Hey guys,
I came across a main point question from preptest June 2004 Section 3 #23 "Each of many different human hormones can by itself raise the concentration of glucose in the blood"
I can't understand why the first sentence isn't the main point. I'm having a difficult time understanding why the second sentence, the sentence explaining the phenomena is the main point. This argument structure was very confusing to me..
Thanks so much in advance
Ok so I would appreciate feedback on my thought process for this Nec. Assumption question. I chose B incorrectly and am trying f
Conclusion: philosophical thought is unique to humans
Evidence: Apes are the only nonhuman animals who can learn human language.
Apes have never verbally articulated, in human language, philosophical questions
Ok, so the gaps/assumptions I noted were:
1. The author is assuming that because the apes haven't asked these questions in human language that they are incapable of phil. thought; but what if the apes are perfectly capable of asking phil. questions in human language but just haven't done so. So to add on to the first assumption the author is concluding that in order to prove that a creature can think philosophically, the creature has to have demonstrated that it can think philosophically by expressing philosophical thoughts through human language. The ape hasn't expressed philosophical thoughts through human language and therefore must be incapable of philosophical thought.
I chose B because I was focusing on this gap of the argument; just because the ape hasn't physically expressed a philosophical question in human language doesn't mean that they can't think philosophically. Maybe they can think about these philosophical things without speaking (which means they are capable of philosophical thought). So I chose B because I felt it closed up the gap. If apes are incapable of thinking in human language, that can explain why they haven't asked any phil questions in human language.
But I'm noticing something as I type. Just because apes are incapable of thinking in human language doesn't mean that they are necessarily incapable of philosophical thought. It could be the case that they think philosophically in their own ape language. So the assumption I'm realizing now that the test is looking for is something along the lines that to be capable of philosophical thoughts, creatures must be able to express phil. thoughts using human language.
An ape can't express phil. thoughts using human language and therefore can't think phil.
A bear can't express phil. thoughts using human langauge and therefore can't think phil.
This matches up best with answer C.
Why I didn't choose C was because it discusses the way in which philosophical thought can be expressed and I reckoned that we're more concerned with if creatures can think a certain way not if they can express that they think a certain way. In other words, if the answer choice said THE ONLY creatures capable of philosophical thought can express phil. thought in human language, I would have chosen this.
Can someone explain why answer choice C is correct even though it just talks about how phil. thought can be expressed??
Thanks so much in advance
"People want to be instantly"
Just want to make sure I'm diagramming correctly. The conclusion that it's imprudent to appear prudent can be diagrammed as the following:
It is imprudent to appear pru.
APrudent----> imprudent
I diagrammed the premise that people who appear prudent are generally resented as: APrudent-----> GR
The gap is GR------> imprudent which is what answer choice E is saying (It is imprudent to cause people to resent you) So if you cause people to resent you, it is imprudent. So the chain is as follows APrudent-----> GR----> Imprudent.
Was my diagramming correct?
Hey guys I have a question about this question beginning with, "it is clear that none of the volleyball players at yesterday's office."
Is A incorrect because goes from making a statement about all the employees at TRF who were offered the insurance to a conclusion about employees in general.
In short my first question is I see that the answer choice jumps from a statement about "everyone employed by TRF who was given the opportunity to purchase dental insurance" to all employees. The author is assuming that all employees at TRF were given the opportunity to purchase d.insurance. What if some workers had other insurance and chose to keep that insurance; and maybe those employees with the outside insurance chose not to go to the dentist. That could be true, but the choice doesn't leave room for the possibility. Is this why A is incorrect?
2) I am a little unclear on why D is correct. I didn't choose D because I was unsure if I could assume that taking time off= vacation time, (sometimes the LSAT gets you for shifts in phrasing and I didn't want to fall prey to this another time)
Help would be greatly appreciated
Thanks so much again c.janson35! One last question, I promise. On PT 26 #21 "The companies that are" I had a difficult time diagramming a sentence without indicators. The premise "It is expensive to teach people software that demands the memorization of unfamiliar commands" I diagrammed this statement as expensive--->teach ppl software that demands.
Upon review I realized that this diagram did not get me to the correct answer (which was the gap if successful then it must be bought by prime purchasers; however, the reverse of the diagram above, teach ppl software that demands---> expensive, got me to this gap..
How would you gauge that expensive is the nec? Is it because you can reason that if it demands the memorization of unfamiliar commands it must be expensive
Thanks so much for the speedy reply! I see why A is incorrect. For PT 56 Section 3 # 18 "Fund-raiser" my next question is how would you diagram the conclusion "most charities could probably increase the amount of money they raise through donations by giving donors the right to vote"?
I see that for the last question "all" is an indicator but for this question there doesn't seem to be any
So I'm two months into studying for the Oct. LSAT and am working on improving my accuracy regarding necessary assumption questions. I encountered 2 problems from practice tests (PT 56 Section 3 # 18 "Fund-raiser" and PT 3 Section 2 #3 "In Europe school children devote") that require you to find a nec. assumption.
For #3 from PT 3 section 2, I was between answer choice A and the correct answer, D. I chose D because it would destroy the argument if negated, but I couldn't eliminate A (All children can be made physically fit by daily calisthenics). I looked on LSAT forums online and one reason cited as to why the A was incorrect was that the answer choice makes daily calisthenics sufficient and not necessary (which contradicts the conclusion that states that calisthenics is necessary for physical fitness).
However, I diagrammed answer choice A as All children can be made physically fit---> by daily calisthenics
According to the forums online and speaking to other students, my diagram above is wrong. My question is why is it wrong and how would I diagram this answer choice. Does "by" indicate the sufficient condition and I'm just unaware of this or is there another method as to how we can diagram conditionals without indicator words like (if or without)?
Bump?