#help PT 73 RC number 2

For this passage in general, I had a very difficult time (as I always do with art and literature, as they dance around subject matter with unnecessarily vague and flowery words IMO).

Specifically, I am failing to grasp this passage because of the following reasons:

1. How am I to know that Cameron did not intend the pictures to be comical/amateurish? My best guess is the end of the first paragraph where it says "If Cameron had succeeded in her project of making seamless works of illustrative art."

The possessive pronoun HER tells me that she had a project, which was to make seamless works of illustrative art. That rings no bell to me. Does 'seamless works of illustrative art' mean NOT comical/amateurish pictures? If so, how? Why does this deny the possibility that Cameron intended her photos to appear as they do?

2. Number 8:

As far as I understand, the author is saying that Cameron's picture is good precisely because it is amateurish and yet somehow art.

Line 13 starts with "These traces, (the blurred baby faces and hate-staring) are what gives the photos their life and charm."

Further on in lines 43-46, the author says "what gives Cameron's pictures of actors their special quality--their status as treasures of...--is their singular combination of amateurism and artistry.

I REALLY cannot see how this translates into (B). B says the charm derives from VIEWER's awareness of fictional scene and circumstances of its portrayal. I have replayed JY's explanation over and over again, but it seems more like glossing over rather than pin pointing actual value judgment present in the passage.

(The parts he refers to, IMO, does not attest to what author attributes as what makes Cameron's pictures good. It is just a distinction between photos and painting, to my understanding)

3. Number 11:

(C) '...a certain grandeur.' We were talking about amateurism being good. Now this says possessing grandeur.

From my understanding, the use of ordinary objects and the resulting amateurish appearance is why Cameron's photos good. Again, did she INTEND these photos to be grand? HOW??

4. Number 12: Same as 8 and 11. For E to be the answer, the intent has to be at least not amateurish. HOW??

#help

I really have no idea why the answer is C other than elimination...

So, here's what I make of the question:

Evidence: modern human(M)'s DNA is very different from those of N

Conclusion: ancestor of modern man (AM) did not interbreed with N

Necessary assumption: we need something that allows us to say the dissimilarity of DNA between M and N is sufficient to deny that AM and N interbred (which is not equivalent to denying that N is our ancestor).

Choice C says

(for convenience's sake, instead of saying [object's DNA] I will simply say [object])

Similarity between AM to N not significantly greater than similarity between M and N

I can't help but say so what...

As far as I can tell, the assumption says this.

N----------------------------------------------------M, in terms of similarity.

When you get farther away from N, greater the dissimilarity. According to C,

N----------------------------------------------------M

|----------------------possible range for AM------------------->

Negated, says

N----------------------------------------------------M

|---------range of AM------------|

Now, I am stuck here. So what if AM's DNA is significantly more similar to N than is

M to N?

What I can possibly think of is the following:

1. Since AM would be more similar to N than it is to M, the ancestry of AM is denied, which is a contradiction.

I can't buy this argument because

N----------------------------------------------------M

|-------------------------------AM

AM could be here. That would make AM closer to M than it is to N (therefore, ancestry not denied), yet, significantly more closer to N than M is to N.

2. As to what JY said,

N----------------------------------------------------M

|---------range of AM------------|

this would somehow deny the significance of the stated evidence, how...? I can't follow

Someone please pull me out of this misery T^T

This question is just horrid. C requires so many assumptions to work. Essentially, what (C) is trying to do is point out a way a plan could backfire.

Long put short, the plan is to give incentive to tenants to conserve by individually billing them (a plus towards conservation). That (according to C) would lead to landlords NOT installing energy efficient devices (a minus towards conservation).

The choice falls apart in the latter part.

First, the choice fails to work in scenarios where landlords have already installed energy efficient appliances without significant assumptions. For choice C to work in such scenario,

1. the land lords would have to remove the new system is implemented,

2. the replaced appliances would have to be not energy efficient.

Second, does the landlord cares conserving for reasons other than money? WE DON'T KNOW. Some people do things for reasons other than money, which could apply to landlords. They might STILL want to install efficient appliances for other reasons like concern for the environment. As far as we are concerned, we are only given something about the behavior of the tenants, not the landlords. There is NO reason for us to think that the landlords would or would not install effective appliances if there are no financial incentive to do so.

The only way to get to the answer is by elimination, and even then, it requires luck rather than skill.

To see through all these assumptions, determine that they are reasonable (which I do not think it is, but I guess LSAT writers did) and pick this answer within the short time allotted? Absolutely ridiculous.

#help

11. In choice d institution seems to refer to common law. That i can swallow because that is within the definition of institution. But how am i to connect effectiveness with students being dispirited and people being demoralized? Or is effectiveness pointing to prestige in line 34?

I get that institutions to be effective, they require faith from its subjects, but that is not in the text, which is why i could not pick d. Is this a part of expected to knoe or am i missing something

14. For choice a i cannot find anything about 'new'... I get the paradox part but new??? The guy could have said what was in the text well before this 'situation' developed. How do i deduce that his opinion is new??

I mean i guess this interjection of literary concept into legal arena signals that he is within the critical school movement (a guess of course) which IS new. I doubt we are supposed to know this though nor pick an answer choice with this knowledge...

#help

My question for choice e is discourage by how much? I thought e may be not necessary because if it discouraged a small tiny fraction of would-be-moving-in business, then it would still be possible for the overall economy to improve. Does the choice imply 'all businesses would be discouraged' instead of some?

If all businesses are discouraged, to what degree? Enough so that none will come (or at least to a degree where loss would be greater than gain)?

I guess what i am asking is essentially how strong is discourage?

#help

A and B seem to commit the same mistakes, if I am not mistaken. Could someone help me with this one?

The entirely agree with the video in terms of passage break down. Essentially, the passage says

1. (Main or first or last ) --> cap

2.

[(middle + article) or

(middle + preposition + less than 5) or

( middle + conjunction + less than 5)]

-----> ~cap.

Given this statement, the negation of 2 is the following:

Cap -->

[(middle or article) and

(middle or preposition or ~less than 5) and

(middle or conjunction or ~less than 5)]

(A) is wrong because it says (Cap + p/c) --> ~middle. This is clearly cannot be inferred because it is OK for the word to be (middle + more than 5 words)

Now here is what confuses me:

(B) also seems to be wrong. B only says

(Cap + middle) --> (~article or conjunction shorter than 5). However, it leaves out preposition. Why is this allowed? Help would be very much be appreciated

@

Thsanks for the reply

I can't exactly remember which pt it was but it had to do with

Perdect market economy and maximum utility. It was something like

Only perfect matket economy ensures maximum utility. It came with an additional qualifier 'though others may achieve maximum utility as well' which makes the statement a non-biconditional, i think.

I wanted to know what the statement would mean without the 'although others possible' part.

So this is how i understood your reply: existence of only does not preclude other possibilities.

Only A is B:

only is simply a necessary indicator, nothing mich more

Only A assures B:

Also in this case, only is a necessary qualifier. In this case it does seem to rule out other sufficient, since it is biconditional?

Really hope my question would be answered. I get that choice A seems most supported and I did choose A for that reason. Still, I remain somewhat skeptical.

In the video, JY explained that HS is needed for indefinite survival. I find this hard to agree with.

From my understanding, it is impossible conclude that HS is NEEDED for the bacteria to survive (and by extension to thrive). All we are told is that HS does 2 wonderful things for the bacteria; this does not mean that the bacteria does NOT produce other chemicals that might do the exact same thing. It could simply be that HS is one of them (therefore not needed). With this in mind, A seems pretty flimsy too.

JY crossed out D (and I did for similar reasons when I took the test) since we don't really have any reason to believe that HS removing ALL the oxygen and killing things is necessary.

Choice A, on the other hand, we kind of sort of have SOME support in that the passage talked about HS a lot and how HS existing could enable the bacteria to thrive.

If we take away the 'if thrive --> then HS' presumption, we can't really say A is supported all that strongly. Yes, it would make sense if it did, based on the information in the passage. The passage does talk about the mechanism of survival and (if A is true) then the bacteria COULD live on forever. But, knowing that existence of HS would enable thriving, does not really allow us to infer that "If thrive then HS is needed".

As a matter of fact, I could use similar logic JY used to cross out A. Presume, for the sake of argument, that the bacteria COULD produce another chemical that does everything HS does.

Then, I find it hard to support A at all...

Do we not presume such thing because there is nothing written about it? Then how come we use the laboratory scenario to cross out choice D?

Someone please help me. This is keeping me awake like crazy

#help (Added by Admin)