Subscription pricing
Hey folks - how do you shatter your thinking/intuition that brought you to the wrong answer choice?
PT Questions
bmark321100
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
bmark321100
Friday, Oct 18 2019
Y'all - I got this one wrong. I chose A, cause I was like hm that seems reasonable. But just because it seems reasonable, that doesn't mean that it is logical. This is LSAT land and just stating the opposite of one thing, doesn't mean that the other thing will happen. Here the issue is isolation - leading to negative responses. From the stem, isolation leads to negative responses from pols. Answer choice A simply flips them over and says if less isolation then -- positive responses. Not logically supported.
I should have chosen D because that is what we can most logically assume based on the STIM. Don't even have to think about it too much.
bmark321100
Friday, Oct 18 2019
Alright - I have really got to learn how to identify the structure/method of arguments. When I read A, I was like nope, there is not a cause and correlation at play here... strike and next! But now looking at it, the Driver is assuming that the reason why there are less accidents is because the type of car purchased. That's illogical. Just because the two are correlated, it doesn't mean that one will cause the other. In this case, the purchase of a minivan won't necessarIly cause his risk of having an accident to decrease.
A sufficient condition allows a conclusion to logically follow, and that just might be fine...BUT....there isn't a claim of mistake of confusing it with a necessary condition because no necessary condition is present in the stimulus.
When I run across a vulnerability question I'll be sure to really analyze what the causal relationships are being used.
bmark321100
Friday, Oct 18 2019
Sooo - On this question I chose D, then A on my BR, totally skipping over B. Not surprising I thought both were wrong at a certain point. I thought D was right at first because it seemed most supporeted by the argument. But circled this cause I wasn't too sure. Then during BR, I was lke you know what A seems right too! If most scientists were acting in accordance of principles then they deff would have found some evidence against GR.
Both are wrong because both are not most supported by the arg. A contradicts a premise, and D confused "evidence" with the lack of "hypotheses".
Now B - What a mensch. It is sort of like restating sentence 2 with the last sentence.
For next time, especially on these provide most support for, I'll look for the answer in the question stem.
bmark321100
Friday, Oct 18 2019
So - here in this question I chose A. I saw the word appropriate and totally connected it to the thought that making this issue the "experts" brought up would be an "apt" solution. However, it's obvi wrong because the author doesn't do the first half, "confusing the causes of a problem". Me getting this wrong is a mixture of not perfecting how to read the method of arguments and choosing something for a keyword.
In retro - for "vulnerability" questions I'll be more careful to think through the actual points of vulnerability. Something that I should have circled is "In light of this testimony" it should have then lead me to review the validity of that testimony and saw that these university and hospital execs are making decisions based on "several computer experts" - THAT COULD BE 3.
bmark321100
Friday, Oct 18 2019
So, for this question I chose B. It was the easiest answer but oh so wrong. The fact is that Sandra's statement doesn't mention Taylor's premise regarding 61% of verbal cues. The basis of Sandra's argument is that it is wrong to say that scientific measurement is questionable just because it is precise. She said NOTHING about 61% yada yada.
The stem here is directing me to look for something that, based on the TWO statements there would be disagreement. So it would be important to pick something that is actually mutually disagreeable.
For the next type of "point of agreement question" - I will choose the answer choice that is explicitly mentioned by the two statements.
bmark321100
Friday, Oct 18 2019
For this question I chose D because I thought that the sufficient condition as a necessary condition. If the question were to ask what is required for the argument to be true, D would be the answer. But this is asking for a sufficient assumption that allows the rest of the stimulus to be true.
C is the correct answer because for M to have exactly "twice as many cans as L" then we must assume that when the material L is being added that the total and complete amount has been added. If not, then the argument wouldn't hold.
For the next question like this, especially the ones with numbers, I have got to choose the answer that allows the math to be true. Not the answer that sounds good. Thanks, JY!
bmark321100
Friday, Oct 18 2019
For this question I chose E because I thought that it was closer to what the author was disagreeing with the proponents of electrical cars.
For next time, especially on questions where I need to continue the sentence I need to be sure that the answer is within the scope of the argument.
bmark321100
Friday, Oct 18 2019
I think I got this one wrong because I saw that there was "Volcanic particles" and immediately thought "oh - that means it wasn't just the build up of minor gases"
For next time - I need to be sure that I understand the full answer choice, and logically think it through as it relates to the stimulus.
So - just because this is a reconcile question, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't search for assumptions. In this Q, those "who receive" implies a presc/decision by a physician. If the physician is accurately prescribing, then the issue is resolved because despite the similar rates of recovery, those who need the drgz needed them.