- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
@ilikephilosophy993 thanks!
@zbpohlman247 I guess I need more practice because I try to keep aware of the reasoning structure but when I come upon a difficult concept say something about evolution, I get lost trying to understand its content that I forget about its reasoning structure. Thanks! Ugh comparative reading passages can be so frustrating.
I seem to have trouble with MOR questions in RC sections.
For example:
PT 73 s1 Q22
Which one of the following most accurately describes the main purpose for which passage A was written and the main purpose for which B was written?
A Passage A: to propose a solution to a moral problem
passage B: to criticise a proposed solution to a moral problem
B Passage A: to sketch a general outline of a branch of moral theory
Passage B: to give a particular moral analysis of a real case
C passage A: to spell out the details of tow fundamental principle
Passage B: to examine a case that exemplifies a moral ideal
Q27
Which one of the following most accurately describes the difference in approach taken by passage A as compared to passage B?
and so on.
Well, you get the idea. I have noticed from PT 70s, it can get very confusing due to tiny details especially in comparative reading questions. If you have any insights as to how to approach such questions I would be grateful :)
@melindasong22757 I would like to join too!! please tag me:)
Hey I thought the same way too. But after debating btw A and E, I eventually gravitated toward E. I realized in order for the sentence "consumers are buying more durable goods than before" to be "the phenomenon that the argument seeks to explain", it needs other premises to explain why consumers are buying durable goods than before. Then you might think, maybe because the consumers expect economic growth in the future. But it's the other way around, in fact, consumers expect economic growth is drawn from the phenomenon "consumers are buying more durable goods than before" and therefore leads to the conclusion that the economy is moving out of recession.
In order for A to be correct, it might have to be written as something like this?
premise: Since consumers expect economic growth
and economy is moving is out of recession
Con: consumers are buying more durable goods than before
But this is not the case, the sentence given in the question stem is the premise which supports the conclusion that says economy is moving out of recession. So it is the evidence from which the conclusion is drawn. I think for MOR questions, trivial differences can throw you off easily. Here, I think if A were written as a phenomenon from which the conclusion was drawn? it might've been correct. I don't think it was necessarily a phenomenon that the argument SEEKS to explain.
For #6, I think it's also about who had said what? The 2nd paragraph( a/c A) deals with discoveries and opinions of the zoologists , while paragraph 3 ( a/c C) is what the author had said. The question stem asks you about the opinion of the author so C would be preferable because that's what the author had said in line 28-30.
for Scenario 2)
discount price $5 last year and $5 this year, full-fare $10
LAST YEAR
5(50%x10 people) x $5= $25
5(50%x 10 people) x $10=$50
average price per customer =total earnings/total no of people= 75/10=$7.50
THIS YEAR
9 ( 90%x 10 people) x $5 = $45
1 (10% x 10 people) x $10= $10
55/10 = $5.50
so the average paid this year would less than average paid last year :)
I was confused because of the answer choice D, but ended up choosing B.
An example of why B would work
say there are10 people in total
for Scenario 1)
discount price $5 last year and $9 this year, full-fare $10
LAST YEAR
5(50%x10 people) x $5= $25
5(50%x 10 people) x $10=$50
average price per customer =total earnings/total no of people= 75/10=$7.50
THIS YEAR
9 ( 90%x 10 people) x $9 = $81
1 (10% x 10 people) x $10= $10
91/10 = $9.10
This would contradict the conclusion for average paid last year is less than average paid this year
I was stuck on this question for awhile because there were so many numbers :( I think if you look at it more simply though it might be easier to understand. I had trouble because I kept looking at all of the numbers that were stated in the stimulus but I think the LSAC did that to throw you off.
Anyways, the stimulus says that 25 films out of 100 films( which is a quarter) were based on novels so those other 75 films out of 100 films cannot be films based on books because then it will exceed one-quarter. It is clearly stated that no more than one quarter of the films were based on books. Thus, films based on books in 1992 were only based on novels ( the 25 films that were based on novels). I don't know if this made any sense so if you have other explanations or opinions please feel free to respond :)
For Q18, I was debating between a/c C and E and ultimately chose E. Now I see that E was wrong because it completely rules out the first alternative by stating that "it is not a useful theory", whereas the author had only said "the first alternative seems unlikely."
@zbpohlman247 This is so helpful :) I should try this approach on older passages.