Self-study
Can anyone help me parse out the answer choices, particularly D and E? (both lawgic wise and why each one is correct/incorrect)?
thanks!
mgudesblatt21
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
LSAT
Not provided
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
Not provided
Discussions
mgudesblatt21
Saturday, Apr 24 2021
Economists says money (financial rewards) is why people choose one job over another.
Argument: They are wrong (money does not influence people as much as they think).
Premise: In some surveys, at least 51% of people do not name high salary as the most desirable feature of a job.
This argument assumes that just because a high salary isn’t the most desirable feature of a job, it can’t be the primary factor/strongest incentive for choosing a job.
Also how many surveys?
Are the people truthful in answering the question?
There could be other more desirable features about different jobs but ultimately a person could still choose to pick a job based on money.
Also financial rewards is not the same as SALARY. I really missed this when I first read the argument. So subtle.
A: You can be paid well and not buy what you want. This is irrelevant.
B: I think that this is a wrong answer because 1) how many surveys? And 2) I feel like the author would just be like okay your surveys say X but mine say Y. Agree to disagree. This shows that if the jobs are the same, people do care about money and want the higher paying job. This would seem on the face to show that these people are motivated by money, but how representative is this situation to what people have to decide generally? And what would people say if the jobs were not identical?
C: I think this is correct because this shows that what could be a desirable feature of a job could still be related to financial benefits, which would show that people are motivated by money in their job choices.
D: People like difficult jobs when they feel appreciated. Irrelevant.
E: Some people? This is weak. Also This says some people don’t know that high paying jobs mean you have less free time. This is irrelevant.
mgudesblatt21
Saturday, Apr 24 2021
Disclosure of statistics undermines government's goal of making public more informed.
This is because airlines will be less likely to give a complete report.
So this is assuming that the airlines will not give a complete report, so even giving an incomplete report undermine's the government goal of making the public more informed?
This assumes that the only good thing is a complete report. this assumes that an incomplete report makes the public less informed? But isn't some data better than no data?
A - this gets at the issue. Incomplete reports can still provide important information/inform the public
B - descriptively inaccurate - the author does not assume this
C - I almost picked this one because I thought this was somehow relevant to the fact that airlines would restrict information if the reports are made public. 1) this answer choice is information about airline safety - not the statistics itself. These two things are different 2) the author does not talk about how information in general about airline safety is impossible without govt disclosure. I think this would be different if the answer choice actually had to do with the statistics
D - this is irrelevant to the argument - the author does not talk at all about who is responsible for accurate reporting of safety information
E - this is descriptively accurate but completely irrelevant to the argument. This says the author fails to consider whether the publication of airline safety statistics will impact airline revenue. This is not stated at all
mgudesblatt21
Saturday, Apr 24 2021
Premise: Most history courses required readings that did not discuss indigenous history or contemporary Africa/Asian history
Premise: Most universities no longer do this
Therefore: Most universities offer more in depth cosmopolitan education
This argument is linking the Africa/Asia/Indigenous history to the idea of cosmopolitan.
We don’t know what cosmopolitan education means. Maybe it has nothing to do with knowing about the history of other cultures.
Also JY talks in the video about the importance of how it's just a textbook. There are other aspects to the class.
Also History courses are not the same as education overall.
We need to define cosmopolitan in relationship to this.
A: this AC is about what university students find interesting. This doesn’t matter.
B: This AC has many. How many. One? Two? Three? Ten? Also this says students at universities whose courses cover all periods/cultures participate in study abroad programs. This is a totally new idea and does not strengthen because this has nothing to do with the premises at all. Also why does this make it so that universities today offer a more in-depth and cosmopolitan education?
C: This is a perfect answer and links coverage in textbooks to cosmopolitanism. This makes the premises much more relevant to the conclusion.
D: This AC says universities have history courses that are culturally inclusive (what does that even mean) and other subject areas at those schools may not always be as inclusive. This is extremely abstract and weak.
E: Students in history courses that are only required to read textbooks that cover the history of a single culture will not get an in-depth/cosmopolitan education from these courses alone. So this is saying that Students could get a cosmopolitan education, but not from a course that requires you to only read a book that only covers a single culture. This is a strong answer but it is not the correct answer because 1) the premises are not about textbooks that only discuss a the history of a single culture and 2) we know that a history course that only requires you to read a book about the history of one single culture isn’t sufficient for a cosmopolitan education, but what about when the courses now have textbooks that deal with the history of various cultures? This answer choice discusses something that is not relevant to strengthening the premise-conclusion structure.
mgudesblatt21
Saturday, Apr 24 2021
this was definitely easier on BR when I isolated the premise/conclusion structure and support.
mgudesblatt21
Saturday, Apr 24 2021
This question was a time suck. It only has a two star rating, but it was really hard for me! I spent 2:32. Way too much time.
Stimulus:
The effort to set up rehabilitation centers to save sea otters was not worth while.
C: The effort was not worth it
Premise: only 18% were rehabilitated and survived
Premise: that percentage is even lower because the number of dead otters is higher.
This argument assumes that even though the percentage is low, it wasn’t worth it to rehabilitate them? Also this states that the low percentage would be even lower if you could find the other dead otters. How do they know how many more died since they didn't find them?
- This question is asking for a question that calls into evidence the support, so this has to do with the numbers/what was found.
- To weaken this we need something that gets at the data?
A: Do other sea otter species exist in areas not affected by the spill? This is an irrelevant AC.
B: I believe this AC is correct because the argument states that the percentage is low, and it would be even lower because more died than were found. But how can we know that if we haven’t found them?
C: Did you trap otters that weren’t affected? irrelevant
D: Were other species affected? irrelevant
E: What was the cost per animal? Irrelevant – this would be relevant if the argument had to do with how much money was spent but the argument says it was not worthwhile because so few were saved.
mgudesblatt21
Saturday, Apr 24 2021
21Analogy
A- More than one person sharing a cost?
B-payment provided only if there is success. And it is an increase in the fee. This matches.
C- payment divided up among a group of people equally according to risk? no
D-this is so irrelevant. This is not analogous. It’s just how insurance works
E- I did not like this because of a loan. Because the payment must always be made – it’s not dependent on a success.
22 I picked B both times but this is wrong – it’s A
Passage states
A – this is supported because of the last paragraph: I think I just didn’t remember this answer and so skipped over it and justified B.
B-I picked this because I thought that the contingency fee prevents lawyers from gaining disproportionately so I thought this meant it stops them from getting more than they deserve but them gaining disproportionately has nothing to do with what they deserve to be paid or not. The ideas are not the same
C- we have no idea what the other recommendations are and if they will be implemented
D-wrong because this is not discussed. It could or it could not? We assume it might though based on the last paragraph in general but we don’t know about this one specifically
E – wrong because we only know one type of contingency fee that is discussed; also the information is wrong – it says percentage is based on the damages, not the baseline fee.
23 Main Point
-criticize a proposal
A – not defending
B-not talking about a legal system, just a proposal
C-this view is not discussed. No one says it will worsen the situation
D – the author doesn’t talk about the overall impact on the legal system.
E- explain the perform (paragraph ½) and criticize is (3/4)
24 Detail
A – the length of time that a trial may last may be difficult to predict but it’s not mentioned in the passage.
B – this may be true, but it’s not mentioned in the passage
C – this is explicitly stated in paragraph 3
D – this isn’t what makes it difficult – this is just the recommendation
E – I picked this under timed conditions because I thought this said that lawyers would be forced to spend more time on the contingency fee investigation than the case. This isn’t an either or, it’s that they would be forced to investigate legal issues, but also other issues. It doesn’t say one happens at the expense of the other, which is why E is wrong.
25 Meaning of phrase in context “gaining disproportionately”
A- the point is to receive higher payment to make up for the risk
B – this is correct because gaining disproportionately from awards from damages means getting more of the money than is reasonable from the damages.
C – it’s now what the client considers fair
D- if the case is unsuccessful it’s 0.
E- we don’t know anything about the intentions of the judge/jury
26Detail
A: this is not mentioned in the recommendation. The author talks about contingency fees in general and how they increase diligence but this is not from the recommendation
B: this is a logical relationship but it is not the correct one
C: this is a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition; if the lawyer isn’t sure if the client can pay the fee if the case is unsuccessful, then they would use contingency fees.
D: this is it. It is a last resort, so if other options are available you don’t use the contingency fee
E: this is wrong because fees are NOT linked to the damages (the percentage anyway) and also the lawyer has to be okay with them not winning.
27 Weaken
Got it wrong both times with A
A: I picked this because it says that the least well-off litigants were able to file more in places where contingency fee agreements are in place. I thought this was a criticism that the author said, and the author did make this criticism but specifically about the specific contingency fee plan mentioned – not contingency fees themselves. That is why this answer is wrong because this actually is consistent with how the author talks about contingency fees in general and how they can be a positive. The key goes back to JY’s analysis in the other video that the criticism is about the restrictions NOT contingency fees themselves. I got this wrong because I did not understand this distinction, and I think that is why A is so popular.
B – this actually weakens because this shows that something that is assumed to be onerous but it’s actually already implemented.
C- it doesn’t matter if it’s highly likely to be implemented or not.
D-a comparison that is not relevant. Lawyers under uplift earn slightly higher in fees than those without contingency fees.
E-no one cares which type is used more.
mgudesblatt21
Saturday, Apr 24 2021
Paragraph 1 –
Low resolution content: Recommendation
High Resolution: A report recommends introducing contingency fees, which is a payment made only if a lawyer wins a case.
Structure: Context/introduce of the topic
Paragraph 2 –
Low resolution content: Details
High Resolution: The report embraces a specific type of contingency fee only as a last resort: uplift fee arrangements, which include the lawyers normal fees plus a percentage.
Structure: The author provides more details about the report and what type of contingency fees are recommended. The author details the intentions behind embracing this type of fee, and measures that should be put in place.
Paragraph 3
Low resolution content: Drawbacks
High Resolution: An attorney would be focused not just on the case but seeing if the client can pay and investigating the costs of litigation, which are difficult to initially pinpoint due to changing factors.
Structure: The author discusses a negative about this plan
Paragraph 4
Low resolution content: Further criticism
High Resolution: The proposal would mean that only the wealthiest could access this agreement, though this is often pursued by individuals who cannot pay for the cost of pursuing legal action. Ultimately, contingency fees could be good, however, and lead to an increase in a lawyers commitment to the case.
Main Point: the proposal about contingency fees is flawed.
Tone: Critical
Argument structure: Author tries to weaken a proposal by showing a negative consequence
Purpose: Criticize a proposal
Viewpoints: Author vs LRCWA
Organization of Paragraphs: Background, Background/Context, MP/Premise, Premise
Cookie Cutter: Author criticizes something
mgudesblatt21
Saturday, Apr 24 2021
This lsat passage. Looks like garbage, smells like garbage, should be treated like garbage :P
mgudesblatt21
Saturday, Apr 24 2021
13. Main Point
A – this is not descriptive of the passage/not the main point, and only one historian is mentioned.
B- Chavez is about political organization – don’t know his involvement in theater if any
C – This is what the author argues in the last paragraph
D – this is just a detail
E- it’s not that Valdez brought it to recognition through his connections? We don’t know if that’s true.
14 Meaning of word “immediacy” – has to do with personal experience/social action
A- No discussion of physical distance
B- No discussion of the technique of addressing the audience
C- We don’t know if it was easy to develop the actos, even though it was based on their own experience
D- No discussion of director/actor
E- This is the only one that has to do with conveying the personal experience/linking it to social action/inspiring the audience
15 I got this wrong. This is a purpose/function of a sentence
A- This is good but I really was focused on the first sentence so I skipped this one.
B- This was not an obstacle
C-it is not anticipating/countering a possible objection.
D-I picked this because I did not read carefully. I saw Most scholars and thought this was about a shift Most people do X, but Y. This is not how Most functions in the first sentence but if you do not read carefully you might think so. I assumed exclusion based on that. This was wrong.
F- This does not explain why Valdez is considered individually responsible
16 Detail
A – don’t know this about carpas
B – neither could’ve been studied by this troupe.
C-don’t know this about carpas, seems false though
D-this is stated in paragraph 2 or 3. “often satirical shows” and “satirize the opposition”
E-union is related to actos; we don’t know the context of carpas
17 Inference – Valdez views
A – we don’t know what Valdez thinks about carpas
B – we know nothing about Chavez in relationship to Teatro Campesino beyond the context of striking farmworkers
C – we don’t know what Valdez thinks about this
D – this is supported – the farmworkers were part of Teatro Campesino, and they did not have formal training but the performances had palpable immediacy (e.g. were successful)
E – it seems like Valdez would disagree with this, if anything, but we’re not sure
18 Inference
I got this right C, but picked B on BR.
A – we don’t know anything about what shaped carpas.
B- I thought this was correct because the author agrees with Yolanda about how historians credit Valdez individually, but we know nothing about their motivations.
C- I didn’t pick this on BR because I thought that the significance of carpas was all the Yolanda, and not the author. But it’s a little of both. The author in the last sentence discusses briefly the influence of carpas.
D- we have no idea - we only know carpas is through the farmworkers/actors. Not Valdez
E- Yolanda doesn’t talk about European traditions at all
19 MSS/Inference re: Teatro Campesino
A: don’t know anything about farm owners from this passage
B: we only know Valdez was in the San Francisco Mime Troupe.
C: this must be true because international recognition came first (1965) and in 1965 Chicano theater was born
D: we don’t know anything about the language
E: we don’t know anything about critics from Mexico
20 Inference, Most Strongly Supports
A- We only know about one historian from this passage.
B: there is a brief comic statement/satire in the actos, which is Chicano theater.
C – we don’t know if Valdez was aware of carpas and we don’t know if recreation of certain things not in carpas were in actos
D: no scripts, just improvising, though he guided
E: we don’t know anything about the 1970s
mgudesblatt21
Saturday, Apr 24 2021
It's seems that is what JY and others recommend. I am still undecided. I think the best think is to practice and see which way is better for you, although there are pros and cons to each approach.
mgudesblatt21
Saturday, Apr 24 2021
Passage B –
Low resolution content: Vervet
High Resolution: All animals communicate, some with a specific purpose: research with vervet monkeys show that different calls seems to represent warnings for different predators.
Structure: Author discusses something common to all animals (communication) and discusses research about Vervet monkeys to talk about symbolic communication (e.g. communication that has a specific purpose/represents something) Phenomenon – animal communication/example.
Paragraph 2 –
Low resolution content: Honeybees
High Resolution: Honeybees dance communicates food sources. Bees do not rely on smell for this “language”.
Structure: Author discusses honeybee’s dance and prior hypothesis
Paragraph 3
Low resolution content: Details/research
High Resolution: Gould shows in a research that the presence of food is not sufficient for Bees to follow instructions about a food source.
Passage 1 is just about bees, Passage 2 is about other animals, but also bees.
8.
A – A does not talk about human like intelligence.
B – wrong because of primates. I read this wrong and saw animals so I thought it was fine. Though I am not sure it is still right because it has sophistication, and that’s not explicitly stated.
C – this happens in A. by process of elimination you can get this. This also happens in B.
D – there is no controversy? It’s just science correcting wrong hypothesis. Also JY says it’s not about the function.
E – no discussion of the necessary condition of a language.
9. Difference between two passage
A – descriptively accurate for A; also descriptively accurate for B.
B – this could be descriptively accurate for A; not descriptively accurate for B. it has support for the claims.
C – could be descriptively accurate for A; but B is not only about honeybee communication.
D - difficult to understand without B; But B is not really concerned with explaining the distinction between symbolic/symbolic, though this comes up.
E – descriptively accurate for A; B does not talk about human communication.
10. MSS by Gould’s Research
A- not supported by passage A; nothing about smell.
B- no discussion about pollinating flowers; but this is also contradicted by the information in passage B
C- best food sources? Not discussed
D- this is supported by both passages
F- Soft eliminate: not supported by passage A; not about leaving a trail
11. Inference
A- eliminate because odors are not necessary.
B- odor does not play a role. They hypothesized first sound, then odor.
C- A only talks about honey bees, not other animals
D- Von Frisch shows communication via dance (this is a fundamental way of communication)
F- No discussion of inexperienced vs experienced honeybees in Passage A
12. Relationship between two passages
A- descriptively inaccurate. No rejection of anything.
B- this is the reverse, if anything, if you talk about animal communication
C- this is perfect. Passage A is concerned with honeybee dances, Passage B uses that in support of the general thesis of all animals communicate; some communicate symbolically
D-Passage B does not argue anything in A can’t be explained
E- honey bees are not primary concern of passage B.
mgudesblatt21
Saturday, Apr 24 2021
1 MP
A- Get rid of because this is similar to what opponents would say, but this is a mischaracterization of what they say. The New Urbanists also do not neglect their interests, they just think those are not the overriding factor
B- Wrong because it says specific reform of zoning laws. This is not the solution.
C- New urbanists do not really talk about what people find more gratifying, though critics say they should take this into account.
D- This perfectly describes the problem (corrosive effect) and solution (small urban neighborhoods)
E- Descriptively inaccurate – it’s not from traffic policies.
2 Detail: the impact of traveling extensively
A- No discussion of financial burden
B- No discussion of productive employment
C- This is vague language that matches “people cease to be community members and instead become motorists…often acting antisocially” – you can infer they spend more time in situations with antisocial behavior
D- No discussion of air pollution
E- No discussion of parents with their children
3 Inference (New Urbanists)
A- Primary factor? Nothing in the passage states what a primary factor is.
B- No discussion of citizens influence on zoning laws
C- No discussion of finding jobs
D- This is correct because SC definitely influences attitude (antisocial/decline in civic life/segregation); also the attitudes influence SC (last paragraph shows this to be true, when new urbanists say the attitude of people influences development and we should think about this critically/opponents say suburban sprawl exists because people want it that way)
E- Starts off good, but is wrong because of personal values should not affect the way sin which neighborhoods are designed is too strong. The new urbanists say we should consider the costs, and there may also be other values that are better/should influence how neighborhoods are designed.
4 Meaning of Phrase/in Context
Communities line 2; communities line 15
-I missed this because I did not read on to the analogy of the family
I picked A and moved on, but I should’ve realized that would not be the answer because it’s just a ridiculous answer and why would the LSAT ask a question about this if there really is no difference?
A: difference is not just singular/plural
B: first is is buildings/inhabitants and latter is people
C: wrong because first is not about shared interests.
D: wrong because of professional/political ties
E: descriptively inaccurate, first is not about informal personal ties, and second is not about similar backgrounds/lifestyles.
5 Weaken position of critics – they only say people want to live in suburbs.
The first time I saw this I thought it was to weaken the new urbanists so it was difficult. I still picked D because I saw it had to do with economics and thought maybe that had to do with economic segregation. It makes much more sense now that it is about the critics.
A: what does this have to do with values?
B: not sure how this is relevant?
C: not sure how this is relevant?
D: This is about why people live in suburban sprawl – it’s not values, it’s because it’s cheaper
E: completely irrelevant
6 Inference – if the solution is implemented, what would happen? People would walk more/civic life would improve/community would be better
A – no discussion of zoning laws regarding traffic.
B- way too specific? No mention of specific buildings and how many apartments they contain.
C- People would spend more time traveling to city for work? Irrelevant
D- no one is saying coordination of zoning policies would be eliminated?
E- You can assume this because they want to build more grocery stores/schools within walking distance
7 Inference: Assumption of New Urbanists
A: Most who buy houses are not paying way less. This must be assumed because if people are paying way less, then this would mean there is economic diversity, and the New urbanists say there is not
B: this is like a must be false according to new urbanists – zoning laws sustain de facto segregations in the passage. No one talks about what changes zoning regulations bring about when a suburb is already economically uniform
C: They do not really discuss city dwellers so we couldn’t really know if they assume anything about them.
D: no one talks about awareness.
E: no discussion by new urbanists of what people generally prefer.
mgudesblatt21
Saturday, Apr 24 2021
Passage A:
Paragraph 1 –
Low resolution content: Honey Bee Communication
High Resolution: Although not fully understood, honey bees communicate the location of food sources to their nestmates. Since Greece, researches have been interested in this topic.
Structure: Phenomenon
Paragraph 2 –
Low resolution content: Hypothesis
High Resolution: Researches mistakenly believed that honeybees communicated via smell rather than hearing.
Structure: The author discusses what research occurred in the 1960s and a hypothesis for the phenomenon
Paragraph 3
Low resolution content: New Understanding
High Resolution: Researchers have proven that smell is not necessary, but sound does play an important role.
Structure: The author cites two researchers to show new information/findings that correct the mistaken hypothesis.
mgudesblatt21
Saturday, Apr 24 2021
Paragraph 1 –
Low resolution content: Problem
High Resolution: Suburban sprawl is a problem that has been brought about by zoning laws. This contributes to the decline of civic life.
Structure: Author presents a problem/opponents of this problem.
Paragraph 2 –
Low resolution content: Further problems
High Resolution: Due to suburban sprawl, individuals are economically isolated and spend more time in their car rather than as part of their community. A potential solution is neighborhoods with mixed housing and buildings within walking distance.
Structure: Author expands on problems and notes what is a proposed solution
Paragraph 3
Low resolution content: Opponent and reactions
High Resolution: Opponents say that people’s values are reflected in suburban sprawl. New Urbanists say they can have their values but we should examine these values and the outcomes critically.
Structure: The author presents the opponents, and how the advocates respond to them and their conclusion.
mgudesblatt21
Saturday, Apr 17 2021
The journalist does not mislead the public in the report, but there is no causal conclusion/omitted facts. They publish the report while acknowledging censorship. And therefore say it's ethically permissible.
We need to support that if they report but it's censored, as long as they warn it's ok. This is also saying that it's not unethical to not point to the source of a problem when you know what it is.
A: this is wrong because If omitted facts would alter an impression, omitting know facts is unethical. This is not the right conclusion. The sufficient is triggered, so we would have to conclude unethical, which doesn't help the journalists argument.
B: this is not about exoneration. If leaving out facts exonerates a party, it is unethical. That's not what happened.
C: Delete material unfavorable to government, it is unethical. Wrong conclusion - again we need to conclude it is ethical.
D: Ethical to report known facts. If relevant facts have been deleted by censor, it is unethical to make a report in a situation. EXCEPT: the recipient (reader) is warned censorship exists. This fits.
We know that If relevant facts have been deleted by a censor (which happened) it is unethical to make a report. The exception is if people are warned, and we meet that exception, so that means it is not unethical to make a report in this situation, which helps the journalist. This does not say anything else about the flow of information.
E: Not unethical to make a report from which a censor has deleted relevant facts --> recipient of report is warned that there was censorship and reported facts don't give a misleading impression.
This says When a censor deletes relevant information, it is unethical to make a report (same as D) but the exception is bigger 1) the recipient of the report must be warned there is censorship and 2) the reported facts do not by themselves give a misleading impression.
We don't get to do this exception, right? because the facts do give a misleading impression that it is not the government, although they do not mislead on nature/rebels starvation. Is that why E is wrong because it doesn't actually justify the conclusion anyway?
mgudesblatt21
Monday, Apr 12 2021
20. Main Point
A: this is the main point: Group cohesiveness, while it can lead to better decision making than non-cohesiveness (paragraph 1) it can have pitfalls (groupthink – paragraph 2)
B: we never learn anything about how people can avoid succumbing to groupthink – additionally the paragraph ends by saying we need to identify the other factors that determine whether a group can avoid groupthink or not.
C: This can be inferred, but this is not the main point. It is just a detail. The passage would have to look very different for this to be the main point
D: The author never states when low cohesion is desirable. This is also not the main point – low cohesion is only used as a contrast to show the positive of high cohesion groups
E: This may be true? But it’s not stated in the passage and is definitely not the main point.
21. Inference - a group disagreed over conflicting alternatives and made a bad decision. What happened? Definitely no group think; maybe people acquiesced/complied out of fear?
A: chronic indecision? This alone makes this answer wrong, but the second half “low cohesion in general” could potentially be supported
B: there is no support groupthink played a role because we know groupthink depends on cohesion and there is closed-mindedness to warns of problems and to alternative viewpoints
C: This is correct
D: There is no evidence groupthink played a role here so this is wrong
E: This is just totally a random answer inserted to waste time. We have no idea if studying information leads to the decision-making procedure becoming more efficient
22. Strengthen – The author argues groupthink takes place when there is cohesion when people do not carry out critical scrutiny/discuss other viewpoints/prioritize group consensus
C: This seems to help because this answer choice is saying that when there is distrust of judgment, there is no groupthink. Or the contrapositive: when there is groupthink, there is trust/cohesion. This is very similar to what the author is saying, and so helps the argument.
A: Several? This is a weak word. A study of three groups showed that two of the three fell victim to groupthink. Does this strengthen the author’s argument? Doesn’t seem like it.
B: This may be true but what does this have to do with groupthink? And if this is true, I think it would weaken the answer because if there is respectful dissent in cohesivegroups, this would seem to be a guardrail against groupthink
D: This would seem to weaken, if anything? But you would have to assume that intransigence is disagreeing, and it is not. Intransigence is just being stubborn. We have no idea from the passage if stubborn factions that prolong deliberations lead to group think, and so this isn’t really relevant to the author’s argument.
E: This is difficult to parse out. It says voluntarily deferring to group opinion is NOT a necessary factor for group think. So you can voluntarily defer to group opinion and have groupthink. This does not really help the argument at all.
23.Detail – Characteristic of groupthink – all in the last paragraph
B: This is correct because there is “unwarranted pressures towards uniformity and a concomitant shared illusion of unanimity concerning group decisions and from paragraph 3 – members decide misgivings are not worth pursuing AND the benefit of the doubt should be given to group consensus – aka this is all a strong belief that the group’s decisions are right
A: unjustified suspicions? No.
C: the passage does not say stress leads to illusions of invulnerability – it says the overestimation of the groups POWER and MORALITY can be manifested in this way.
D: vapid cliched arguments? What? No.
E: this is false – there is closed-mindedness to warnings of problems and to alternative viewpoints, not careful consideration of objections
24. Inference What do the author and the researches agree on? -Characteristics of groupthink, that groupthink leads to decision making in which alternative viewpoints/objections are not discussed
I got this wrong under timed – I chose B. I think I chose B because I was running out of time and wanted to move on. I don’t actually even remember reading E. I should’ve flagged this for review but I did not.
E: This must be correct/supported by both the author/researchers because they both discuss how groupthink can be a hindrance to decisionmaking/lead to negative outcomes (aka it can be expected to not have a beneficial effect)
A: No – groupthink does not occur in all strongly cohesive groups. The author plainly states cohesion is not sufficient for groupthink.
B: We do not know what the researches think about the causal factors – we only know that the author says cohesion is necessary, not sufficient, so more work needs to be done to figure out the other factors. We also cannot say if the author thinks the causal factors are unique to each case.
C: it seems the author disagrees with this statement as the author suggests future research should be done to figure out the other factors.
D: There is no support for this. Maybe outside information can influence group decisions? To what extent we don’t know
25. Detail – the author says what about cohesion?
I totally blanked on this question and just guessed to try to move on. I flagged it because I knew I guessed.
E: This is stated in the first paragraph “compliance out of fear of recrimination is likely to be the strongest” – members of noncohesive groups may experience psychological pressure to conform
A: the author does not say when enforced conformity is appropriate or not
B: the author did not discuss what is often expected of military decision-making groups
C: we do not know from the passage why lack of cohesion occurs (is it from lack of information? Is it not?)
D: there is no comparison between voluntary conformity and enforced conformity
26. Purpose of Phrase/Idea (“low group cohesion”) – this is used as a contrast
A: This is it. The first paragraph is all about compare and contrast. Noncohesion is used to show self-censorship out of fear, and the author said the more cohesion, the less they will deliberately censor themselves, so the author is trying to making the point that cohesiveness can be conducive to a freer exchange of views in groups because people are less afraid of speaking out
B: groupthink/noncohesive groups are not discussed in tandem
C: this is not the purpose of discussing noncohesive groups. We do not know if the author believes this.
D: Groupthink is not mentioned at all in this paragraph so this cannot be the purpose. Also we later learn that cohesion is a necessary factor, so without cohesion there can be no groupthink so noncohesive groups would not be susceptible to groupthink dynamics
E: this is not the purpose – the rest of the passage focuses on cohesion in groups and groupthink; there is no further discussion of non cohesive groups/how to overcome the debilitating effects of low cohesion
27. Inference
B: I think this answer is correct because this says if this group does not have a high degree of cohesiveness, it will be difficult to examine all relevant options critically. We know the author should agree with this because without cohesion, people usually self-censor. So the more cohesion, up to a certain point, they can say what they think and discuss all relevant options critically as long as they do not fall into group think.
A: Adversaries? What? There is no comparative discussion of how cohesive vs noncohesive groups negotiate with adversaries.
C: This is not supported because this is comparing a group with varied viewpoints vs a group whose members are unified. But are these groups cohesive? Or not? Does varied viewpoints mean they are not cohesive? We can’t assume this
D: we do not know what they key factors in group think are
E: again this must be false based on what we know from the passage since cohesion is a necessary factor.
mgudesblatt21
Monday, Apr 12 2021
Low resolution content: Cohesive better non cohesive bad
High Resolution: Cohesive groups are usually better for decision making because non-cohesive groups can lead to self-censorship and compliance out of fear
Structure: The author discusses cohesive groups in a positive light by comparing it to non-cohesive groups
Sneak Peak:
Paragraph 2 –
Low resolution content: Drawbacks
High Resolution: Cohesiveness can lead to members of a group to favor cohesion and supporting an idea over critically thinking about the idea and voicing concerns.
Structure: The author discusses a negative about cohesive groups
Paragraph 3
Low resolution content: Groupthink and Cohesion
High Resolution: Researchers have defined characteristics of groupthink, and because cohesiveness is only a necessary condition for groupthink, further work should be done to determine what other factors influence a cohesive groups ability to succumb to or avoid groupthink.
Structure: The author makes a statement about what other work needs to be done to help avoid the pitfall discussed in the second paragraph.
Main Point: While cohesive groups lead to better decision making than non-cohesive groups, they are still vulnerable to groupthink.
Tone: Neutral
Argument structure: Author introduces cohesive groups and writes about a positive characteristic and then discusses a negative characteristic, arguing that this characteristic can sometimes be present and work should be done to figure out what factors help bring this about so it can be avoided.
Purpose: To talk about cohesive groups and the potential drawback of when cohesion becomes groupthink
Viewpoints: Cohesive vs non-cohesive and groupthink
Organization of Paragraphs: Background/Context; Main Point/Premise; Conclusion
Cookie Cutter: Author discusses something, presents a negative and what should be done about it
mgudesblatt21
Monday, Apr 12 2021
Paragraph 1 –
Low resolution content: Background
High Resolution: Aida Overtown Walker popularized the cakewalk, which was based on African dance and developed by enslaved peoples.
Structure: Author introduces subject Aida Walker/cakewalk. The author provides background about cakewalk
Sneak Peak:
Paragraph 2 –
Low resolution content: European influence/adaption
High Resolution: By adapting characteristics from European influences, the Cakewalk served different purposes and appealed to both white people and African Americans.
Structure: The author discusses influences/changes to the cakewalk that influenced various iterations
Paragraph 3
Low resolution content: Complex Appeal
High Resolution: Cakewalk’s complexity enabled it to appeal to many people during a complex time.
Structure: The author argues that Cakewalk’s evolution/complexity was key to its popularity in a time of socioeconomic changes
Paragraph 4
Low resolution content: Conclusion
High Resolution: Walker popularized cakewalk by appealing to different groups in her interpretations and privileging of certain characteristics of cakewalk in different contexts.
Structure: The author explains why Walker was successful at popularizing the cakewalk amongst disparate groups.
Main Point: The cakewalk, which was popularized by Aida who capitalized on versatility of cakewalk in order to appeal to different groups, was a complex phenomenon and one of the first art forms to cross the racial divide
Tone: Admiration for Walker
Argument structure: The author introduces the topic and provides background on cakewalk in the first three paragraphs. The author ultimately gets to the main argument structure in the last paragraph and explains how Walker was able to popularize the cakewalk across rigid racial lines.
Purpose: Discuss cakewalk and how one person successfully popularized it.
Viewpoints: White People/ Europeans and African Americans
Organization of Paragraphs: ContextMain Point; Premise; Premise; Conclusion
Cookie Cutter: Author discuss an individual person and focuses on their contributions/how they stood out
mgudesblatt21
Monday, Apr 12 2021
6. Main Point of both passages: discussing mud drilling generally – this is similar to AC B which details what is discussed (composition/properties)
The other answers are wrong because
A: there is no causal explanation of a type of environmental pollution – what would that type be?
C: we know that drilling mud can be toxic, but we do not have a discussion of environmental impacts associated with oil drilling in general
D: we only get the purpose of mud drilling (which can be used to infer why oil-well drilling requires use of drilling muds) but this is not the focus
E: there is no discussion about regulation of oil-well drilling operations
7.Detail (Barite) – both passages say it is a heavy mineral – this is answer choice E.
The other answers are wrong because
A: we do not know if barite itself disperse readily or not
B: this is false - it can be found in drilling muds containing bentonite
C: we do not know if its use is regulated tightly, only that drilling muds use is tightly regulated (whole to part flaw)
D: we do not know if it is the most commonly used ingredient – it is just the largest drilling ingredient by weight, but this is only discussed in one paragraph
8.Detail Except – I had a hard time with this one on timed conditions and spent way too long on it. I did not remember reading a detail like E so I eventually picked it. We only know that drilling mud is normally released only during the drilling phase of a well’s existence, but we don’t know if the mud is continually discharged into the sea. This would seem to be false anyway since the discharges are closely monitored.
The others are mentioned
A: Passage A – “Drilling muds are made of bentonite and other clays and polymers”
B: Passage B – “it is not particularly toxic to marine organisms”
C: “one problem in studying the effects” means that there has been some study of the environmental effects of waste discharges
D: Passage B – we know from the first paragraph that drilling mud is tightly regulated, and BM, a type of mud drilling, has a high content of mineral oil (typically 30 percent) so therefore the government allows drilling muds to contain 30 percent mineral oil
9. Inference
B: this is correct because we know that Barite may impact some marine organisms adversely (scallops) from passage B, and we know that humans can consume it before X rays (passage A)
A: this is wrong because the first part can be inferred just from passage A, but we don’t know if Barite is the most environmentally damaging
C: this is a comparison and we know nothing about land based drilling from this passage
D: this is a value statement answer choice – we cannot justify this from either passage
E: we cannot trigger this conditional and we cannot infer that without cuttings it would be less harmful for the environment – no support
10. Inference EXCEPT
B: This is a must be false – it cannot be supported because we know that there are companies who do not disclose some ingredients, so it cannot be true/supported that the government requires drilling companies to disclose all ingredients used in their drilling muds
A: Supported in first paragraph of Passage B
C: Supported in second paragraph of Passage A
D: Supported in first paragraph of passage A
E: Supported in Passage B with the comparison/contrast of WBM and OBM
11. Inference – What would make OBM usage increase? We know OBM is used in deeper wells and WBM is used in shallow wells. This makes AC C correct – if oil reserves at shallow depths are few and the majority of reserves are deeper, this means OBM usage will most likely increase
The other answers are wrong because
A: the cost of certain ingredients in WBM? Which ingredients? Could it be just one? And could that be one that is used in OBM as well? Too weak.
B: This is about barite usage – it does not impact the usage of OBM.
D: This seems to be a negative against OBM, if anything, so it cannot strengthen/support usage of OBM
E: This does not make it so that OBM usage will increase. This would just make it so that its usage would not be likely to decrease. It could stay the same. Barite being available does not make it so OBM usage will increase, however.
12 Detail – Why are OBMs potentially more damaging than WBM?
“greater potential for negative environmental impact partly BECAUSE they do not disperse as readily” – this is AC A
The others are wrong because they do not say this.
B: don’t know about relative concentration of bentonite clay
C: no relationship to why it is environmentally damaging that we are aware of
D: this is just a characteristic, not a reason why it is more damaging
E: we do not know if OBMs cannot be recycled, but this is also not a reason stated for environmental impact
mgudesblatt21
Monday, Apr 12 2021
Paragraph 1 –
Low resolution content: Drilling fluids
High Resolution: Drilling fluids are important for oil-well drilling for many different reasons
Structure: The author introduces the topic (drilling fluids) and enumerates why they are important for oil-well drilling via the role it plays/information it provides
Paragraph 2 –
Low resolution content: Drilling Muds
High Resolution: Drilling muds are made of a mixture which contains a heavy mineral that is also used by humans before X-rays.
Structure: The author continues to discuss the content of a drilling fluid known as drilling mud.
Paragraph 3
Low resolution content: Problems
High Resolution: There are lots of different recipes, and the ingredients are not always disclosed
Structure: The author discusses a problem regarding drilling fluids toxicity and knowledge of the ingredients.
Passage B
Paragraph 1 –
Low resolution content: Usage/Regulation
High Resolution: Drilling mud, which is usually released during the drilling phase and therefore can be an environmental hazard, is regulated.
Paragraph 2 –
Low resolution content: WBM
High Resolution: Used for shallow wells, WBM is not particularly toxic and can be dumped overboard
Structure: The author discusses a specific type of mud
Paragraph 3
Low resolution content: OBM
High Resolution: Used for deeper wells, OBM has more barite, can be more environmentally dangerous, and does not disperse as readily.
Structure: The author contrasts OBM to WBM
Relationship of Both Passages:
Both discuss different aspects of drilling fluids – the first is more general information; the second is more specific and in a sense builds off the last paragraph in the first passage.
This was my first two passage reading comprehension
mgudesblatt21
Monday, Apr 12 2021
1. Main Point of passage: A is correct because it is the only answer choice that is a paraphrase of what is discussed in the first paragraph (current legislation/law enforcement faces difficulties due to the internet). The other answers are wrong because
B: mischaracterization – the passage does not discuss the internet promoting/weakening the power of national governments
C: this is a mischaracterization of a point made in the third paragraph – the author states the internet is popular so attempts to deny access would be unpopular, not that people would oppose any government effort to regulate it. The focus on this is totally wrong with people.
D: Internet communications are responsible? You can stop reading after that. There is no discussion of cause/effect with the internet communication being a cause
E: Internet usage poses a threat to stability of nations? Not discussed.
2.Purpose of Idea in context: Messages traveling between Canada and Japan are used to illustrate a problem the internet poses for regulation. This is exactly what AC C says. The other answers are wrong because
A: this is not about users – this is about difficulties with regulation
B: languages? There is no discussion of languages. This is just an irrelevant answer
D: trademarks are discussed in a prior paragraph – this is completely irrelevant to the discussion of messages between Canada and Japan
E: There is no discussion of cooperation that made the internet possible; this is just an answer that has international cooperation because two countries are mentioned. It is irrelevant.
3. Detail (Property of Sovereignty = line 10 – control over physical space and objects). This is answer choice D. The other answers are wrong because they do not say this.
4. Author attitude (government measures to deny citizens access to the internet) – AC D is correct because the author regards it as a severe (draconian) action.
The others are wrong because
A: this is about the citizens’ attitude towards internet access
B: this is an adjective to describe the certainty of the citizens’ attitude
C: unpopular is wrong, this describes the citizens’ attitudes to said hypothetical action
E: risks is just an adjective to describe potential internet usage – not the attitude of anyone.
5. Purpose of Paragraph #4 – Paragraph #4 is just another premise/example to support the main point “[the internet] present[s] serious difficulties for traditional approaches to legislation and law enforcement”. This is why AC E is correct – it is an additional premise for the main point – an argument about how existing regulations are not sufficient to deal with issues posed by the internet (this is the general claim made in the first paragraph).
The other answers are wrong because
A: paragraph four does not call anything into question except the utility of existing regulations. It does not call into question the relevance of any argument, particularly that of the second paragraph. They are unrelated.
B: This starts off well because it is a practical illustration but it does not question the claim in the first paragraph – it supports it
C: This does not summarize the second and third paragraphs – it is a separate premise/argument
D: This was tempting for me on the test because I was trying to do this quickly and not fully processing the answer choices and I started to second guess myself. I knew that the fourth paragraph was a separate example, but when I saw AC D and looked back and saw also it made me hesitate. This is wrong however because the third paragraph is all about trademarks, the fourth paragraph is about regulations not being sufficient/enough as shown with the example of privacy/messages. They are not related.
mgudesblatt21
Monday, Apr 12 2021
Paragraph 1 –
Low resolution content: Problem: Internet and Law Enforcement
High Resolution: The internet poses problems for law enforcement and legislation.
Structure: The author introduces the issue which will be discussed.
Paragraph 2 –
Low resolution content: Example #1
High Resolution: The internet makes it difficult to control all information that flows across jurisdictions.
Structure: The author introduces the issue of access to information which violates laws (the example given is transmissions of information re: consumer fraud) and states that denying citizens access to certain material would require a severe measure (prevent access to internet altogether) and that would be unpopular. (law enforcement)
Paragraph 3
Low resolution content: Example #2 trademarks
High Resolution: The internet poses difficulties for the governance of trademarks
Structure: The author discusses how trademark governance usually works and contrasts it with the questions about trademarks and jurisdiction posed by internet usage (law enforcement)
Paragraph 4
Low resolution content: Example #4
High Resolution: The internet poses problems for current frameworks regarding privacy protections
Structure: The author provides another example to support the main point established in the first paragraph (legislation)
Main Point: The internet poses problems for existing law enforcement and legislation
Tone: Explanatory; Neutral
Argument structure: Author introduces the issue at hand in the first paragraph and provides three different examples/premises to flesh out the statement.
Purpose: To show how existing legislation and approaches to law enforcement are challenged by the internet
Viewpoints: None
Organization of Paragraphs: Main Point; Premise; Premise; Premise
Cookie Cutter: A general problem is presented/topic is discussed and specific examples are given
mgudesblatt21
Sunday, Apr 11 2021
It doesn't work because you still need to make further assumptions - does that mean at the time of demolition there was significantly more than 100? Or was that a really long time ago? You still need to make further assumptions to make this answer choice relevant which is why it doesn't work.
The plan is to buy old cars to reduce pollution rather than redesign the plant.
Cars that predate 1980 cause 30 percent of pollution. The plant only causes 4%.
Old cars: which old cars is the company buying? Are those the ones that contribute to pollution? are they cars that are not driving? You cannot assume old cars means the ones that are contributing to the 30 percent pollution. I did not pick up on this at all!
A: I picked A because I thought it was saying that of all the cars driven in the area, only 1% are before 1980. I thought that if it is one percent, it meant that actually it is a really tiny amount and doesn't contribute 30%. I assumed that one percent meant that it couldn't actually make that big of a difference and so really the plan to redesign the plant is better. You can't assume this just because it's one percent. One percent can still cause 30 percent of the pollution. and as JY says, this could even strengthen the argument because if it's only 1 percent of cars that cause this pollution then it seems like it's easy to carry through, but the cars and reduce local air pollution.
B: I saw this answer choice and thought it was extremely irrelevant. It doesn't have an impact on which approach reduces pollution more. It just says that the company will save money by buying old cars.
C: After watching the video, I see that this one is correct because If none of the cars that the company is buying are actually contributing to the pollution despite them being "old cars" then they won't actually reduce air pollution. This was really hard for me to see because "old cars" in the conclusion was conflated in my mind with the cars that account for 30 percent of the pollution.
D: the set of post 1980 cars is irrelevant for this stimulus
E: no one cares about citizens groups.