#help I have a question. How can you infer from the stimulus that the argument presumes the opposite of answer choice D (i.e length of time is relevant to the recovery rates of the patients)?
The stimulus asserts that since both hospitals have similar rate of recovery but different average length of days patients stay at the hospital, University Hospital which has slightly longer average length of stay could "reduce its average length of stay without affecting the quality of care."
If I am understanding the author correctly, she is asserting that the quality of care at Uni Hospital would not suffer (or get better) even after the hospital made conscious effort to reduce the average length of stay. I am aware that quality of care is not exactly the same as recovery rate, nor the stimulus explicitly links those two ideas together, but wouldn't it be a fair assumption to make that quality of care in a hospital can potentially affect the recovery rate?
So how can you say that "the author believes that the length of time is relevant to the recovery rates of the patients"? So then what makes D wrong? Is it the word "never" in D? Can someone please explain?
#help I have a question. How can you infer from the stimulus that the argument presumes the opposite of answer choice D (i.e length of time is relevant to the recovery rates of the patients)?
The stimulus asserts that since both hospitals have similar rate of recovery but different average length of days patients stay at the hospital, University Hospital which has slightly longer average length of stay could "reduce its average length of stay without affecting the quality of care."
If I am understanding the author correctly, she is asserting that the quality of care at Uni Hospital would not suffer (or get better) even after the hospital made conscious effort to reduce the average length of stay. I am aware that quality of care is not exactly the same as recovery rate, nor the stimulus explicitly links those two ideas together, but wouldn't it be a fair assumption to make that quality of care in a hospital can potentially affect the recovery rate?
So how can you say that the author of the stimulus in fact assumes the opposite of D? While I see why C is right I don't quite seem to understand why D is wrong. Can someone please explain?
this feels like a main point question after watching the video. hmm.
Id say I run out of time more often in logical reasoning sections and sometimes RC (just shy of 2 or 3 questions).
i think this question is tough b/c the right answer plays with our assumptions about the world. grr
Hello. I have been following the blind review method for some time now, but I always fall short of two or three questions for logical reasoning section when I am doing the timed LSAT and it is so frustrating. It is even more frustrating when the score I get is not to my expectations and it just feeds my self doubt. Do any of you guys have similar issue? Any tips for completing the LSAT sections on time?
hello I have a question about this one. Is the answer technically both sufficient and necessary condition? #help
Would you say that A is a weakening answer rather than a flaw answer. I can kinda see that if this was a weakening question instead, A would have been great. Am I right? #help
I think I chose E thinking that it was like a principle question. i.e) if E was true, Kendrick is justified in arguing what he did. But I reckon Resolve Reconcile Questions want different kind of answer
damn it. I am too emotional. lol. LSAT u savage.
Hi, I have a question. #help
"Although withholding information from someone who would find information painful is sometimes justified, there is no such justification if the person would benefit from having the information."
What does the second part of this sentence really mean? Especially by "justification." Does it mean that a) if the person does benefit from having the information, there is "no such justification," meaning such acts can never be justified (i.e impermissible, never allowed) unlike the former case where there can be some cases that can be justified OR does it mean that b) if the person does end up benefiting from having the information there is 'no such need' for justifying (i.e requiring explanation). I think having a proper understanding of the meaning of that part screwed me up for this question.
#help
Thanks for the explanation. My id is Nanaimo because I like Nanaimo bars xD I live in Ontario. Nice to meet another Canadian tho! :)
no idea what mail order book club is.
Thanks for the reply. What prompted me to ask this question was LSAT 46 - Section 3 - Question 15 (Necessary Assumption Question). The correct answer for this question was "It is to the advantage of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing to societal good."
I skipped this answer choice b/c when I negated the statement in my mind, I translated it as
"It is NOT to the advantage of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing to societal good." And so, I understood it as meaning that "For at least one individual, it is not advantageous for him/her to be concerned with contributing to societal good." This negation didnt seem to affect the argument. After I was reviewing this question it came to my mind that the negation of the statement could also become "It is advantageous for nobody to be concerned with contributing to societal good." in which case, it would most definitely wreck the argument. Does the first interpretation of the negation statement wreck the argument too? (i.e "For at least one individual, it is not advantageous for him/her to be concerned with contributing to societal good.")
btw, I am reading your tips for 170+ and found it to be very insightful. special thanks.
If I negate "all", it becomes "not all." But doesn't "not all" imply two distinct possibilities, namely, "some" and "none"? If I negate the statement "all turtles are slow" as "it is not the case that all turtles are slow." Can't it either mean "some turtles are not slow" (there is at least one turtle that is NOT slow out of all the turtles on this earth) or "none of the turtles are slow" (they are ALL FAST AND FURIOUS BEASTS.) When I negate a conditional statement in LSAT, should I be mindful of these two distinct possibilities?
Any reply is welcome.
Thanks.
Hi guys which strategy do you think is better? Going for accuracy or covering the entire questions?
I try to go for the "low-hanging coconut" during the timed tests but i find that it's hard b/c unlike LR, LG section takes 2 to 3 minutes just to figure out the rules and the diagram. And sometimes I find it a bit distracting (and makes my answers even less accurate) to move back and forth between questions in LG just to cover all the questions.
How do you guys deal with this problem? I wanna hear ur thoughts
Three acorns in the morning, four in the evening. lol
Is "it" from the conclusion "yet clearly it has created many jobs in the area" referring to the Bill that was passed 2 years ago or Plastonica the company?
#help (Added by Admin)
This feels a bit like Necessary Assumption question.
The sun is a star, right? that confused me to pick D....
Hi! Thanks for the comment. :) I was a bit shaky on NA so it is a welcome help. I have a question for strengthening tho, do you think "Most people who got a tattoo ended up in jail" in fact does strengthen it? Since it does increase the likelihood that she "might" end up in jail after getting a tattoo.
Hi.
I needed to improve logical reasoning skills so I took a simple argument and tried if I can come up with imaginary correct answers for different question types on my own. What do you guys think? Do you think I did any of them incorrectly?
Argument: You can't get a tattoo. Your aunt Barbara got a tattoo, and she is in jail.
Flaw: Assumes that I will have the same consequence as aunt Barbara if i get a tattoo like her.
Weaken: Some people who has a tattoo did not end up in jail
Strengthen: Most people who got a tattoo ended up in jail
Sufficient Assumption: A new legislation states that "anyone who gets a tattoo ends up in jail."
Necessary Assumption: There are at least some people besides aunt Barbara who got a tattoo and now in jail.
Parallel flaw: Last night, I saw a video of a black cat that was taught to use a toilet, our kitty is also black, so she could be taught to use a toilet.
favorite RC passage so far. I love me some good early modern English history.
This is profoundly upsetting. :(
Hi, so C is preying on our assumption that "a recent tornado that devastated a small river town" was somehow not a highly publicized event compared to the highly publicized earthquake? When in fact, we have no idea from the info from the passage? (i.e psg didnt mention it but we cannot rule out the possibility, and therefore should not be assuming?)
I cannot quite agree with JY's explanation that we cannot assume C from the stimulus, b/c C's claim is too broad and the incident described in the stimulus is a single, isolated incident. Aren't all the answer choices asking us to make broad generalization from the single, isolated incident described in the stimulus? What are other reasons to eliminate C for sure? #help
dumb question. I am dumb too.