Discussions

alexthorburnwinsor7sage650

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

PrepTests ·

PT116.S2.Q16

alexthorburnwinsor7sage650

Tuesday, Aug 29 2023

Can you not make the same argument against E as you made for B?

I.e. The regulations could discourage every single business from relocating to that region, but so long as that is outweighed by the effect of the increase in population it could still help their economies overall, and so the argument still follows.

The assumption (that the negative effect of the policy is outweighed by the positive effect of the increased population) seems identical so I’m unsure why one is any better than the other.

As a similar example, a new emissions tax in and of itself would almost certainly harm “some older local industries” in an oil town and discourage businesses from relocating to the area that imposed it, but it could still benefit the economy overall if it has some other benefit (like funding a road that brings in new business). So the assumption that “a factor harmful to some older local industries need not discourage other businesses from relocating to that region” is not necessary for the argument to follow.

#help Added by Admin

LSAT · PT5.S1.Q21 -- Political Scandals

alexthorburnwinsor7sage650

Monday, Aug 28 2023

Answer choice D (incorrect) says that while major scandals can always be blamed on incumbents, whether or not those incumbents should be voted out of office depends on who their challengers are.

This principle doesn't indicate that voters should vote against incumbents only when their party is blamed for the scandal. It also doesn't address why voters reelect incumbents when the blame is shared. Further, the stimulus never mentioned that the challenging candidate is relevant.

If blame is shared equally among all parties, they could all be penalized equally under this principle leaving the vote share the same as it was before. By contrast, when their challengers are not penalized by voters broadly (as in the case where only one party is blamed), the incumbent from the penalized party plausibly "should" be voted out office (hence the "depends on who their challengers are" part).

Essentially, whether incumbents are to be voted out of office depends on whether their challengers' parties are also to blame. Where all the parties are to blame, they should not be voted out of office simply due to that scandal because the challengers are equally to blame.

I guess it depends on whether you interpret "can always be blamed on incumbents" as blamed only on incumbents. I interpreted it as can always be blamed on incumbents (but not necessarily only on incumbents, as the stem doesn't say that and specifically refers to cases where voters blame all parties equally).

Further, the stimulus never mentioned that the challenging candidate is relevant.

Is this not implied? Voting out an incumbent logically means voting in a challenger. If the voters blame "all parties about equally" that implies they blame their challenger(s) about equally. If instead they blame only one party, that implies they don't blame the challenger(s) of the incumbent(s) from the blamed party.

LSAT · PT82.S3.Q22(P4) & Q27- Social historians have noted

alexthorburnwinsor7sage650

Sunday, Aug 27 2023

She thinks history should be explained by means of constraining laws as opposed to necessitating(=universal patterns) laws.

Why is a constraining law inherently not a universal law? A law prohibiting murder is a constraining law that still presumably applies universally. Similarly, the scientific "law" that matter cannot be created or destroyed seems like a "constraining" law that is also universal.

She certainly seems to believe that some universal patterns impair the study of history, but simultaneously proposes the use of "laws that constrain."

I feel generally confused about what she's arguing for at the end of the passage. Maybe it would be useful to understand an example of what you think she meant by "laws that constrain," as I don't see how a non-universal law would be a law at all, or why a constraining law can't be universal.

LSAT

•

Thursday, Aug 24 2023

alexthorburnwinsor7sage650

PT12.S1.Q24: Until recently it was thought that ink... "The hardest LR question ever"

I was looking at the LR questions with the lowest correct answer rates and came across PT12 S1 Q24.

I picked A simply because the rest didn't make sense, but am confused why A is actually a flaw (as opposed to one that relies on the assumption that the Vinland Map wasn't also written by Gutenberg).

If the Vinland Map were also printed by Gutenberg, and we now know that Gutenberg was using this ink at the time, then it could be both likely that B-36 was printed by Gutenberg and that the Vinland Map is not a fake. None of that is inconsistent with the question stem.

So for A to be a flaw, we have to assume that the Vinland Map was not printed by Gutenberg. There is no evidence for that in the question stem. The only information we're given about the Vinland Map in the stem is that it was printed around the same time (the 15th century) as Gutenberg's works.

I get that it might be a reasonable assumption that the map wasn’t printed by Gutenberg, but feel like I’m missing something if a flaw can rely on an assumption that is not supported by the stem.

PrepTests ·

PT158.S2.Q16

alexthorburnwinsor7sage650

Wednesday, Aug 09 2023

What is wrong with this logic for choosing C?:

If there is a fundamental difference between Ancient Athens' political system and that of every other system that came after it, such a difference could explain why there is a difference in the intellectual output that occurred during political instability in Athens vs. that produced in most periods of history.

As a specific example, if Athens' political system turned to philosophers for solutions during politically turbulent times, that could spur significant intellectual advances. If so, and other political systems did not turn to philosophers during such times, it would directly explain why Athens differed from those later systems in its relative intellectual output during politically turbulent times.