Discussions

elisazampino138

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

LSAT · PT3.S2.Q4 - Please #help: the correct answer choice (B) is a mistaken reversal

elisazampino138

Tuesday, Sep 13 2022

This post is regarding PT3 Section 2 Question 4

#help

LSAT

•

Tuesday, Sep 13 2022

elisazampino138

PT3.S2.Q4 - Please #help: the correct answer choice (B) is a mistaken reversal

STATEMENT 1: "A work of architecture, if it is to be both inviting and **functional...

inviting + functional for public use --> ~obtrusive

contrapositive: obtrusive --> ~inviting or ~functional for public use

STATEMENT 2: "Modern architects, plagued by egoism...

We are thus told that modern architects (because they let their strong personalities take over their work) are producing buildings that are not functional for public use.

Answer choice B states that "modern architects who let their strong personalities take over their work produce buildings that are not unobtrusive." In other words, they produce obtrusive buildings.

The stimulus tells us that modern architects are producing buildings that are not functional for public use. We know from the contrapositive of the first statement that if a building is obtrusive, then it is either not inviting or it is not functional for public use. Does it follow that a building that is not functional for public use is obtrusive? No it does not: that would constitute a mistaken reversal of the conditional statement.

Please #help

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question." Also, removed the portions of the stimulus as posting the entire stimulus on the Forum is not allowed. See our Forum Rules here: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/15.

PrepTests ·

PT148.S1.Q19

elisazampino138

Monday, Nov 07 2022

I still don't quite see how A weakens the argument because it leaves untouched the possibility that supporting higher taxes makes you a worse leader. The author never says that opposing higher taxes makes you a good leader. He only says that it makes you a better leader than those who support high taxes. In that case, even while opposing higher taxes does not make you a good leader, it still makes you a better leader than those who do, because it makes them worse leaders.

PrepTests ·

PT136.S4.Q23

elisazampino138

Sunday, Nov 06 2022

Maybe shrimp farms yield quick easy profits 25 % of the time. Jolene doesn't disagree with that. She only says that most of the time they don't yield a quick and easy profit. We don't know how often she thinks they yield a quick and easy profit. Maybe it's a 25-75 relationship.

In formal logic, should we treat "often" as equivalent to "most"? (I thought that was incorrect--that "often" is equivalent to "some")

PrepTests ·

PT112.S3.Q16

elisazampino138

Saturday, Nov 05 2022

Isn't B a necessary assumption?

The negation of "simple stimulus-response explanations can in principle accounts for all reptile behaviour" is "stimulus-response explanations cannot account for all reptile behaviour"

If it were the case that simple-stimulus response explanations cannot account for all reptile behaviour, wouldn't it make the author's argument [that psychologists are wrong to believe that simple-stimulus explanations cannot account for all reptile behaviour] invalid? Isn't the very possibility that simple-stimulus response explanations can account for all reptile behaviour necessary in order for the author to make his argument?

I'm disappointed that I ruled out answer choice D because it seems to be a sufficient assumption, one that would fully and totally justify the conclusion that the author makes. I thought it was a trap.

PrepTests ·

PT111.S3.Q18

elisazampino138

Friday, Sep 02 2022

I have yet to see an explanation for this problem that acknowledges the difficulty posed by the fact that the correct answer A makes no "common" sense.

The first statement tells us that if there are any inspired musical performances, then the audience is without a doubt going to be treated to a good show. The second statement tells us that if the audience is treated to a good show, then we know without a doubt that there are sophisticated listeners in the audience.

I understand that this translates to I.M.P --> A.G.S. --> S.L.A, and that via the contrapositive this means that if there are no sophisticated listeners in the audience, then there are no inspired musical performances during the show. But doesn't common sense tell us that something is wrong here? That these two variables (the quality of the musical performances and the sophistication of the audience) must be independent? This raised a red flag for me and threw me off completely.

Ultimately my best guess was that the second statement (beginning with "But there will not be a good show if....") was meant to QUALIFY the first statement, and I diagrammed it as follows: G.S. I.M.P. & S.L.A., that is, "the audience will be treated to a good show if and only if there are both inspired musical performances and sophisticated listeners in the audience".

Should we just diagram mechanically without considering whether the results of our diagram make any sense or plausibly capture the actual meaning of the author's statement? Am I missing something here?

#help