I did not mean to be rude when questioning your evaluation of the passage, and hope it did not come off that way. I was a bit inarticulate in my language but my point was about accepting that corporate responsibility is a real thing. Here's how I read the 1st and 2nd paragraphs.
I think the first paragraph lays out one position that says basic corporate practices based on profit motives instead of the public good is bad.
BasicPracticeBasedonProfitMotive → Bad
The economists say this argument is flawed because these are economic decisions and thus cannot be judged ethically.
BasicPracticeBasedonProfitMotive→/JudgeEthically
Because
BasicPracticeBasedonProfitMotive→EconomicRelationship→/JudgedEthically
The second paragraph responds by laying out the existence of the idea of corporate responsibility. It basically says “Here is how we can attribute morality to corporations”
By doing that it's saying "ethical principles can be involved in economic relationships.” It’s denying the economists' premise in full.
EconomicRelationship & JudgedEthically.
My point in my original post was that affirming that corporate responsibility is a real thing denies the economists' argument or least that's how I read it. I would be interested in your feedback as you are more skilled at this than me and I'm always interested in opportunities to improve my skills. Thanks.
I think it's a mistake to not notice that paragraph 2 accepts the idea of corporate responsibly to the public good. Economists do not necessarily accept this premise. I think paragraph two gives away the authors opinion and makes the inevitability of this paragraph abundantly obvious.
Got a 165 in October, PTing between 173-177. Would be interested.
Can I get better at inference, MBT, MBF, MSS questions through doing the LG core curriculum? It seems LG is all inferences and I would say these types of questions are consistently my biggest time sucks and it's not even close.
I had accommodations but none of yours, nor the removal of the experimental section. How did you manage that? Did your doctor mention it specifically?
@jpalange701 I'll try this, thank you very much for taking the time to help. You are indeed a cool human person.
They are the same questions essentially. PSA asks you to find a rule that proves a set of circumstances to be true. Principle gives you the rule and asks for a set of circumstances that fit that rule. They're the same question just reversed.
PSA asks you to "justify" the circumstances, essentially it's asking you for a principle to apply what just happened in the stimulus.
Principle questions give you the principle as the stimulus, and then ask you to find a set of circumstances to apply it to.
some words used in these stimulus:
“Most closely conforms”
“illustrates”
"Principle"
"Example"
"Situation"
It would be hard to confuse them because the answer choices on a principle question will be wordy and read like a stimulus, but even if you did they're the same questions just the other side of the coin.
Did anyone who took in August or September experience this?
The LR question I seem to have the most trouble with are easy to moderately challenging RRE questions. Like seriously I've gotten 25/26 on a section and the only one wrong was an RRE that 95% of student got correct. This problem may itself be a paradox I need help resolving.
I'm not sure how to fix this, so I'm going to share some of my thought process and if any of you have suggestions that would be useful.
One problem I got that threw me for a loop was
Cat's spend much of their time sleeping, they seem only to awake to stretch and yawn. Yet they have strong agile musculature that most animals would have to exercise strenuously to acquire.
My first thought is that there is obviously a biological difference in cats that allows them to be muscular without exercising much.
I saw the correct answer, "Cats get ample exercise from frequent stretching." and immediately I thought this in no way addresses my problem. No matter how much exercise they're getting from stretching would anyone ever classify stretching as strenuous? Not unless they're in a yoga class. That seems to be a huge assumption. That's an equivocation, stretching does not equal strenuous and it misses my resolution that cats are biologically different.
I then didn't really like any of the answer choices, and settled on a wrong one that felt less wrong because it somewhat addressed my kind of biological developmental need idea, "Cats require strength and agility to be effective predators." and I hemmed and hawed because what if all animals require this strength and agility?
Point being is I'm trying to develop a better way to think about these that allows the correct answer to always stand out more, and am open to any suggestions if anyone has them.
Social seems to be doing A LOT of work in this answer. A highly contextual use of the world to say the least. Could social drinkers not drink a lot while drinking socially?
For 20 it kind of bothers me that the point is more that smells allow them to make a map no? so if they've built a map of smells throughout their travel to this place I think they would clearly be able to find their way to the range of detectable odors from their home.
#feedback One thing that gets me on these is that it's hard to feel comfortable with the conditional logic of OA→MajDI because they feel more like biconditionals. If you're an older adult you're a member of the group that controls the majority of the nations disposable income. But isn't it also necessary to be an older adult to be a member of the group that controls the majority of the nations disposable income? Or is there some point where you could be a member of a different group that segments the nations income on a different plane than age?
This is a huge issue with conditional logic when there are no logical indicators for me.
Yeah I mean I was sure horoscopes relates to birthday alone. Had no idea geography was involved in horoscopes. Am I gonna lose points on this test because I'm unwilling to buy into batty silly concepts that everyone's weird Aunt is into?
Conclusion: Ought to consider blemished origins when assessing value.
Premise: Chemistry has blemished origins.
Just because Chemistry has blemished origins doesn't mean we ought to consider them. The author needs to convince me how Chemistry's blemished origins have influenced it's overall value.
So his failure is in not considering the differences between the current practices of chemistry and those of the past.
B.
Thanks guys, this was useful
Will learning Logic Games help me understand logic better and do better on LR and RC?
Took me while but I understand for the most part, the technical knowledge is one thing, but if there is this much unclear writing on the LSAT that sucks. This is a terrible argument that made me think that the most explanatory theory of science was a limiting principle that excluded theories posited solely on theoretical grounds and the flaw in it was that it excluded "most" scientific theories, when instead it is an umbrella I think? and the flaw is that it would include too many theories? The language is so wildly unclear.
I got this right but I hate the idea that A is the "basis" for their objection to the ban.
The Zimbabwe argument is that conservation policies of other countries is the issue with shrinking elephant populations. All the other answers were really bad but the basis for believing that conservation policies are hurting elephant populations cannot logically flow from the basis "Hey don't do anything to use cause we didn't make this problem"
Like this is a legal test, are we not taking legislators at their word? I loathe entirely the idea of guessing, based on circumstances, that people are lying about why they object to things. Why even include a comment from the country if we're going to tell them why they object.
Am I crazy? That is such an absurdly cynical way of thinking. It's presuming that the Zimbabwe government is literally lying about why it objects to the ban. It literally dismisses their argument and says, "yeah they're just objecting because they don't want to do anything"
I got this correct but I don't love the answers. E in my opinion does somewhat support. It would indicate the question is biased if it does not even ask about an additional factor that many people may care about more than the ones offered, making it worth being skeptical of the conclusions drawn in the survey, and would indicate readers are a self selecting group who aren't reading about social issues even though they're also quite important to man others. I don't see how this doesn't follow. This just doesn't seem like a great question.
Eventually you will begin to see a pattern in the questions and understand more about what they're trying to do. I had an enormous shift in how long a section took me to do when I switched from reading the question first to reading the stimulus first. You begin to the see the loopholes in the stim or what they're looking for and you can cut out an absurd amount of time with the answer choices.
Truth be told I started taking these sections untimed and thinking through each problem until I was satisfied with my answer before I added the time constraint.