured I would type out explanations on any old tests that I don’t see full explanations for. I am doing this at work in between assignments so apologies for any mistakes. Maybe this will help people prior to 7Sage getting full explanations up on these tests again.

Historian

No direct evidence of trade.
indirect evidence based on passing timber tariff law

Critic

Historian is wrong
Trade may have happened
comparing today to past there are a lot of unused laws (implies potential that law was unused)

Analysis

Alright, so what the Critic is trying to do is say that the law is a defunct part of the legal code.

As an example of this situation let's imagine that the city of Oldwesttown in the 1800's is having a problem. The problem is that the drunks from the saloon are stumbling outside and just grabbing the first horse they can manage to pull themselves up on to take themselves home. They are too drunk to check or care if it is there horse. Other patrons are mad when they find Billyjoe at the end of the street failing to direct the wrong horse home. The city enacts a law. Horses must be hitched 50 foot away from the saloon. The citizens hope that the drunks will at least identify the proper horse by having to walk all that way. Now, in the present, the city of Oldwesttown has a pretty horse shaped welcome sign on the road into town, right next to their Starbucks. Where this old obscure law about where to hitch your horse that was the talk of the day it now lays forgotten as a sentence in a chapter of legal code that is never referenced.

The critic is trying to put forth the idea that the fact that it is in the legal code may have nothing to do with if the law is in use or not. The issue with this is that people put forth the effort to enact laws on a whim. There is a reason or at least a motive behind doing so. A newly enacted law likely has current reason and this is what the critic is missing. The law is not some dusty old footnote in a book for this civilization, it is new, and as such likely has a current situation prompting its passing into law.

A) produces evidence that is consistent with there not having been any timber trade between Poran and Nayal during the third Nayalese dynasty. like is he offering up trade documents showing no timber? No. there is nothing used to directly disprove the trade.

B) cites current laws without indicating whether the laws cited are relevant to the timber trade. Yeah, he's using an analogy to current laws but the catch is he isn't using today's laws to cite (prove) relevance to the timber trade.

C) fails to recognize that the historian’s conclusion was based on indirect evidence rather than direct evidence. Yeah, there is no direct evidence but the Critic is attacking the reasoning used for the indirect evidence not complaining that the Historian didn't time travel, secretly video tape the shipping lanes, and steal all their shipping documents for hard proof.

D) takes no account of the difference between a law’s enactment at a particular time and a law’s existence as part of a legal code at a particular time. This is the thing the critic misses. If it is actively being written and put into law then you assume there is a current reason for the civilization to have that law. That is not the same thing as a law being on the books previously and not being used or cared about.

E) accepts without question the assumption about the purpose of laws that underlies the historian’s argument. The purpose isn't really at issue here as much as if people are actively using the law or if it is just in the code.

1

PrepTests ·

PT7.S4.Q22

WillowBound2

Edited Tuesday, Apr 21

@LS2027 Legal Code is anything on the law books. For example there are probably laws about where you can leave your horse and buggy at in a lot of small towns. Do we use them? Unless you are in Montana probably not. So the legal code includes everything that has been put into law and has not directly been removed or contradicted by other things. Many of these laws are defunct unenforced and forgotten. The critic is trying to say just because it is there doesn't mean much.

Law enactment is making a shiny new law. People don't spend time trying to pass laws for the hell of it. If they just passed that timber tariff law in that society they were likely dealing with a problem about it. Passing the law means that the law is a usable current thing and not just some forgotten or unused law that serves no purpose and is still somehow on the books.

The reason why I don't like this question is that even if the critic makes the point that the law is not an active part of the legal code it still got passed at some point which still leans towards the idea that the situation of trade was actually occurring. The critic is ineffectively throwing something out there that isn't really an issue that deals with the point of the Historians argument.

Hope this helps

1

PrepTests ·

PT7.S4.Q20

WillowBound2

Edited Monday, Apr 20

I figured I would type out explanations on any old tests that I don’t see full explanations for. I am doing this at work in between assignments so apologies for any mistakes. Maybe this will help people prior to 7Sage getting full explanations up on these tests again.

This question sucked.

Okay so to put it simply what this question is doing is saying someone has a belief and another person adds information that they think has an effect on the first guys beliefs. Just because I believe that Jedi are cool and you think if something is cool it has to be real that doesn't mean that I think Jedi are real.

This author is out here adding information about the topic that other people have an opinion about and then deciding that they must think some derivative belief that comes from that is true. Which is ridiculous, and seems much like politics sometimes.

Okay so now let's break down what the question is saying.

Graph POV: it is possible to detect character traits by handwriting.
Ex of concept: strong t means enthusiasm
Auth POV: People change change handwriting and learn to write features
Auth conclusion: Graph believe traits can be changed.

A) citing apparently incontestable evidence that leads to absurd consequences when conjoined with the view in question. So the auths evidence starts out with "obviously". He is directly assuming the information to be true without supporting it and yeah the evidence doesn't suck based on real world basic knowledge but it would be better if he had support for it like "the skills can only take a month to learn and will last a lifetime". That being said the phrase incontestable evidence still was a hang up for me. We also have to fit absurd consequences to the idea of making up subeliefs for people which can work. I didn't pick this immediately. I didn't like the ambiguity in the way it was written and what I had to apply it to. I ended up here again through POE.

B) demonstrating that an apparently controversial and interesting claim is really just a platitude. Platitude threw me because I didn't remember more than a vague idea of a definition of it. My fault for not keeping refreshed on vocab. That being said even if you are like me and did not really remember that definition we can still rule this answer out by looking at the argument structurally. We know he lays out an unfounded claim and then says what he thinks others believe based on that. Is that denying a general idea? No, it is extending what an idea applies to in an incorrect manner.

C) arguing that a particular technique of analysis can never be effective when the people analyzed know that it is being used. Can we say the auth believe it is never effective based on his example that people can learn to change if they know you're going to check? no, we simply don't know that everyone is going to do this based on the fact that it is possible.

D) showing that proponents of the view have no theoretical justification for the view. This would look like if the auth said "hey, you guys have 0 theoretical evidence for this idea" and then went into breaking down their idea. This isn't what is happening. Our author added something that can happen (people can learn new writing) and then drew a conclusion from that.

E) attacking a technique by arguing that what the technique is supposed to detect can be detected quite readily without it. Okay, extreme example of this: I can attach 90 straws together and drill a straight hole from my attic into my basement and put the straws through them so I can go in the basement and check to see if I can see a spot of daylight through the straws to know if the sun is up. This type of argument would be like pointing out you can literally just look or go outside without 90 straws and probably roof leaks. It is usually okay to state that there are other ways to the end goal than the one path the author used and that is often and answer choice on sufficiency necessity flaws.

1

PrepTests ·

PT7.S4.Q19

WillowBound2

Monday, Apr 20

@Kevin_Lin I have been slowly adding explanations for old tests. They are probably not perfect but maybe it will help someone in the meantime.

1

PrepTests ·

PT7.S4.Q18

WillowBound2

Monday, Apr 20

I figured I would type out explanations on any old tests that I don’t see full explanations for on every question. I am doing this at work in between assignments so apologies for any mistakes. Maybe this will help people prior to 7Sage getting full explanations up on these tests again.

clinical trials = 1/2 placebo and 1/2 drugs
designed so no one should know which people get the real drugs
intention frustrated by X

Okay so even if they use odd wording or a word we don't really know the meaning of in this sense go with you gut feeling of if the word is positive or negative and what you can get out of the stimulus. Here we are told frustrate the intention. If you don't remember it glance back up and lock in on the intention. It was to make sure no one knows who is getting the real drugs.

A) often the subjects who receive the drug being tested develop symptoms that the experimenters recognize as side effects of the physiologically active drug. Ok, so maybe for 40% of people on the real drug, the white of their eyes turn purple. Just might be a bit noticeable to like everyone, right? Would this ruin the intention of having our researchers not be blind to which participants are taking the real drug or not, yeah. That would definitely "frustrate" the intention.

B) subjects who believe they are receiving the drug being tested often display improvements in their conditions regardless of whether what is administered to them is physiologically active or not. Let's think about this. the subjects don't know if they have the real thing or not. So they probably all have about the same rate of people thinking they are getting the drug because x thing happened to them. That is the placebo effect. It should be the same in both groups. If you are assuming that the medicated group should have higher rates because of side effects you are assuming the situation happening in A to be able to make the answer work. We can't add that much to an answer to make it good, they generally have to stand on their own.

C) in general, when the trial is intended to establish the experimental drug’s safety rather than its effectiveness, all of the subjects are healthy volunteers. So it may be better to use healthy people to see if the meds we are testing make people drop like flies instead of the diseases they are treating. Great, does it have to do with why our double blind intention is struggling? No.

D) when a trial runs a long time, few of the experimenters will work on it from inception to conclusion. This is sort of doing the opposite of what we need. Our intention was issues with it being truly blind. switching researchers every two months would help that problem, wouldn't it?

E) the people who are subjects for clinical trials must, by law, be volunteers and must be informed of the possibility that they will receive a placebo. Okay, so no forcing people to be guinea pigs in trials and let the people know the drug they are receiving to treat whatever issue they have may just be sugar pills to use them as the control. This is standard ethics. just that the law is forcing ethics shouldn't frustrate the intention that people dont know who is being tested.

1

PrepTests ·

PT7.S4.Q17

WillowBound2

Edited Monday, Apr 20

I figured I would type out explanations on any old tests that I don’t see full explanations for on every question. I am doing this at work in between assignments so apologies for any mistakes. Maybe this will help people prior to 7Sage getting full explanations up on these tests again.

intro national healthcare where people only have out of pocket expenses for big or unusual things.
assumed private insurance would only be moderate cost
(p for #2) health insurers are no longer paying bulk of healthcare costs.
cost of private healthcare went up dramatically.

This is an RRE so we need to mitigate the mismatch in between the expected result and the thing that actually happened. There could be many things that can have mitigating effects so I usually try to come up with one reason and then just move onto answers and check them against the problem in the rre.

A) The National Health scheme has greatly reduced the number of medical claims handled annually by Impania’s private insurers, enabling these firms to reduce overhead costs substantially. This is ok for supporting some of the weight being taken off of the private health insurers shoulders but it doesnt solve why the price went up.

B) Before the National Health scheme was introduced, more than 80 percent of all Impanian medical costs were associated with procedures that are now covered by the scheme. B is doing the same thing as A it is helping to support part of the argument without solving the discrepancy.

C) Impanians who previously were unable to afford regular medical treatment now use the National Health scheme, but the number of Impanians with private health insurance has not increased. Not increased jut means equal or down. so those who couldn't afford insurance before are solving their health problems through the government funded healthcare. good for them. Any reason for why the private insurance is now pricier? no.

D) Impanians now buy private medical insurance only at times when they expect that they will need care of kinds not available in the National Health scheme. Yeah so all the people with weird disease X is going to buy health insurance. And like all the people buying health insurance have things that are unusual and not covered by the gov. Well, that seems like the insurance companies will have to pay out on all these people when they have to treat disease x. So it makes sense that insurance is getting pricier if the majority of the people buying it are going to incur costs for the company. This is our answer.

E) The proportion of total expenditures within Impania that is spent on health care has declined since the introduction of the National Health scheme. Okay so everyone is paying less for healthcare. That's great. But if so then why are the insurance companies jacking up their prices? No answer? Then not our choice.

1

PrepTests ·

PT7.S4.Q16

WillowBound2

Sunday, Apr 19

Edwina

If you want true appreciation then hear music as Mozart heard it.
Mozart heard it on 18th cent. Instruments
C: we need to hear it on 18th cent. instruments.
Alberto
Questions validity of P1 of Edwina’s arguments
Reasoning- performers expected to change score as it is played in 18th cent.

A) He appeals to an academic authority in order to challenge the factual basis of her conclusion. What would this look like? Saying Professor whatever from random college university says. So Edwina must be wrong. Is this happening in our argument? No.

B) He attacks her judgment by suggesting that she does not recognize the importance of the performer’s creativity to the audience’s appreciation of a musical composition. Starts out okay. Creativity could be linked to the interpretation if there wasn’t another better answer but the second half of this answer goes off the rails anyways. The importance of the creativity doesn’t need to be tied to audience appreciation but to the difference in between how Mozart intended versus how they really played it.

C) He defends a competing view of musical authenticity. This is just not happening. It could be tempting if you thought the way they play music is introduced as the competing theory of music but Edwina doesn’t really introduce a view to counter act. She’s just saying play things on old instruments so it is similar to the original.

D) He attacks the logic of her argument by suggesting that the conclusion she draws does not follow from the premises she sets forth. This is tempting but her argument structure is decent. She is making her point and supporting it. What this answer would look like in the argument is if Alberto spotted a gap in the argument that could rip it apart and used that. Instead argument 2 is saying that she can’t rely on one of her premises.

E) He offers a reason to believe that one of the premises of her argument is false. At first I thought false was a bit strong for something that could weaken it but if it was entirely expected to play music differently than written then it is likely that it is true Mozart never heard it played that way. Reason to believe doesn’t mean that it completely proves it false so this answer is good.

1

PrepTests ·

PT7.S4.Q15

WillowBound2

Thursday, Apr 16

I figured I would type out explanations on any old tests that I don’t see full explanations for on every question. I am doing this at work in between assignments so apologies for any mistakes. Maybe this will help people prior to 7Sage getting full explanations up on these tests again.

Even tiny temp change hurts ice cream texture
to fix effects of temp on ice cream manufacturer's add stabilizers.
stabilizers hurt flavor
if very cold less need for stabilizers.
energy costs always increasing
costs are incentive for warmer storage temps

A) Even slight deviations from the proper consistency for ice cream sharply impair its flavor. there is no direct tie in between texture (consistency) and flavor. the thing that changes flavor is the stabilizers.

B) Cost considerations favor sacrificing consistency over sacrificing flavor. consistency issues are caused by temp fluctuations in the freezers. Those may happen at any temp. We don't know. we just can't say that the cost incentive to go warmer hurts the consistency more than the flavor without knowing something like fluctuations happen more at higher temps and there is only a certain amount of stabilizers that can be added (which is not enough to combat the temp issues).

C) It would not be cost-effective to develop a new device to maintain the constancy of freezer temperatures. Like B we can't really judge this without making up a little story to help the argument which we can't do. We have to draw from what the question has.

D) Stabilizers function well only at very low freezer temperatures. We know they are less needed at lower temps but we can't say that the temp range that they function well at is very cold without more information.

E) Very low, stable freezer temperatures allow for the best possible consistency and flavor of ice cream. I hated this answer. "Best" answers are always suspicious to me but I got here through evaluating the rest and making sure I didn't miss something which would have been sufficient. in the end the statements are enough to support the "best" answer in this case.

2

Admissions profile

Discussions

Blocking Specific Questions

Confirm action