Self-study
What makes answer choice (B) wrong?
j-lamberto5
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
LSAT
Not provided
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
Not provided
Discussions
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?
j-lamberto5
Monday, Dec 26 2022
I think in the course of writing my response to your comment, I unintentionally resolved my confusion.
I suppose what would help make it even clearer, though, would be some kind of analogy or another example that applies the same logic as the stimulus and maps the reasoning of (C) onto that analogy. I'm going to sit on it tonight, but will try to come up with an analogy tomorrow if no one has been so kind to offer one first.
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
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
Friday, Dec 16 2022
same... Super frustrating. That's 100% why I missed this question, because upon initially reading (E), I thought, "well the stimulus said psychological factors cause heart disease," so upon reading (E), I thought, "Oh, this is great because it challenges that causal connection the stim. is trying to make." But then I was like, "wait... psychological... It feels off, like a trap answer choice." If I had actually read it correctly, though, as "physiological," I'm certain I would've chosen (E). At least we're not alone because even JY mistakenly says, "psychological" instead of the correct, "physiological" when he's explaining (E) lol.
j-lamberto5
Saturday, Dec 03 2022
#help Could someone please explain how we were supposed to know to infer that the researchers discussed in the passage were hired by/working for the oil companies and/or that the oil companies were the ones that commissioned such research?
For question 1, I really wanted to select AC (A) during the test and during BR, but the point that caused me confusion is the focus (A) placed on the oil companies rather than the researchers. We aren't told anywhere in the passage that the researchers were hired by the oil companies to conduct their research. We are simply told that researchers are conducting... For that reason, I selected AC (C).
j-lamberto5
Saturday, Dec 03 2022
#help
Can someone clarify something about Question 4 for me? Q.4: "Which one of the following phrases if substituted for the word "head" in line 47, would LEAST change the meaning of the sentence?"
For Q.4, I knew intuitively that AC (E), "the pressure inside the pump" was definitionally accurate and it was the AC that I wanted to choose, however, the fact that the sentence immediately after the phrase "head" explicitly used "pressure inside the pump" to define "head" it seemed really odd to replace "head" with AC (E) as it would lead to a completely redundant statement: "loss of the pressure inside the pump [AC (E)], or pressure inside the pump..." How would this seemingly silly/redundant statement not disrupt the flow of the writing? It is for this reason that, despite my desire to choose AC (E), I mistakenly chose AC (A) because it was the only AC that didn't lead to a complete redundancy and made any sense out of the remaining AC's.
So my question is simple: if I see a similar question on an RC passage, should I simply choose the one that is definitionally closest to the meaning of the word or phrase being substituted? If so, for this particular question and any others that choose to use seemingly intentionally misleading terminology, why wouldn't the LSAT writers simply state the question by asking us to select that answer choice that is DEFINITIONALLY CLOSEST to the word or phrase rather than throwing in words like "flow," when such words had nothing to do with the process for selecting the correct answer choice? I thought this was a test of our ability to use reason and logic to solve problems, not a test of "can you guess what the LSAT writers are thinking?" Smh.
j-lamberto5
Wednesday, Nov 23 2022
Question 9 says "within the context of the passage," but then the correct answer choice (E) reveals that the statement in question, i.e., "any serious-minded or informed person" (line 28-29) only functions within the context of paragraph two not as a part of the broader argument being made within the body of the passage, it seems intentionally misleading for the LSAC writers to phrase the question stem in that manner. That's my opinion. Perhaps someone cares to elucidate this matter. #help
j-lamberto5
Sunday, Nov 20 2022
Question 17 is such B.S. At no point is it implied or explicitly stated that bacterium tumble more when faced with a repellant. Nor is it common sensical to assume that they would. In fact, it makes more sense that bacterium would move in a straighter line with less tumbling as they attempt to distance themselves from a repellant as this would optimize their ability to avoid the substance. When moving towards an attractant, it makes sense that the bacteria would move in a straighter line with less tumbling as the concentration of the substance increased. For the LSAT writers to assume that we, the test taker, are supposed to infer that bacteria move in an opposite manner when faced with a repellant is just stupid as it doesn't make sense from a biological/survival perspective nor is it common sense.
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
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
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
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
Tuesday, Aug 31 2021
#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?
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
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
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?
#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.