Discussions

gantzerj349

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

LSAT · 60.1.10 Letter to the editor: Sites are needed

gantzerj349

Sunday, Nov 22 2015

So the conclusion here is that the editors approach is wrong.

Premise: 20,000 people have signed a petition saying that they would favor the sand capped approach.

So the argument isn't saying that the sand capped approach is better or that it wouldn't hurt the commercial operations. It's only using the petition that favors this approach and opposes the editor's, to say that the editor's approach is wrong and would hurt the fishing operations. The only piece of evidence we have to say that the editor's approach is wrong is the 20,000 people that have signed a petition favoring another approach. That's just really crappy reasoning to use. So what if 20,000 people have signed a petition favoring something else and opposing the editor's, that my no means establishes that what the editor has said is wrong, unless we know that people have some sort of expertise to say so. They could be absolutely random people, or like you said, lobbyists. Just because 20,000 have signed a petition, we can't have it as evidence that the editors approach with hurt commercial fishing.

We essentially don't care about whether the sand capped approach is viable or not and that's what makes answer B wrong. Both the approaches could be right, or both could be wrong. To use a petition which has been signed by many people to say that one is wrong makes no sense.

D. I can see why you're confused about the word "testimony". But if you try to move away from the very precise definition of it (the restriction of the word to legal cases only) it fits in. A testimony is in essence a declaration. Over here, the testimony or declaration of the people who have signed the petition is in favor of the sand capped method. But why should be pay attention to this declaration/testimony unless we're aware that they're experts?

LSAT · 60.1.6 After an oil spill

gantzerj349

Saturday, Nov 21 2015

Hey @, just attempted this PT today so let me try giving this one a shot.

So the total number of otters affected by the oil spill, that were counted, alive and dead together, is 357 (live) +900(dead).

Now, of this total number (1257 if you're into the math), only 222 or 18% were successfully rehabilitated by this center.

The last line of the argument says that this18% success rate is still too high because all the otters affected by the oil spill weren't actually counted. Why? Because the 900 dead included in the total number, actually only represents 1/5 of the total number of otters that died. (So it's assuming that 4500 is the total number that died). Add the 4500 dead to the 357 found live, and of those, the 222 actually rehabilitated...the success rate is way lower.

Now, I don't why dead otters were included in the first place to calculate success rate, but maybe that's me. I just decided to roll with it.

A. Absolutely random and of no consequence. Who cares about the otters that weren't affected?

B. This is it. So the whole argument assumed that only 1/5th of the dead otters were found. But I can question that claim and in effect, weaken the argument.

C. Inconsequential...I don't care about the otters that weren't affected.

D. Who cares about other species.

E. Again...I don't care about cost...I am calculating the success rate on the basis of how many of the total number of otters, dead and alive, were rehabilitated.