I ended up picking answer choice B but because of the sample size flaw you mentioned answer choice A was trying to resolve. The argument attempts to draw a conclusion about computer users in general by citing a case-study of 70 students. I felt that answer choice B strengthens the argument by saying that other studies have shown these same results in most computer users. This answer choice now eliminates the small sample size issue in the argument and therefore strengthens it.
For question 18, I ended up picking A because I thought gravity was two objects exerting force on one another. So, I thought it made sense that, an object without mass (which therefore cannot exert gravitational force) cannot induce other matter to exert gravitational force on it. In other words, without mass/gravity, another object cannot exert gravitational force on it.
Hi JY,
Can you please address jaeyong777 concern below? I had the exact same thought process which led me to believe that none of the answers were supported in this question. Thank you!
The way I eliminated A was because the argument never mentions what is "promising for small-scale construction". All we are told is that those who work with papercrete in small scale construction believe that it would be effective for large scale construction. Without mentioning what is promising for small scale construction, we can't confuse it with what is promising for large-scale construction.
I would say it's unlikely that your skill are "100% test ready" until you get through a couple of PTs. I feel like the curriculum and drilling gives you the framework to begin taking the PTs under timed conditions and it's when you blind review these PTs that you can identify your errors in reasoning while under pressure. From personal experience, I would say that I was a little foggy on some of the concepts until I started PTing and blind reviewing. I think it's through repetition and finding your flaws under timed conditions that you really sharpen your skills.
I had trouble equating "giving a computer to all the children in Olga's family" as a negation of "worth more than expected/customary". Using JY's amazing LOTR example, what if Bilbo somehow stumbled upon all 19 rings of power and gave them all to hobbits in the shire for no reason. Just because he gave the same thing to everybody doesn't mean that its not more than expected/customary. Can someone clarify where my reasoning is wrong here?
I asked the same question a little while back and got the below response:
"We do not currently have a way to search by keyword, nor do we have plans to add this to the site. You can always search via Google using keywords"
Couldn't answer choice B be referring to the assumption that one is either happy or unhappy?
For answer choice C, couldn't the phrase "outside of their workplaces" refer to the work places of other people? In other words, if I am not allowed to smoke in the McDonalds that I work in, aren't I being protected from secondhand smoke in a Burger King (outside of my workplace) because those that work there can't smoke there? In this case, the law is offering me protection from secondhand smoke by prohibiting others from smoking in their respective workplaces right? So doesn't the stimulus allow us to reject answer choice C given my above example?
Hey JY,
I was able to comprehend answer choice C without really analyzing it by turning the double negative of the first line into a positive.
For example:
Two year olds do NOTnaturally DISLIKEsalty food = Two year olds do naturally like salty food.
By doing this, the answer choice became "Two year olds do naturally like salty food so much that they would not choose it over some other foods" which makes absolutely no sense for the argument.
Does this tactic work or did I just get lucky?
This one threw me off. I eliminated answer choice E on the first go through because I reasoned that just because the dinosaurs are "susceptible" to something doesn't seem strong enough to conclude that all the dinosaurs were killed off by respiratory problems. In my mind, an analogy would be that my entire family leaves next door to a massive power plant making us "susceptible" to cancer. Does this mean that we are guaranteed to get cancer? Maybe the support needed for these types of questions is weaker than I am looking for. Can someone please explain?
I'm confused about this one. If the researchers are hypothesizing that humans continue to hold on to beliefs even when there is no credible evidence (this is key), and they are then shown credible evidence (or confirmation) before being able to test whether they continue to hold on to these beliefs in the absence of evidence, then the rigor of the experiment is basically ruined.
For example, if I tell you "Leaves are blue" and I want to test if you'll still believe me when I tell you that "leaves are actually green" or if you will you still think they're blue but then you look out a window and see a garden where all the leaves are blue BEFORE I am able to tell you leaves are actually green, does that weaken the fact that I think that, had you not had any credible evidence beforehand, you would have still thought that leaves were blue? I don't think it does. Can somebody clarify for me?
Hey All,
I was just wondering what the average discrepancy between your actual scores vs. your BR scores are after taking a PT. I know I average about a 10pt difference between actual and BR scores. Is that too high of a discrepancy? What should the difference be between scores by the time Test Day comes around? And for those of you who have closed the gap, how have you lessened the gap?
So if we know for a fact that there is only 1 necessary condition on order for something to occur, and that condition is satisfied, does that make that necessary condition also a sufficient condition (bi-conditional)?
For number 16, isn't it a stretch to say that NGF is a process that "governs the development of the nervous system"? That's why I eliminated A in the first place. It seems to me like Levi-Montalcini's discovery of a SPECIFIC substance that is used to stimulate nerve growth would be more accurate and noteworthy. Can someone help me with my error in reasoning here!?
I feel like if you treat this question stem as a sufficient assumption, the answer choice is much clearer. Just linking the major premise to the main conclusion leaves you with exactly what answer choice A is saying.
Would someone be able to shed a little more light on why answer choice D is wrong? Is it simply because the answer choice includes a premise and not only the conclusion?
I feel that answer choice C is in fact a generalization as the phrase is generalizing an aspect of many cities. However, the reason I eliminated C was because, although the observation that rainwater runoff picks up oil and other pollutants explains the mechanism for contamination of lakes and rivers from water runoff, the generalization that the pollutants in the rainwater runoff exceeds that from industrial discharge is not based on this observation.
I'm having trouble understanding why the 3rd sentence, beginning with "Surely,..." is not the author's main conclusion. Help!
I struggled with this one during BR and ended up picking E. I understand why A is the right answer choice but I am having trouble figuring out why E is wrong. JY says that it doesn't describe the mechanism of the defense against the objection. To me, answer choice E does by demonstrating that clairvoyance is not a case of knowledge (because it is not considered reliable) and therefore doesn't fit the definition of knowledge (again because it is not truly reliable). Can someone please correct me and help me to find where my reasoning is wrong?
I ended up choosing C because I assumed that the "one thousand readers" that were surveyed were 1000 readers of books, not necessarily 1000 readers of the newspaper. If it were the former, then it would definitely matter whether the 1000 readers read the columnist's newspaper because then the results of the survey may not support his conclusion. Obviously a bad assumption on my end.
I chose C because I reasoned that before the ethics violations, 52% of people thought Walker was a good mayor. But, after the ethics violations came out, maybe that number could have dropped by 20% had it not been for the ignorant 20% people who who had no idea Walker had committed ethics violations. This would make the 52% before the ethics violations equivalent to the 52% after the ethics violations. Can someone help me correct my reasoning??
I ended up choosing A but was very hesitant in picking it because it requires us to make the assumption that triggering the part of the brain that controls self defense makes us more likely to catch the ball. What if triggering that part of the brain actually causes us to swat the ball away (in self defense)? I feel like I got lucky that the other answer choices weren't even close.
I am having trouble making sense of this one because I can't seem to equate George's speech being filled with half-truths and misquotes as being "bad quality" and then equating that to the recording also being "bad quality". Just because something is filled with half-truths and misquotes doesn't necessarily mean its a bad quality speech. Can someone clarify?
It looks like this question actually had us attack the premise directly as opposed to the support relationship between premise and conclusion.
Have you tried working through the LSAT Trainer's RC section? It shows you exactly what aspects of reading comp passages to focus on (mainly passage structure). It definitely put things in perspective for me.