Disagreement: What gives valid reason to remove the sculpture? Artistic merit (Monica) or public opinion (Hector)
Monica: Necessary assumption is that artistic merit determines whether or not the sculpture should be removed.
Hector: Public opinion determines if it should be removed or not.
A) Neither mentioned this. There is no mix of public opinion and artistic merit. Monica thinks that artistic merit determines if we should remove it or not, NOT public opinion determines artistic merit.
B) sufficient artistic merit - neither talked about the baseline of how much artistic merit is needed
C) Neither mention the ONLY reason to remove a work of art.
D) Benefits by remaining → has artistic merit. There was never a mix of benefitting the people with artistic merit. In other words, they never mentioned that artistic merit is necessary to benefit the people.
E) Monica def thinks this determines whether or not the sculpture should stay or not. While Hector disagrees and thinks it's the public opinion.
Lots of inferences from the stimulus.
Inferences stated clearly:
Steven: social drinkers pose a threat to the highway safety
Miguel: No, they don't as much as the heavy drinkers, THEY, the heavy drinkers, are the ISSUE (the THREAT).
A) Once you see the inference above, then this AC is clear.
B) Meaning, the higher blood alcohol, the ability to drive safely is less safe. Sure, yeah, both may agree with this, but this wasn't inferred as the point of disagreement. They are disagreeing about WHO is the threat.
C) I'm sure they both agree. But again, they are disagreeing about WHO is the threat. And in fact, Steven is saying we should LOWER the limit, so yeah, anyone above the current limit is VERY drunk esp. in Steven's POV.
D) This is a weird AC. You and I right now prob have a lower BAL than the current limit. We pose a little danger to the public. Ok? I am sure they both would agree with his, but again, this wasn't ever mentioned.
E) No idea what both think of this. This answer choice is just a lot of jumble that makes you think of what half is of what.
Disagreement: The bees dance to communicate the location of food. Henry says no, Winifred says yes, although there may be OTHER ways to locate food such as scent trails (in other words, bees can do multiple things to accomplish critical tasks).
A) Neither mention this
B) There is more than one way of communicating where food is - Henry would say NO (Henry believes this is too complicated that they must be dancing for some OTHER reason), while Winifred would say YES.
In B, it says there is one valid explanation... Neither party ever mentions if there is more than one valid explanation.
C) Henry would say NO (Henry believes this is too complicated that they must be dancing for some OTHER reason), while Winifred would infer a YES- they may dance to get food as this is critical task.
D) Only species? We don't know that. Never mentioned.
E) Plays a role? Sure, but not the point of disagreement.
Difference: We tailor to children's accustomed style of learning vs having the children be flexible.
Dana: Tailor to the children's accustomed style of learning.
Pat: Flexibility is important and invaluable
A) Neither contemplate this topic.
B) Dana flat out disagrees with this because she thinks that WE should tailor to children's needs while Plat agrees that children should be flexible and adapt since both skills are in demand.
C) Pat could agree with this, in addition to Dana.
D) No, neither mention this.
E) Dana would say yes, but Pat would MAYBE (?) agree with this. You have to be cautious of the word SOMETIMES in E). pat says it's not always the case that we should tailor to the children's accustomed style of learning because children should also be flexible... and perhaps Pat also thinks there are times appropriate to tailor? She never mentions this, so we can't say Pat disagrees with this statement.
Difference: where does the linkage of ocean and eccentricity come from?
Tina: Euro Renaissance
Sergio: Not Euro Renaissance since the ocean has always been seen as mysterious and unpredictable, both of which are associated with eccentricity.
A) Sergio never mentions the Euro Renaissance. And Tina doesn't talk about eccentric humans during the Euro Renaissance
B) What Sergio says. Tina could agree with this? We don't know.
C) This is flipped of what Tina says. Tina says the Euro Renaissance explains the linkage. Sergio doesn't every talk about the Euro Renaissance.
D) Both don't really talk about the same qualities. Sergio talks about associations, but not the same qualities in the matter that oceans are deep, and eccentrics are deep too.
E) Tina doesn't think this. She explains that the Euro Renaissance caused the linkage in literary and artistic imagination. Sergio explains that the ocean's associations has always been to explain that linkage.
Franklin thinks the pay between the sports player and nobel prize is incosistent.
Tomeka gives reason for the pay of the sports player.
A) Taken more seriously? We have no idea, never mentioned. It's about money.
B) Paid more? Okay we are close with the money talk, but paid MORE? That was nver mentioned. Who knows, maybe Franklin wants the SAME pay.
C) Rare talents and Work Hard is not mentioned by Tomeka and this isn't mentioned by Franklin in that way either.
D) Yes! Franklin says there is no rational basis (inconsistent) while Tomeka tries to rationalize the pay.
E) Social contributions? So random, might as well say something random like the amount of time they spend time studying the LSAT.
Understanding the stimulus to see the disagreement:
Jean: Let's add the low cost model. That way, we can have high end market and low end market = overall increase in sales, while continuing to dominate the high end market.
Tracy: If we were to combine both markets (high and low), then we would allow our competitor to be at an equal footing with us in the high end market (in other words, would we still dominate the high end market? Probably not, it's possible that the high end market could go down), thus potentially hurting our overall sales (esp. since their high end market sells very expensive products).
Disagreement:
1) dominating the high end market
2) effect on overall sales (obvious disagreement, the LSAT won't go this easy on us).
A) Greater potential? Never mentioned. Also, if anything, Jean just wants to combine the markets, and this AC sounds like the low market is just better overall so we should ditch the high end market.
B) Never mentioned
C) We never mentioned this. Jean wants to combine the two markets, and continue to dominate the high end market. We don't know about dominating the low market.
D) Yep!
E) We never mentioned how the decrease sale of the high end product would affect the low cost product!
Disagreement: Reasonable or unreasonable?
Pretty straight forward. But..
I was reading D) for a bit. The reason why D) is wrong is because they both never argue about people who do not benefit from certain governmental program. It baits you to think that smokers and fatty food eaters would not benefit.
This question.. the disagreement is a bit harder to extract based on the way the stimulus is set up.
Disagreement: What allows them to give good service? Efficiency or other reasons?
Powell: Efficiency
Freeman: Other reasons; the private companies have more options to choose from that allows them to give good service [cherry picking].
B) The REASON (efficiency or other reason [cherry picking] that the private companies use while spending less $.
The rest of the ACs are all non sense
Disagreement: does research show that no one is genetically predisposed to manic depression?
Wirth: Yes, because no gene predisposes you to it (evidence/fact), so, ANY claim that someone are genetically predisposed is false!
Chang: No, set of genes can makes you predisposed. He doesn't disagree with the evidence above, but disagrees with the rather stupid conclusion.
D) Chang disagrees with Wirth's conclusion. Wirth thinks that research shows that no one is predisposed (supported by the fact that there is no one "gene" that exists to predispose such condition). Chang disagrees with this, because research has shown a set of genes can predispose manic-depression.
A) Wirth never mentioned a set of genes, and Chang would def disagree with this bc a set of genes have indeed been proven to predispose manic depression.
B) They never mentioned the likelihood of finding a single gene.
C) Yes, they both agree about this, not a point of disagreement.
E) Thoroughness? Never mentioned.
Disagreement: Using the funds the way the Rodrigues family intended to?
A) Lessens the suffering? Hospital auditor never mentions it. Clinic admin only says that there is less suffering but doesn't compare to the elimination of such suffering.
B) Not about adequate treatment. Never mentioned.
C) Clearly stipulated? Well the clinic admin never mentions this, so I immediately eliminated. Hospital auditor mentions that it was stipulated, but only to that extent.
D) Yes, exactly that. For some reason, taking out the word "strictly" in D made it clear for me.
E) Neither never mention Rodriguez family and their anticipations
Disagreement:
Forcing someone to volunteer... can it lead to a genuine habit of volunteering?
A) This is a trap AC. Sarah agrees with this AC, but Paul never mentioned that there are incidences where FORCED volunteering were actually genuine. Paul says that FORCED volunteering may be enjoyable that it encourages a HABIT of volunteering.. He doesn't just say that there are incidences where those forced volunteers are enjoyed.
B) Sarah never mentions enjoyment
C) Yes, Sarah says there's no way that such policy that forces students to volunteer can foster a habit vs. Paul says it can because some enjoy it and can foster a habit.
D) Paul would say yes, but Sarah never mentioned whether or not a school can develop a policy. Who knows, she might think that policy doesn't work, but another policy is possible. No idea, she never mentioned it.
E) Neither talk about the future of their lives and volunteering.
The counter example is:
best teas price = lower quality teas price (it is an counter example to high prices with high quality )
Questions stem asks us to explain the counter example.
Why is that the best teas price is not any more expensive than lower quality teas? This def counters the common belief that people think higher price, higher quality, so then how is it that low quality tea is the same price as the best tea?
A & C ) Do not address low quality or high quality teas.
B) This explains the bolded question. lots of demand driving the prices up, and inflating it basically.
D) Ok and so what? This would explain why lower quality tea would be cheaper, not why the low quality is the same price of the best tea.
E) No idea what to do with this. Given wrong AC.
Read the question carefully since there's more context to get out of it than usual.
Given: Senegal gold was damn pure. It didn't need to be refined. Mints could refine gold and get purer gold elsewhere (maybe even higehr than 92%), but the Senegal was never refined
Question: Merchants wanted to negotiate in Sengal gold. Why? Probably because it's a constant gold rate of 92%. The refined gold can vary.
A) This recaps the bolded statement above.
B) This doesn't answer the discrepancy. So we used silver coins for smaller transactions, and so what?
C) The mints could tell the purity, ok and? People still preferred Senegal gold, why?
D) This doesn't answer the discrepancy. I do not care about other countries, please answer why merchants preferred senegal gold.
E) This doesn't answer the discrepancy. Do I care about jewerly? No.
Given: antidote works really well to limit effects of chickenpox, no side effects, yet docs warn the widespread use could be dangerous.
A) Expensive? Ok so why is it still dangerous? Doesn't answer the discrepancy.
B) Ok and? You would have to make so many assumptions to make this answer the discrepancy.
C) So the antidote is effective at treating YOU when you have chicken pox, but the drug doesn't prevent the spread of chicken pox from one person to another... Ok? and? Again, this doesn't answer the discrepancy. Chicken pox is contagious anyways?
Overkill explanation: We have an antidote for covid19, and it helps you recover... yet, it doesn't prevent the spread of covid-19; does this answer why the widespread use could be dangerous? No, it doesn't... You are receiving an effective drug, and you telling me that it fails to prevent the spread of covid-19 does noting to fill that discrepancy.
D) It's saying when misused, then it can be fatal. Why should we assume there is going to a widespread misuse? Too many assumptions.
E) Basically what E is saying, is similar to antibiotics- antibiotics never kills all the bacteria. It kills a good proportion of it, and the remaining exist. The remainder biology reproduce and grow, and grow to be more immune, esp. the more people take the antibiotics. Same applies with this antidote.
Math related problem basically that gets you the answer. Rule of thumb: Be careful with % and proportions. Read it carefully.
Given:
Polled people. More said they favored Panitch over other candidates. But don't think that the majority favored Panitch. This could be like 30 people favored Panitch, 21 favored Yeung, and 10 didn't have a preference. Or it could be 30 people favored Panitch, 21 favored Yeung, and 15 people favored another candidate.
Results were that Yeung won by the margin. Why? (There should be 4 ACs that can explain why, and the one that doesn't is the answer).
A) A smaller % of Yeung supporters were eligible to vote than Panitch. The %'s give us nothing bc we don't anything about the amount of supporters.
We could have like 1000 supporters, and 25% were eligible to vote (250 voters) vs Panitch having 10 supports, and 90% of them voted (9 voters).
B) This provides a potential reason why more people voted for Yeung. Pehaps Yeung was the 2nd choice, and Mulhern was 1st, but since he dropped out, Yeung was left for them to vote.
C) Biased questions to lean towards Panitch explains why the poll results resulted in that way.
D) Poll respondents do not care to vote for Panitch, as 30% of them voted that it'simportant vs. 70% of Yeung's respondents voted it was important. This would explain why Yeung won - a good majority of them view the election was important.
E) Population was not representative, it surveyed people in an area where Yeung supporters are typically not present.
GIVEN:
Both placebo and vaccine group exhibited symptoms.
Discrepancy is NOT the fact that the placebo group got symptoms. Of course they would, they aren't protected against the hepatitis.
Discrepancy: Why did the vaccinated group get the symptom? They are vaccinated... And it's not bc the vaccine isn't effective, the stimulus says it is.
A) We do not care about placebo group. Does not answer discrepancy
B) We do not care who better recognized the symptoms. Does not answer discrepancy
C) So the vaccine people weren't as healthy. Ok, and? Does not answer discrepancy
D) Vaccinated people were already infected beforehand. This explains it because if you already have the disease, the vaccine isn't going to work (vaccines are given for preventive reasons).
E) Do we care about the recovery? Why did they get the symptoms in the first place? Does not answer discrepancy
The discreptancy: If you plant the same plant year after year, it won't grow much because the niotrogen it needs, depletes. But with alfalfa, they INCREASE nitrogen in the soil... yet, they also grow less in the later years. Why?
Well, we def know it's not bc of the nitrogen bc they increase it. So what could it be?
A) Don't care about "some kind of plants" - very generic
B) Don't care about the process of how Alfalfa releases nitrogen
C) alfalfa produces a toxic substance, even toxis to itself. this answers the question ^
D) this is baiting you to ASSUME that that soil bacteria is not present
E) this is so randomly no.
Hello All,
I'm looking for a general study buddy who intends to take the exam a little later down the road (I'm giving myself ~1 year to study, unless I consistently score a good score beforehand).
I'm also down to meet up in person, if located in SoCal (safely of course), but zoom calls to teach each other, motivate each other, and support one another is what I am most looking for.
Please let me know!
When will it be in person in 2022? Has the exact month been announced?
sarahsjahn393
The problem sets are typically given an allotted time of 30 minutes to complete (to take the problem set, blind review, then review with the answers/JY).
It usually takes me way longer than 30 minutes, typically 1 hour esp. for the level 5 problem sets. I take a long time in blind reviewing to understand every mistake and also during the actual review with JY for anything else I missed.
This can take a toll when I have scheduled to do like 9 problem sets in a day.
Does anyone else deal with this? And if so, how do you deal with this?
Stimulus:
Cost plus type 1 : person gets % of profit. Profit comes from the costs of the project.
Cost plus type 2; Fixed price: Agreed set amount of money (no percentage) to be paid
For cost plus, the higher the profit, the higher the profit for the contractor. So the contractor wants to work for a project that has an inflated estimate, where they will push the actual costs up because it is in it for them to do that.
But paradoxically, cost overruns (actual costs being over the estimate) are actually more common in FIXED profit. WHY?
D) Clients billed under a cost-plus contract (which is BOTH type 1 and 2) are free to review what they are getting into. Well if this is the case, the force for contractors to inflate it goes DOWN, because clients are able to review and be like "Uh, why is this so jacked up high? Stop it" AND this only exists in where the contractor's profit can vary (aka type 1).
E) This AC doesn't help, but just makes the paradox worse. It's saying that in fixed profit contracts, cost estimates are HUGELY inflated, which implies then that the actual costs are even more so inflated, contributing the a higher cost overrun.
A) This explains the discrepancy. Smoking in bed to House fires don't tend to kill people, that's why the decrease in cig smoking has nothing to do with the no decline in number of people killed in home fires
B) this makes the discrepancy worse in my opinion. if home fires caused by smoking in bed occurs when the smokers are asleep, you best believe they will die and there be an INCREASE in the # of people killed in home fires
C) Smokers who smoke in bed are less likely to quit. ahh, yes, this then explains that they do NOT count in the decline in cigarette smoking, so the # of people killed in home fires has no affect bc the smokers in bed did not quit, and can be very likely contributing to deadly house fires (hence, no decline in the # of people killed in home fires).
D) In the kitchen? Oh okay, then yeah that explains that even outside of smokers, a good amount comes from those in the kitchen hence no decrease in the number of people killed in home fires.
E) Population increased, so if there is one home fire, your neighbors dead too hence no decline in the number of people killed in home fires.
Stimulus: Over the 10 years, there has been a 6x increase in govt funding for wetland preservation. Yet, the preservation has increased by only 2x.
Our question? Does the 6x in funding mean that the preservation of only 2x is not enough? How is the funding not enough / inadequate then?
A) Mismanaged, okay? But what about the increase in funding and that not being enough for what has been done for preservation?
B) Do not care about salaries
C) Great, we are better able to know where preservation is needed. But again, how does this answer our question?
D) Do not care about who is working on preservations
E) As said by chaplin:
A sixfold increase might sound like a lot, but it’s relative to what the starting point is.
If the starting point is at $1 million, then $6 million is a lot.
If the starting point is at $1, then $6 is beyond inconsequential.
How is $6 going to help preserving the wetlands?
A) This is a trap AC bc it allows for some leeway in the last sentence: "anything more extensive" vs "property owners are sometimes allowed exemptions"
B) We do not care about what is in the best interest
C) No? It said city council views property rights as the utmost importance?
D) this explains why the city council is so strict. without the prohibitions, neighbors would be able to do whatever the hell they want to other properties that do not belong to them.
E) This does not explain anything in terms of respecting my property rights yet being so strict.
28. Which one of the following is most supported by the information above?
MSS
21. Which one of the following, if true, adds the most support for the conclusion of the argument?
Strengthen
Why?
#help (Added by Admin)