Subscription pricing
What makes answer choice (B) wrong?
PT Questions
j-lamberto5
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
j-lamberto5
Sunday, Oct 31 2021
The wording of (A) is tripping me up: "the beliefs based on the original statements were, for the most part, correct." In saying that the beliefs based on the original statements were correct this leaves open the question: why were these beliefs predominantly correct? Wouldn't there have to have been some sort of outside/objective evidence in order to base this statement off of? In other words, by saying that the beliefs based on the original statements were largely correct, it seems natural to assume that the correctness of these beliefs derived from something other than the participants. When looking at (A) in this manner, it seems identical to (D) as (D) asserts that participants acquired confirmation of their newly acquired beliefs. IF we assume (A) to be saying that the 'correctness' of these supposed beliefs did not originate from external evidence serving as a form of confirmation, how else can we make sense of the meaning of answer choice (A)?
Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. #help
j-lamberto5
Sunday, Aug 29 2021
#help
How did you know that the first sentence was a premise and not just context???
j-lamberto5
Sunday, Aug 29 2021
#help
Could someone explain why (A) isn't correct? The stimulus mentions the overriding concern countries have for not adversely impacting their GNP through unilateral efforts to curb emissions. At first, I didn't really like (A), but after reading the other answer choices, and particularly ans. (C), I thought, "Who cares if we have international agreements? Doesn't mean anyone will follow them (e.g. China, Russia, etc...). (A), by contrast, seemed to be appealing to each country's economic self-interest viz. by addressing the emissions issue, they would thereby be helping to preserve their own economies. This line of reasoning seemed more in line with the tone of the stimulus and also more plausible given the strong wording of the stimulus's conclusion, "therefore catastrophic effects of emissions are unavoidable unless...". Whereas answer choice (C) seemed, to me, a idealistic prescription, and may or may not guarantee/logically follow from the info. in the stim.
And if nothing else, why are we to assume (C) as being any more valid/plausible than (A)? What info. do we have in the stim. to suggest the formation of an international body governing the regulation of emissions would, in fact, lead to decreased emissions??
j-lamberto5
Sunday, Dec 25 2022
#help I've spent 2 hours trying to understand why (C) isn't correct. I understand why (D) is correct. But I can't find a good reason to eliminate (C). I've watched this video 20 times. I've read all the comments, and I've researched explanations online from PowerScore and Manhattan Prep. None of these sources offers a strong explanation for why (C) ought to be eliminated. Instead, they usually just skirt around the issue by pointing out the reasons why (D) is correct.
This is my problem with (C), which I've broken down into symbolic logic in order to make it easier to understand. Y = Difficulty of compliance with tax laws; X = ease of compliance with regulations; Z = reported business score ranking as an inverse relationship to X -/+ Y (inverse because the business score increases or decreases relative to the decrease or increase in the difficulty of compliance respectively).
Z.1 (first report) = X1 + Y1; Year 2: X2 + (Y1 > Y2) = Improved Z.2
So, assuming my understanding of what (C) is saying is correct, if we assume that the value of Y2, which we know is less than Y1, is equal to or less than the value of X2 (i.e., that the difficulty of compliance with the tax laws 'Y' is equal to or less than the value of the difficulty of compliance with regulations 'X') how are we not able to conclude that Z.2 (business ranking from second report, 'Z.2') has or has not increased in value if we assume that the value of X2 is equal or less than the value of Y?
In the explanations I've read and watched, they keep pointing to the fact that we need to compare the value of X1 to X2 in order to derive the conclusion of the stimulus. But isn't (C) addressing this by saying that whatever the value of X2 might be, it's value doesn't exceed the value of Y2, and because we know Y2 decreased in value from Y1, we can infer that the value of Z2 increased from the value of Z1.
Could someone please clarify what I'm missing.
j-lamberto5
Sunday, Dec 25 2022
#help Isn't (B) also wrong because it says "increased pollution from power plants would be offset by the reduction in pollution emitted by electric vehicles". Isn't the stimulus about replacing traditional gas powered cars with electric cars, so it wouldn't be a reduction in the "pollution emitted by electric cars," but rather, offset by the reduction of the policy (i.e. replacing traditional gas-powered cars with electric cars) in pollution caused by gas powered vehicles.
That's why (B) seemed strange to me. It seemed to be saying, "by making ensuring more cars run on electricity, the pollution caused by power plants will be offset set by a reduction in the pollution emitted by electric vehicles...". A reduction in the pollution emitted by electric vehicles? How would that strengthen Henry's argument that'd be akin to saying, "the problem caused by 'X,' (power plant pollution), which is caused by 'Z' (pollution caused by automobiles), will be offset through a reduction in the pollution emitted by 'Y'? It'd make more sense if it said, "The problem of 'X,' which is caused by 'Z,' will be offset by 'Y' because more 'Y' --> less 'Z'.
I don't know. Perhaps someone would be so kind to resolve my confusion. I can understand the reasons behind JY's argument for why (B) is wrong (offset when Henry is arguing for net negative), but would my reasoning above not also count as a valid reason for excluding (B)?
j-lamberto5
Sunday, Jul 25 2021
For answer choice (D), how do you find incompatibility with the term "unintelligible" when that idea wasn't mentioned in the stimulus? Also on (D), I don't see how saying "music that is unintelligible is the most sophisticated" is incompatible with the stimulus when the stimulus simply said that music of a certain type is sophisticated - the stimulus never claimed that European music is the most sophisticated, it simply said it is a "sophisticated achievement." In other words, couldn't there be room for other types of music that are equally/more sophisticated than this type and wouldn't prove incompatible with the information in the stimulus? #help
j-lamberto5
Tuesday, Aug 24 2021
#help
Could someone elaborate on why exactly (B) is incorrect? I know I've encountered situations on PSA questions where the answer choices will be logically valid, even if representing the contrapositive of the statement in the stimulus.
j-lamberto5
Saturday, Jul 24 2021
Could someone explain to me why answer choice (E) doesn't work for this answer. I understood roughly what JY was saying, but still a bit fuzzy on why it doesn't work here. Some examples of the type of flaw seen with (E) would help me visualize it more clearly/understand why (E) doesn't work for this question. #help
j-lamberto5
Saturday, Jul 24 2021
Could someone explain to me how (D) is the correct answer choice. JY said (E) was discussed in an indirect way, which I agree with. But couldn't we just as reasonably conclude that (D) was similarly implied by the author when he stated how Plank's hypothesis was later confirmed by Einstein's theories/experiments. #help
j-lamberto5
Tuesday, Aug 24 2021
#help
What other "natural causes". There are 7 days in a week... It's a length of time. When I read it, I took it to mean that some natural causes will occur within that 7 day cycle. How were we supposed to know or imagine a "3 day cycle" or a "4 day cycle". Doesn't a 7 day cycle include both of these as well?
j-lamberto5
Tuesday, Aug 24 2021
#help
I selected (B) because I was under the impression from other LR MP questions that the conclusion doesn't necessarily need to be stated, but can be implied. (B) appeared to be a good candidate for this reason.
Am I mistaken in believing that some MP questions contain an unstated conclusion that we are supposed to infer from the info. in the stimulus?
j-lamberto5
Wednesday, Dec 21 2022
#help In my original diagram I had: Understand a word (U) → know dictionary definition (KDD) → understand words in definition (W)
U → KDD → W But, based on JY's diagram it looks like 'W' does not follow from KDD as he diagrammed KDD and W as both separately following from 'U'.
That said, I can kind of understand why the two are different, but if someone could break down why exactly "U → KDD → W," is not the same as, "U → KDD & U → W," I'd be grateful!
j-lamberto5
Thursday, Aug 19 2021
#help Is my thought process on this question correct?
Reason missed: confused a quality that defines a particular group (i.e. abstract art and it's "non-representational" quality [i.e., does not contrast light and shadow]) as a quality/characteristic belonging only to that group (i.e., 'non-representational' paintings).
My false assumption: If a painting does not contrast light and shadow, it must therefore be non-representational. However, a quality/characteristic that is part of one group need not solely belong to that group (abstract art) unless otherwise stated. The author merely claims that the artwork "Blue Irises" cannot be considered part of the city's art movement. What do we know about the city's art movement?
A majority of it ("Almost all") is composed of art that uses bold brushwork and contrasts light and shadow
At least one/some of the art is not like the others, viz. 'abstract art', which is "non-representational," i.e., does not depict light and shadow
Conclusion: Blue Irises, while displaying bold brushwork, is not part of the city's art movement because it doesn't exhibit a contrast between light and shadow.
WAIT A SEC. The author just said that abstract art does the same thing, viz. doesn't display a contrast between light and shadow because it is non-representational. So, why is it that Blue Irises are seemingly being given a double standard?
So what can we conclude/infer from this: That Blue Irises is not abstract art. While abstract art is non-representational, it doesn't mean it is the only art that is this way. All we know from the stim. is that some of the art in the city's art movement is abstract. We don't know if only abstract art is non-representational. So, if Blue Irises cannot be considered part of the city's art movement, all we can infer from this is that it is not abstract art.
j-lamberto5
Thursday, Aug 19 2021
#help My confusion with (A) came from the fact that I assumed that the"extenuating circumstances" caveat could be applied retroactively, i.e., after the snow had already been cleared. Were we supposed to assume that if the snow was cleared "50 hours later" that said extenuating circumstances could not be applied to avoid the citation/fine?
j-lamberto5
Friday, Nov 18 2022
Could someone explain why AC 'B' fails? #help
j-lamberto5
Sunday, Aug 15 2021
#help Please explain!! Thank you to anyone reading this.
Could someone please explain to me how we are supposed to know that "solving a problem" cannot be malicious? I mean, the LSAT writers often frame questions in such a way that we are expected to choose an answer that is "common sense". However, and perhaps this is due to my own shortcomings in the realm of common sense, but I don't see why it would be impossible for someone to act maliciously (i.e. with a malicious intent) while still also attempting to solve a problem, as answer choice (A) states. When JY discusses (A), he makes it sound so matter of fact, as though it's common knowledge that one cannot behave/intend to behave maliciously if one is attempting to solve a problem. So, if someone could elucidate the apparently common sense nature of (A) to me, I'd greatly appreciate it.
To be honest, none of the answers on this question seemed like a great fit. I selected answer choice (C), however, because it at least seemed more plausible because than the other answer choices: Children biting people out of a false belief that said behavior is acceptable by adults, may imply a type of innocence/naivete on behalf of the child, which (if anything) practical experience teaches us that this is indeed sometimes the case.
So, if answer choice (C) is wrong, because of the fact that we don't know this to be true or not or requires us to assume facts about the situation that are not self-evident, I don't see how this same critique isn't applicable to (A), given, as previously mentioned, is it necessarily the case that a child acting to solve a problem cannot intend to act maliciously? And if this is true, upon what body of knowledge are we supposed to base this assumption, because as also previously mentioned, the common body of knowledge doesn't seem particularly suited to addressing this scenario unequivocally.
And where does common sense come if not from our collective body of experiences as human beings? I feel like I'm going down a rabbit hole here analyzing the philosophical underpinnings of the term "common sense," but I feel it is nonetheless imperative to comprehend how "common sense" may not always be so common as the LSAT writers like to believe.
j-lamberto5
Saturday, Jul 10 2021
Could someone explain why D is incorrect? Because limericks have the quality of exploiting "some characteristics of language" but are not technically art. Poetry, which exploits some of the musical characteristics of language, are art. So, since something is either art or not art, wouldn't D be correct? Art or not art is a binary, so I'm confused how we can't conclude that D is the correct answer. #help
j-lamberto5
Sunday, Jan 08 2023
#help I wish JY would also explain the meaning of the logic in a less abstract/symbolic way. For example, if we were to take the logic of the stimulus and apply it to actual numbers of journalists and serious writers, what would that look like?
The way I imagined it, is that if the population of free lance journalists was far larger than the population of serious writers, it could be true that all serious writers are free-lance journalists and that there are journalists who sell their articles to magazines with lax editorial standards. So, while the journalists who sell their content to magazines with lax editorial standards are not serious writers, it is still nonetheless possible that all serious writers are journalists if the total population of journalists is large enough to encompass both sub-groups without any crossover between the two subgroups.
So, I just drew a big circle labeled "FLJ" and within the circle, two smaller circles, one for Serious Writers w/ Self-Respect, and one for Journalists that sell to Magazines with Lax Editorial Standards.
I just want to make sure that my conceptual understanding of the logical flaw in this question is correct.
j-lamberto5
Friday, Oct 08 2021
Am I crazy or couldn't you read "in her time" and "at one time" as not necessarily mutually exclusive? In other words, in her time, i.e. the time in which she lived, she held the belief that 'at one point in time' combative personality traits served as instruments of social progress? Q.25 #help
j-lamberto5
Friday, Oct 08 2021
The passage as a whole supports the idea that Chinese is a tonal language w/ various dialects. So for Q.5, how is an average LSAT test taker supposed to know/infer that the term 'dang tang' would be pronounced in a similar fashion as American English, "downtown". For all we know, the Chinese version could sound completely different than it's English counterpart. Or are we supposed to assume that the majority of LSAT test takers are San Francisco Chinese and/or have a familiarity with the tonal/dialectic nature of Chinese language? #help
j-lamberto5
Friday, Nov 05 2021
For AC (A), aren't the terms "few" and "many" mutually inclusive. In other words, it's not the case that if one uses the term "few" they necessarily rule out "many" and vice versa? I selected the correct AC (E), but mainly due to the aforementioned issue I perceived. I wanted to know if this issue, in addition to the improper change from favor to benefit, could've also been used to eliminate AC (A) from the running.
#help
j-lamberto5
Saturday, Sep 04 2021
#help
The reason I selected (D) is because I thought it cast doubt on author's argument that the embezzlement occurred from within the company because if an outside/independent authority was able to detect those problems in the first place, it casts doubt on author's idea that the embezzler was someone from within the company.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this and could explain why (D) isn't correct?
j-lamberto5
Saturday, Sep 04 2021
#help could someone explain why (C) would weaken the argument?
j-lamberto5
Tuesday, Jan 03 2023
#help I selected (E) during BR because I thought, "well, what if the advertising company that offers the free computer isn't directly profiting from products purchased by the consumer, but rather, as a result of profits derived from what it is receiving from other advertising companies that are paying the advertising company that offered the free computer money in exchange for consumer buying preference data, which they (the advertising companies purchasing the data) can then use to market their products more effectively towards the consumer. Because the stimulus never explicitly said, that the consumer is buying their specific products or that the advertisements sent to consumers based on their browsing history were necessarily those of the advertising agency that offered the free computer in the first place.
(E) by contrast, states that "consumers may sometimes abstain from having their browsing history sent to advertisers." In the stimulus, it says, "browsing history is transmitted to the advertising agency WHEN THE COMPUTER IS IN USE." Therefore, I reasoned, when the computer is not in use, a decision that the consumer has the ability to make, browsing data would obviously not be transmitted to the advertising agency. I concede that if you read (E) as referring explicitly to situations where the computer is in use, we have no idea.
However, given my concerns/lack of certainty regarding (A), I impulsively selected (E).
Could anyone please explain how we could infer that the language of the stimulus rules out the possibility that the advertising agency that offered the free computer in the first place was profiting from consumer data info. sold to other advertisers?
#help
What tripped me up with this question was my problem with the author's assumption that those behaviors animals exhibit qualify as evidence of "moral behavior". Anyone else have the same issue? And does anyone have any thoughts on how to avoid thinking about something like this on the exam?