If someone can help me understand this question, I would be most appreciative. I have been staring at it for the last 15 minutes, I looked at the Manhattan explanation (on their forums) and was not satisfied, it really does not make sense to me.
If someone could help me, I would be most appreciative! Please, please help me! :(
This question is a toughie!
I think the way to understand this is when people in walking shoes and people in toning shoes walk for the same distance or amount of time, the walking shoes people get the same amount of exercise or MORE exercise than the toning shoes people.
However, to get this right, you have to realize that many people is a different subset than the one above. Many people CHOOSE to walk more in the toning shoes and as a result they strengthen/develop their leg muscles more. If the other group (walking shoes) are not walking now, and the toning shoes people continue walking then it makes complete sense that their muscles are strengthened.
I thought this was really tricky and the answer is super subtle!
I did this question twice in a span of about 3-4 weeks. I got it wrong both times.
So what I did was diagram the stimulus:
TT-->OM-->OD
S-m->OM
OM=Older than Maples
OD=Older than Dogwoods
A) I eliminated because there is no relationship between dogwoods and tulip trees
B) We don't know anything about the youngest sycamores only about the sycamores that are older than dogwoods
C) I picked this when I did it last night. I actually thought it was correct because we know that most sycamores are older than dogwoods, so there must be some that are either younger or the same age as dogwoods. I guess this is wrong because of "oldest dogwoods" am I correct?
D) Similar to A there is no relationship that can be said between tulip trees and sycamores
E) same as D
Can someone help me. Clearly my reasoning is incorrect somewhere because I got this question wrong not once, but twice. I am incredibly grateful to whoever can help me understand this problem!
My breakdown:
Paragraph 1: In the 1980s women who were Latin American began publishing literature. At the end of the decade, the autobiography was seen in US Latina writing in three autobiographical writings.
Paragraph 2: The collections are innovative for a variety of reasons 1) addresses traditional linguistic boundaries by using a mix of English and Spanish, 2) notes the politics of mixed identities, 3) mix structures of works without preference to one over the other.
Paragraph 3: Examples of the three works detailing the reasons in the previous paragraph.
Paragraph 4: Instead of having their personal histories conform to existing structures, these writers have revolutionized the autobiography to allow their experiences to be accounted for.
MP: In US Latina American literature, writers have reinvented the genre in their approach to writing, content, and the form it takes in the autobiography.
Structure: A phenomenon is introduced, the phenomenon is explored through detailed examples, and the author reasserts the significance of the phenomenon.
Tone: The author is in favor of the phenomenon/US Latina women's approach to writing the autobiography.
I am totally lost on this question. What I did was diagram :
--L ---> --C
C --> L
I picked E because it had the word many in it, and I thought from the first sentence it was being consistent. Initially, I was thinking D because of "some" but then I thought well the first sentence has "many" so I should be congruent.
I'm really lost and cannot figure this out. If someone could help me out, I would be most appreciative!
I FINALLY figured out this question, after putting it aside and not looking at any explanations, or anything.
I have a new way of approaching SA questions, I just simply tell myself I am trying to make this argument valid.
OK so argument:
Currently the interest rates that banks pay to borrow are higher than the interest rates that they can receive for loans to large, financially strong companies.
Banks will not currently lend to companies that are not financially strong, and total lending by banks to small and medium-sized companies is less than it was five years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So total bank lending to companies is less than it was five years ago.
Answer choice A: Banks will not lend money at interest rates that are lower than the interest rates they pay to borrow.
This argument makes the assumption that banks are NOT going to provide loans to financially strong companies. We know of only two options, option 1: financially strong companies and option 2: small and medium sized companies.
The argument makes the assumption that banks are ONLY going to provide loans to small and medium sized companies. How do we know this? Well we have the two options, and then the quality that is associated with the small and medium sized companies [total lending is less than it was five years ago) is included in the conclusion.
So, the only thing we can do is take out the other group [financially strong companies] which is in the first premise: Answer Choice A does that: banks will not lend money at interest rates that are lower than the interest rates they pay to borrow. We know from the first premise that the interest rates banks pay to borrow are higher than what they can receive for loans from the financially strong companies. So by eliminating this group from consideration from the banks point of view, we know that the only option is the small and mid sized companies!
My breakdown:
Paragraph 1: CM is a formerly abundant now rare tree species in Mauritius (also home to the extinct dodo bird). ST's hypothesis that the population decrease of M is linked to the dodo extinction is based on limited evidence.
Paragraph 2: The temporal coincidence led to a causality between the two factors. The reduction in CM because the dodo's consumption of CM fruit allowed the seeds to spring free and germinate. However, with the disappearance of the dodo the seeds became trapped and were unable to germinate.
Paragraph 3: Because there was no direct proof available ST found support in additional findings based on other bird studies and tests done on turkeys.
Paragraph 4: Even though some scientists find ST's reasoning possible, ST's ideas have been challenged by leading experts in the field. WS has identified younger trees indicating CM's germination continued post dodo. Also AS shows while a small amount germinate, it is enough to keep CM from extinction. The population decrease could be due to other factors.
MP: ST's hypothesis about the decrease of CM being linked to the dodo extinction is not likely.
Tone: The author reports the theory as an objective reporter but in the last paragraph he comes strongly in support of the detractors.
Structure: A hypothesis for a phenomenon is introduced, explained in further details, its shortcomings are noted, its response to limited circumstances, and the hypothesis is ultimately challenged.
My breakdown:
A:
Paragraph 1: The patent office is only to award patents for "nonobvious" inventions. A consideration appears to be obvious but a court recently ruled tech company infringed on patents dealing with this consideration.
Paragraph 2: In an ideal world patents would be so narrow that companies could invent around patents but courts are making it impossible to invent around patents.
Paragraph 3: Large tech companies have responded to this practice by holding huge amounts of patents and using them as leverage against potential lawsuits. Those that don't engage in this practice end up at a severe disadvantage.
Paragraph 4: Software patents are open to abuse because software consists of modular components and its impossible to develop software without infringing patents-in the case they could it would be prohibitively expensive to do so.
MP: Because of the way the courts operate with patents, the current system is inadequate and open for abuse.
B:
Paragraph 1: Patents thwart innovation in software development and are not consistent with open source/free software. The company would like to join those in the community and proprietary vendors who are against software patents.
Paragraph 2: We have to adapt to circumstances and some companies gather a plethora of patents. (Similar/same issues as Passage A, Paragraph 4).
Paragraph 3: One defense against such practices is to create a portfolio of software patents for protection. Even though the company is against patents, it will also adopt this policy because of the current situation.
MP: Software patents are unfair but to stay relevant and cautious it is important to gather a portfolio of software patents.
Tone: The authors are pretty much in agreement. Passage B is direct support for Passage A.
11: JY's prephrase says "tells us about a movement in photography."
A) I picked this one, I was down to this and B and I picked this because of the words aesthetic value, but while the first artist justification for the older method is based on aesthetics, the other artist's focus is on the use for his interest of fantasy and nostalgia which would be more of a usefulness rather than aesthetic claim.
B) We are given different techniques of photography but we don't know how the methods are used.
C) My issue for this answer choice was the word surprising, even though the practice was out of the norm for photography today I didn't think it was portrayed as something surprising. I guess the compare/contrast between the modern uses of photography vs this movement in the third paragraph would be the justification for the word surprising.
D) We have no idea if these photographers have received acclaim for this use or not.
E) Yes two contemporary photographers are mentioned, but they are both used to illustrate support for the conclusion of this new development among a subset of artists. Also, other approaches are mentioned in the second paragraph so we cannot limit to the two artists.
14: The justification for this answer is in lines 38-40 where "we are able to project our sentiments and associations on the respective art."
A) This is correct because it accounts for why E doesn't correct the blemishes in the older art, either way it would be exposed to the viewer.
B) I eliminated this because of the word "independent" E's whole argument is that the techniques he uses bring forth a sense of nostalgia so there is no way the feelings of an artwork would be independent of the techniques.
C) This is wrong for two reasons: 1) most people, we only know about the two artists and then the overall trend within this subset, for the subset itself we do not know what is true of MOST artists. Also this answer choice is talking about the viewer we don't know about general viewers experiences from the passage; 2) "record their subjects accurately" if anything this goes against what E is saying because he is embellishing the artwork to make it appear part of the antique art set.
D) This would weaken his argument because E's whole focus is on nostalgia of the artwork, people not seeing much artistic value in his subset would not support that.
E) This is talking about modern photography which is irrelevant because it has no bearing on E, since E is part of the trend moving towards older techniques.
My breakdown:
Paragraph 1: Revival of tintype. An explanation of the tintype process.
Paragraph 2: Old albumen prints and tintype significance.
Paragraph 3: Photography is returning to its past, this is illustrated with the tintype process, daguerreotype plates among other methods.
Paragraph 4: Old techniques and reasons why they were replaced. Only tintype continued onwards in modern times. Nostalgia = another reason for returning to the past.
Paragraph 5: Reasons for motivations of the past: preoccupation with contingency. 1) each production is unique 2) recovering intimacy with photography.
MP: New focus on returning to past methods in photography among a subset of photographers.
Tone: The author is supportive of this new trend.
Structure: Different artists actions and reasons why are illuminated to support a conclusion about returning to the past for photographic methods.
My breakdown:
Paragraph 1: Agricultural practice of production has led to bankruptcy among small firms. Whatley has a solution that can bring about profitability.
Paragraph 2: Small firms need to generate year round cash flow. Whatley makes suggestions to this end: 1) grow 10 distinct crops 2) have a client membership club for client harvesting.
Paragraph 3: Pick your own farming is imperative to farming because production costs is in harvesting. Explains advantage of increasing profits and eliminating distribution costs.
Paragraph 4: The success of this plan is contingent on the farms location being close to a population center, well drained soil and water, and liability insurance.
MP: Whatley provides an alternative to current agricultural production which he claims will benefit small farms.
Tone: Objective. The author is reporting the facts.
Structure: A problem is introduced, there is a potential solution introduced, the solution is explained in further detail, and is claimed to be beneficial.
If someone could help me out on this one I am completely lost.
I know you can eliminate A and B and they both talk about what proportion of part time/full time employees quit before the policy was introduced and we only have information about what happened after the new policy was introduced.
I guess I need help in understanding answer choices C-E. I thought C was the correct answer because if more new full time employees are hired, then the conclusion does not follow from the premises. If more new full time employees are hired then it could be the same amount quitting in their first year even with the percentage 1/3 full time.
I'm not a mathematician, so I could be totally off. If someone could help me I would be most appreciative.
This is a principle question.
I got this wrong in both drilling and blind review.
So I thought I am looking for something that will do the following:
connect the premise to the conclusion
SO, say something about how something that is a health hazard should be banned
My reasoning:
A) This is the one I picked in BR. I thought the phrase "should not be allowed" could be a referent to banned. It could be taking it a bit to the extreme, i.e. making that extra assumption, but to me this seemed like the strongest answer choice.
B) The argument is not about misleading claims, but rather if something is a health hazard it should be banned. This answer choice does not do that.
C) This is stretching the argument to an extreme. This is like saying advertisements for vitamins should include all side effects etc. This answer choice says all health hazards associated with promoted products should be included. The argument says if a product has a health hazard, it should be banned.
D) This answer choice is irrelevant. Conforming to regulations and standards is information that is extraneous and the argument did not address.
E) I thought this was wrong because of the word ban while this answer choice is discussing promoting a product. I guess it could be correct because if it is not a health hazard then it would be healthful. This could be the contrapositive, "if a product does not promote smoking then it is not a health hazard" Then you would take the extra leap and say if it does not promote smoking then it is a healthful product, and you would just ignore the health hazard part since that is no longer relevant.
I'm really confused. In my reasoning, I did not address the "promote smoking" part, maybe that's where I went wrong. I still think this could be a big leap of assumptions. If someone can tell me if my reasoning is valid/reasonable and explain answer choices A and E to me, I would be most appreciative!
Am I the only one having problems logging into 7Sage from Mozilla? I even changed my password because it would not let me log in.
It works fine on internet explorer, but I use Mozilla for everything and would prefer to use 7Sage on there.
ARGH! I was so so SO close to getting this right, I had picked (E) and had three minutes left over at the end of my section and changed it to (E). In BR, I didn't read what AC (A) was saying critically and unfortunately picked (A) again.
Translation:
Studies find human tears have some of the same hormones the human body has when undergoing emotional stress. Tears remove a significant amount of these hormones from the body. Thus, crying causes a reduction of emotional stress.
Analysis:
This is a bad argument. It has two correlations with a common factor and assumes there is a causal relationship with the two extraneous variables:
Tears are correlated with hormones which are correlated with emotional stress.
Hence, tears are correlated with a reduction of hormones.
Thus, crying (tears shedding) cause a reduction in emotional stress.
This assumes because hormones reduce, emotional stress is also reduced, but what if there is some other factor that reduces emotional stress and the reduction of hormones just happens to happen?
(A) Overlooks the possibility that if crying has a tendency to reduce emotional stress, this tendency might arise because of something other than the shedding of tears.
This answer choice is assuming the assumption that the argument makes (the causation of crying (tears shedding) cause the reduction of emotional stress, which would rely upon a correlation between the true is in fact true! It assumes the correlation, however, no such correlation has been established or stated!
(E) Takes for granted that because certain substances are present whenever a condition occurs, those substances are a cause of that condition.
Yes! It assumes that hormones are present when there is emotional stress there is a correlative/causation relationship between the two, so a reduction of tears would cause a reduction of emotional stress. However, the only thing that has ever been established is that there is a correlative relationship, there are some of the same hormones associated with emotional stress and tears. We cannot conclude further on the emotional stress without additional premises given.
My breakdown:
A:
Paragraph 1: In music complex sounds can have positive effects on the listener, coherence is important.
Paragraph 2: Music is like the human language.
Paragraph 3: Some music can have a relaxing effect.
MP: The effect of sounds
B:
Paragraph 1: Expectation of music and tensions impact
Paragraph 2: Mismatch in music - positive and negative emotions
Paragraph 3: Pleasurable vs uncomfortable experiences in music
Paragraph 4: Musical preference
MP: The impact of music and its influence on musical emotions
My breakdown:
Paragraph 1: Nigerian computer scientist PE's success in designing computers is fueled by his openness to go beyond paradigms and use nature in his designs. In the 1980s he achieved breakthroughs in parallel computer systems, a solution to supercomputers.
Paragraph 2: An example of modeling an oil field problem is described. PE designed a parallel computer to connect to small computers, in addressing the problem of interference PE looked to natural processes specifically tree branches.
Paragraph 3: EM new breakthrough in 1996 where he presented the design for a parallel computer that will be powerful enough to predict global weather patterns. He also believes computer scientists will start looking to nature to provide elegant solutions to complex problems.
MP: EM provided breakthroughs of a computer system that used nature to address complex problems.
Tone: The author presents the information as an objective reporter but he appears to be a fan of EM and his approach to resolving complex issues through nature.
I got this one wrong, I saw the language of the words following the colon and thought aha argument by analogy! I did the SAME thing in BR! Ugh.
The words following the colon if you look at them and see how it relates to the words of the argument overall it's literally taking the policymakers proposal to the extreme and saying look how ridiculous/preposterous this strategy would be! So it is raising considerations to show the proposal would lead to absurd consequences i.e. be untenable or waste an extraordinary effort/resources.
Lesson Learned: before you jump to conclusions, look at each word in entirety and see how it relates back to the stimulus. Is the function I think the words in question doing, actually doing that task? Check back to ensure it actually IS doing that.
Hi Guys,
I don't really know how to address overconfidence errors. So far, I have been taking my PT's and BRing just the questions I circled, and then BRing the rest of the section. However, it has come to my attention that it is more important to BR the questions that you circled first and then address overconfidence errors.
My question is this: what do you do to address the overconfidence errors? Do you look at your test booklet and see the question you circled and try to see what your reasoning was? What if you don't remember it? I took a PT on Friday and am now reviewing the test bc I was busy yesterday. Do you just try to reason why the one you chose is wrong and all the other answer choices? Or do you look at the answer and then rationalize why that is correct and the others are incorrect.
I'm really confused about the process for the overconfidence errors and would be most appreciative of any insights or help someone can provide me.
If someone can explain to me why B is correct and C is wrong I would be most appreciative. My thought process is below:
Although dissemination of national security and commercial information should be restricted/prohibited (based on the condition), the spread of scientific information should always be allowed.
A) Yes, this country can distinguish potential competitors or enemies based on the stimulus.
B) If technology is restricted, then the general public does not need that information on public policy issues.
C) I said this one was not a necessary assumption because we have no idea about democratic vs. non democratic countries relative proportion of advancement.
D) This has to be true as the stimulus requires a distinction of scientific information vs commercial and national security.
E) This could be true if MNC uses technology but doesn't share it internationally.
PLEASE HELP!!! I really cannot see why C is wrong and B is correct. Thank you in advance.
Can someone help me understand this one? I got it wrong and I understand why the correct answer is correct but not why the incorrect answers are incorrect.
I thought the flaw was Tim using his grandpa as a counterexample to the experts position. My thought was even though the experts had no way of knowing about this specific case, if they conducted studies/experiments they would have accounted for outliers such as Tim's grandpa.
A) This is correct because Tim uses counterexample (his grandpa) to refute a probabilistic conclusion (it is very likely to be harmful to the smokers health). The reason this is correct is also because "very likely" allows for other cases such as Tim's grandpa. I was wavering between this one and B but went with B.
B) I really can't figure out a way to eliminate this answer choice. The information was specific because it was T's grandpa, the only thing I can think of is maybe "information unavailable to experts in the field" and the fact that perhaps the experts were including outliers in their research/assessments prior to making a claim about the future health of smokers. ???
C) I think C is wrong because the experts do not explicitly discount the information of Tim's grandpa, they never mention it.
D) This I'm completely lost on.
E) It never indicates experts that are in agreement with each other and how they derived that agreement, it's focus is on discounting/eliminating their stance on the health of long term smokers.
Thank you in advance, I am most appreciative.
I got this question correct, but I wanted to review it because I was really confused with the answer choices.
So, it's a flaw in the reasoning. My whole thought process with the stimulus is/was that the flaw is you cannot assume that since a tax of 1% per gallon would raise one billion dollars/year at consumption rates, a tax of 50% per gallon would yield 50 billion dollars per year. Just because the tax is a certain percentage/dollars does not mean that amount would be doubled. Am I correct in thinking about the flaw this way? I took micro and macroeconomics a really long time so other than the law of supply and demand I don't really remember much for example elasticity.. I know revenue is cost-profit or is it the other way around. I'm really confused so if someone could help me out, I would be most appreciative!
My reasoning is below:
A) the data is not irrelevant, in fact, I would say it is relevant to discussing the flaw in the reasoning.
B) I was thinking about this one for a minute, but then I thought the author is not discussing current consumption figures but rather hypothetical/future consumption figures according to tax policies.
C) I chose this because I thought you cannot assume since a tax of one percent per gallon yields one billion dollars that a tax of fifty percent will yield fifty billion dollars.
D) I was considering this also, but then I couldn't pinpoint the cause and effect, all I could think of was there are two potential situations and we have no idea of the second one is really possible or not.
E) This one I was totally lost on because there is no discussion of morality, it's purely economic reasoning. I ignored this answer choice and focused on the others.
PLEASE HELP!!!!! thanks in advance!
I have an issue with the negation of this answer choice, if someone can help me--I would be most appreciative:
Most of the trade goods that came into western Mexico centuries ago were transported by boat.
Lsathacks says the negation is this:
Merely half of all trade that came into Western Mexico came by boat.
But, I think the negation should be this:
Between 0-50% of the trade goods that came into western Mexico centuries ago were not transported by boat.
Am I wrong in this thinking? Please help out!!
This is a principle question.
I'm actually completely lost on this one.
I thought the principle to be extracted from the stimulus was somewhere along the lines of, in order to gain acceptance for a theory, there needs to be some evidence to support the ideas expounded in the theory.
The reason I thought this was because even though scientists did not find such a force as evidence, new instruments allowed continental movement to be confirmed by observation which I thought acted as evidence.
A) No idea what to make of this or do with this
B) Doesn't do anything to the argument. In this particular theory science has not identified the force, so this answer choice is irrelevant.
C) This I think could be considered irrelevant, this changes the scope of the argument. Measuring instruments appear to make theories harder to work out, what does that have to do with the stimulus? Absolutely nothing.
D) Science is concerned with mass behavior, ok, but what does mass behavior have to do with a force that can make the continents move? Nothing. I think this is irrelevant.
E) This is the correct answer. I can see how this could be correct because there is no explanation for the posited theory, yet the evidence is there/detected.
I guess if someone could explain why A is wrong and why E is correct that would be great. I was really confused with this question.
I ran into this on a Principle question. I diagrammed it as a unless condition, I was not completely sure though and really nervous about it.
Is it the same as either or/or not both? I looked in my notes for the group 1-4 lessons and I didn't find it in there.
This is a Method of Reasoning question.
I really need help in understanding why answer choice C is wrong. I understand why A is correct and why the other ones are wrong, my reasoning is below:
A) The premise is more people would put money in their savings accounts, the challenge is the past initiative with money being diverted from personal savings and net personal savings remaining unchanged.
B) The disagreement is with the author and a group of policymakers not "among policymakers".
C) I really don't know, this answer choice looks good to me. Isn't the author saying it is more likely to fail because of initiatives in the past did not bring about the change the policymakers desire. Would this answer choice be incorrect because it is too definite?
D) This one can be eliminated because we do not know that this group of policymakers are the same policymakers that advocated the past initiatives. Perhaps they were young kids during that time and not policymakers.
E) The author is not disputing the assumption that a program to encourage personal savings is needed, he is trying to dispute the fact that it will work. He indicates it is not likely to work because of attempts in the past that failed.
So the correct answer is A. I'm really confused by the answer choices and the stimulus.
When I read it, I initially thought this is an extreme example that uses examples within examples because the whole point of the example is that people would elect to feel 75% of their age. However, the example keeps going back with the ages and I don't think his ultimate conclusion is representative of how someone at 48 years old would feel.
My issue with A is it says projecting many responses from many individuals, and while the stimulus acknowledges that it's example is using a hypothetical person not all the diversity of age responses recorded.
B) looked very attractive to me
C) Also looks attractive, but I think there isn't an overly sweeping generalization, it is making a generalization from recorded responses.
D) The first part of this looks good to me, but the author never claims one of the statements is false, he uses it to prove a point.
E) There is nothing about experimenter expectations of respondents, or manipulation of responses, so I think this answer choice is irrelevant.
PLEASE HELP!! Because I hate this question and am really stuck. :/
This is a method of reasoning question. I don't understand answer choices A and C. If someone could explain those to me, I would be most appreciative!
A) Literary theory could be considered myths. What throws me off of this one is scientific explanation, couldn't it mean that the second part of J's argument "Myths are not told..because they are no longer bodies of generally accepted truths.." be considered a scientific explanation supporting his first claim? The only thing that makes me think you could eliminate this answer choice is the word problem, because he and G never indicate that there is a problem of myths only giving different explanations (one saying it is solely in the traditional world, and another saying it can also be in the modern world).
B) While G advances an analogous situation, this answer choice can be eliminated because it is not address the generally accepted truths aspect and acknowledges its example is not a narrative which would not be included in J's version of myth.
C) I have no idea other than J does address a distinction between traditional societies and the modern world.
D) It does not do this, regardless this is irrelevant.
E) It does call into question J's version/definition of myth by showing an example where a myth is not a narrative but still operates as a myth.
Please help! Thanks!!
OK this is a really stupid question, but here goes..
I was on the phone with an LSAC representative asking some questions about the February LSAT, and after I finished the conversation I said "thank you so much" and she said "you have a great day, bye" and I responded "bye." She was in the middle of saying "bye" the second time when I accidentally hung up on her. She had my LSAC account pulled up and everything, do you think she can put notes on my account such as, incredibly rude person? I'm a little worried about this..
If I diagram the following:
GP-->L
GP-->H
I can conclude:
L some H
Correct?
This is a method of reasoning questions.
If someone can explain to me why B and D are incorrect and C is correct I would really appreciate it. This is my reasoning:
A) A does not accept C's criterion, she says concepts were widely understood.
B) She does discredit C's evidence by saying that the concept was widely understood in Franchot's time, so she was not ahead of her time. I guess this is wrong bc she does not generalize from new evidence, but couldn't one say she is generalizing by stating what the stipulations for a great writer are? I guess you could mark this as wrong because there isn't any new evidence other than her claim that social consequences were widely understood (but we do not know that this is new evidence, correct?)
C) This seems correct because A rejects C's criterion for what makes a great writer and disputes the specific claim that F was a great writer.
D) She does dispute C's conclusion. She says F was not a great writer and she does present facts for the same criterion (what makes a great writer), it is alternative in the sense that it has different requirements.
E) A does not attack one of C's claims, she simply disagrees with it. She does not criticize the structure of C's argument.
So if someone could go over B and D with me, I would be incredibly grateful. Also, if you could look at my reasoning and see if it is ok, I would be incredibly appreciative.
Thank you in advance!!
So, I'm drilling Method of Reasoning questions and this is a question I got wrong.
I think I understand why A-D are wrong, but I don't understand why E is correct.
A) The two individuals only discuss avoidable risks
B) Not having a reference to context is not the issue, the situations discussed are clearly referred
appropriately
C) There isn't confusion the risk is clear
D) This is the answer choice I chose bc I was so confused with the answer choices, anyhow upon blind review I said precision is new information
If someone can tell me if my reasoning seems ok and why E is correct, I would be most appreciative.
Thanks in advance!
I got stuck between C and D in timed, and ultimately chose D. In BR I saw the connection right away. Sometimes, I think we make the right inference but then we overthink and forget our original inference. Today, I saw it right away!
Translation
Most of the mines M operates in V have never violated environmental regulations. Every gold mine M operates in the world has at 1 point violated environmental regulations.
Analysis
Inference: Most of the mines in V are not gold mines.
(A) Maybe -- but I don't get this inference from the statements.
(B) I don't know anything about the total # of mines.
(C) Cool story -- but it could be most (gold mines) are in Velyena but even more mines in Velyena are NOT gold mines.
(D) Yes! Even if C is true, D has to be true. We know most have never violated environmental regulations and most gold mines have violated environmental regulations. Therefore, most mines in Velyena are NOT gold mines.
(E) No idea about total mines.
Paragraph 1:
Contextual background information: Lamarck’ theory. Phenomenon/purported hypothesis introduced. My prediction is that this hypothesis is something we are going to investigate whether it is true or not.
Paragraph 2:
Details on the immune system and Steele’s answer to the relevant questions regarding the immune system. (Further explicating the hypothesis).
Paragraph 3:
Further explication of hypothesis, potential question to the hypothesis and hypothesizer’s response to the question.
Paragraph 4:
Author’s opinion and further examination of the nature/quality/degree of the evidence.
Main Point: Lamark’s hypothesis is attempted to be justified through Steele’s hypothesis.
Tone: Author is descriptive/objective throughout and then towards the end we get some skepticism
Structure: Background Information/Context – scholars purported hypothesis – relevant questions and answer – scholar’s explanation – and nature of evidence/support
I got 1 and 5 wrong in BR :(
1) I was between B and E!
I didn't like B because of "most lasting effect" I thought we don't know if that is true or not, and with E, I didn't like how the emphasis was on the funders of the FTP Negro Units theater program and matched it up with the claims in the last paragraph whereas I thought we were looking for something about the impact the Negro Units had on the African American theater. With (C) I didn't like "are now being recognized", I didn't see the "until recently studied legacies of the program on lines 8-10 and was emphasizing the end of the first paragraph.
Lesson learned: when you think you have the main point, read a little above to where the content is introduced, for example, I should have looked to see where "Negro Units" was first mentioned to clue me into where I should look for potential details.
5) In timed I got rid of A--C and was stuck between D and E. In BR, I was down to AC (D) but I wasn't crazy about it because I don't know if it was written by African Americans or endorsed by scholars. I ended up picking A in BR. JY is right though, it is wrong because of the word center, it was not one place they were referring to, they clearly state in the passage 28 states, "eighteen of these units in cities spread throughout the United States." The correct AC is C because it is dicussing "broad based dramatic-arts enterprise." That includes theater houses that are spread across the U.S.
Paragraph 1: Introduction to the Phenomenon and main point: FTP/Black Negros and the significance of the event movement (close to truly black theater).
Paragraph 2: Further contextual information about the movement/event: the Harlem Renaissance and their impact on the event with the ongoing debates and the implications of that -- different arguments led to diverse theatre focuses.
Paragraph 3: Reflection of the significance of the FTP/Black Negro theatre impact
Main Point:
FTP/Black Negros and its significance/impact
Tone:
Objective, supportive of FTP/Black Negro theatre (but really subtle tone)
Structure:
Phenomenon/Historical moment -- detailed context -- impact/significance
Informative/Descriptive passage
as;dkf
I got this one wrong. I was down to B and C.
Translation:
A local marsh needs to be cleansed before the office can be built. Marshes are necessary and no assessment has been assigned to determine how the marsh will affect the water. The city should therefore block the marsh without an assessment.
Analysis:
Before we implement something, we need to assess it. We haven't assessed it to see effects. Therefore, we should not implement the thing without the assessment.
(A) This does not show a restriction that determines the outcome and restriction not being carried out.
(B) States problem, doesn't fulfill requirement, and concludes, so don't do the thing. It's a match.
(C) It never makes the report dependent on the uninterrupted testing. In other words, it does not say that we cannot release the report (because we will not know the effects/consequences) unless we have uninterrupted testing.
(D) Doesn't match -- it just points out negatives and say we should do this thing instead of restriction, not heeded, so don't do this thing.
(E) Different argument form -- goes from disadvantages to doing it, to disadvantage superseding them if we don't do the thing. No, just, no.
I think the issue with AC (B) is that we don't know if Grey got the idea from Jordan or someone else. So what if they have completely different ideas, Grey could have plagarized from Jordan still, OR as AC (A) states, they both could have gotten it independantly from another person.
This is similar to the third factor causing A and B to happen instead of A caused B.
Hi guys,
I'm trying to decide where to register for the LSAT.
These are the options:
College of Alameda
Marriott Walnut Creek
Samuel Meritt Health Center
Of the three I'm leaning towards College of Alameda because of the desk space but I'm concerned about the noise level. Almost all the reviews were great but one person wrote that he could hear the planes flying overhead from the airport. I feel like that would distract me.
If anyone had taken at any of these locations, please let me know what you think!!
I need help in understand why D is wrong. I understand why E is correct. My reasoning is below, if you think my reasoning is faulty please let me know!! Thank you!
So I diagrammed the stimulus as such:
SAT --> PCS --> --LPR --> SGM
--SGM --> LPR --> --PCS --> --SAT (this is the contrapositive)
A) This answer choice is going in the wrong direction. We cannot infer anything about squeezing foreign competitors out of the global market, from a country raising prices.
B) Faulty conditional logic. We know a chain of conditions that can lead to a country being squeezed out of the global market, however, we cannot use that condition as a sufficient condition. It takes a necessary condition and makes it sufficient and uses a previously used sufficient condition and makes that necessary. This is an incorrect reversal.
C) I eliminated this because of the clause "their foreign competitors must have adopted new manufacturing techniques", just because they lowered their production costs more rapidly it doesn't mean that they adopted new manufacturing techniques, it could have been because of some other reason.
D) This is what I am unsure of. I said this is wrong because it is comparative, it's bout what happens to a particular country not comparing both countries. However, I think two countries are being compared which contradicts my whole reasoning. So, if someone could help me out in understanding why D is wrong, I would be most appreciative.
E) This is the contrapositive of the first two premises and thus the correct answer.
So, I got this question right and I understand why the correct answer is correct and the others are wrong, but I need a little help figuring out C. Is it wrong because of the word only?
A) Murray never states his opinion on this, he just states that Jane claims this and her criticism is wrong in she does not criticize others.
B) M doesn't say whether it is wrong or right, he is just critiquing J's argumentation. J never says she thinks this is wrong although I think it is implied in her criticism of the politician.
C) I was deciding between this and E, I ultimately went with E because I thought only was too strong and there could be reasons other than her dislike such as the potential principle that it is wrong to accept gifts from lobbyists.
D) Jane agrees with this, Murray we don't know how he feels. All we know is that he doesn't like Jane singling out the one politician.
E) I would say this is true because of both arguments. M says regardless of Senator Brandon's involvement at least others have done the same. J acknowledges that she has not criticized the same point in other politicians indicating that Senator Brandon is not alone in this practice.
So, if someone can help me understand C better or let me know if I am on the right track, I would be most appreciative!
A
Paragraph 1: PL has had disastrous effects on native vegetation and some animal communities. There is little research on long term control.
Paragraph 2: There is a need for some form of PL control.
MP: PL needs to be controlled
B
Paragraph 1: Presents arguments for PL control (in a critical tone).
Paragraph 2: Asserts that the concerned scientific arguments are really disguising their attempt to control nature for human desires by purporting to liberate nature from PL. Disputes data from A and claims only the canvasback is endangered from PL. The real issue is $ lost in hunting, trapping, and recreation revenues because of a potential reduction/control in PL.
MP: PL does not need to be controlled and opponents are exaggerating data.
4:
A) The author never stipulates when an injunction should be issued, only that injunctions are not effective in preventing subconscious trade secrets from being shared with a competitior.
B) I didn't pick this in BR because although the author briefly mentions that the two are irreconcilable in the first paragraph, I thought his whole point was that injunctions are not serving a part of their purpose i.e. preventing trade secrets from being shared with competitors (on the basis that it is hard to detect subconscious spread of trade secrets or intangible vs tangible evidence). Anyhow, there is support for this in the first paragraph and even though the author does not detail about the employees right to seek gainful employment and make use of their expertise, the support is there, so this answer is correct.
C) This is wrong because of "should not be allowed" the author never makes a judgement or claim as to what employees should do, he only discusses the complications that can arise from injunctions.
D) We don't know that the different ways in which information can be transferred increases the need for injunctions, all we know is that injunctions don't work in all cases i.e. when the evidence is intangible or subconscious. We also know that injunctions is the way the courts use to address the issue of trade secrets, but it is not entirely effective.
E) There is absolutely no support for this. We only know that former employers are concerned about their trade secrets being spread.
My breakdown:
Paragraph 1: Problem that occurs when an employee leaves its company to work for a competitor and its implications.
Paragraph 2: Additional problems for the employee.
Paragraph 3: Problems with court injunctions: they don't account for subconscious behavior or differentiate between trade secrets and tech skills independently developed, and injunctions don't fulfill their purpose except when it's tangible evidence or passage of documents.
MP: Problems companies/former employees face when an employee leaves to work for a competitor.
Tone: Negative. The author reports the facts but clearly shows his/her stance on the problem with this issue and injunctions.
Structure: Introduces problem and its implications; further implication for two groups (employee and former company); and why purported solution is not complete.
Two questions I found tricky are 15 and 22:
15:
(A): JY's argument for AC A is that at most it would support paragraphs 2 &3. I didn't pick A for a few other reasons. I didn't like "mainstream scientists have always assumed," yes we get the fact that increasing returns to scale is something that was later accepted bc it was supported mathematically, however, the reasoning for not accepting the assumption was the difficulty of demonstrating it without mathematical rigor. So my issue was I don't actually know that most scientists actually always assumed this, I thought it could be perfectly consistent with they did not believe in the assumption and did not have enough evidence to support their claim. I know this is going a little outside the box though. I also did not pick this because I was looking for an AC that talked about the increasing returns to scales bit.
(B): I like JY's explanation of this one regarding "functioning" how that word makes it descriptively inaccurate. I was down to this AC and AC E. I ultimately ended up not going with this AC because it didn't go all the way and mention how now we can account for increasing returns.
(C): "even more rigorously"? I need more information about how these recent developments allow this part of the comparison to win. The only thing I know about recent developments is that they now are able to support increasing returns to scale with mathematical rigor.
(D): Cool. But how do I know he was the first economist to do so? There could have been another one that was the first and just isn't mentioned. Also, we barely talk about Adam Smith, we mention him in the first paragraph as part of the background information/context to set the scene so we can introduce the phenomenon.
(E): Yes! I picked this one but was a bit apprehensive because it didn't mention the conflict between the pin factory and the invisible hand, but since none of them did, I went with this one. My only issue with this was the "in many industries" but I think that can be supported with the "underground river" in line 54+. The biggest thing for me was the "increasing returns to scale."
16:
Weaken. I got this wrong timed, and right in BR. We are weakening the argument that increased size leads to more specialized workers which leads to increased output which can go towards a monopoly. I especially liked JY's analogy with the metro system/public transportation how if we had all these different independant companies and not a monopoly we wouldn't necessarily have a consistent train system. In my mind, I thought of roads and the freeway, if all these companies made their own roads, how would we be able to drive on them, there sometimes needs to be a monopoly. And typing this out, it reminds me of an old LR question about how there needs to be agreement on competitiors with fax machines, otherwise how will people be able to send and receive faxes?
Anyhow back to the question. The argument shows that the pin factory leads to efficiency, all we have to do is show an instance where this argument moves forward but the end result is inefficiency or goes against the purpose of participating in this structure.
(A): In timed I chose this one. I found it attractive because I thought well if there is a monopoly in one region then how do I know there is no monopoly in another region? It's not possible. However, it is entirely possible to have a monopoly in one region and another in a different region. The argument still stands.
(B): So their salary is not as high, but they are still functioning in the same system. Nothing tells me that the system is compromised or different from what the argument says it would. Maybe they have found an alternative for essential workers such as a robot or some type of technology and people aren't working as many hours, but the company efficiency is higher than before, so yes this AC is consistent with the argument.
(C): Again I liked JY's commentary about how several companies colluding would still operate as a monopoly. I imagined Google, Apple, and Facebook colluding on technology or advertising issues to keep their profits high. This still is consistent, because they are maximizing their profits and also specializing.
(D): OK great so the size can be different for different companies/sectors. That does nothing to my argument.
(E): I picked this one in BR. This is well supported, if you have specialized workers but that specialization is being offset by other factors which would negatively impact your profits or outcome because instead of expending your time in increased output, you are now expending your time in worker attrition and training costs. The increase you had before is now a cost. So, no, the argument is no longer solid.
Paragraph 1: Phenomenon is purported: problem between the pin factory and the invisible hand.
Paragraph 2: The relationship between the pin factory and the invisible hand.
Paragraph 3: How the two are actually in opposition to each other. Increasing returns to scale vs decreasing returns to scale. Competition vs. monopoly.
Paragraph 4: Why diminishing returns to scale dominated = math is more easily represented
Paragraph 5: How increasing returns to scale was able to be supported = math
MP: There is a conflict between the pin factory and invisible hand, and in order to understand the relationship we need to account for the reality of increasing returns to scale.
Tone: Objective, is supportive of the increasing returns to scale argument. Purely descriptive.
Structure: We get introduced to a phenomenon; details for the phenomenon; conflict between the two factors; and two implications that help account for what happens in practice/reality.
I understand why the correct answer is right, but I'm not so sure about the incorrect answers. If someone can check my reasoning and see if I am correct, I would be so appreciative and grateful!
A) This answer choice discusses luck which was never talked about in the exchange. I also think it is wrong because of the word "rarely" while we know that some farms have positive successful rates which the critic argues against, we don't know the rate of the farms success.
B) The critics do not show that the results would be different if twice the amount of farms were studied; they only say the farms studied were the ones that were amenable to natural methods, the results would be the same because of the farms selected under study
C) This is true except for the fact that the critics show justification for their reasoning (farms that were selected for study)
D) They don't demonstrate that natural methods are not suitable for the majority of farms; they only point out that if a self selecting group is used for a study, then it is not representative of all farms using natural methods
E) captures the flaw, the study is saying natural methods success rates is possible, not that it is representative for all farms
Paragraph 1: Background Information/Context. Low cohesiveness/cohesive group contrast and why having a cohesive group can be good for decision making.
Prediction: I'm not sure where this is going, maybe further expand on cohesive groups?
Paragraph 2: High cohesive groups can devolve into an extreme negative called group think. It lists facets such as self censorship, deference to the group, and desire for conformity as leading to groupthink.
Prediction: I think we will talk about groupthink and why this is so bad/debilitating.
Paragraph 3: Studies of past decisionmaking has led researchers to identify components of groupthink. Different factors where individuals do not think critically or the desire to align with a uniform decision. Identifies how cohesiveness is a necessary condition for groupthink.
MP: Cohesiveness and its impact on decisionmaking. My original MP before watching the video was: cohesiveness can be good but it can also lead to groupthink.
Tone: Author is objective and wants to prevent groupthink from happening.
Structure: Introduce phenomenon (low/cohesiveness) an implication (how high cohesive groups can result in groupthink) and a practical application of groupthink (the analyses of military/international diplomatic decisionmaking processes that led researchers to identify components of groupthink).
My breakdown:
Paragraph 1: There is an international effort to address environmental problems stemming from agricultural overproduction. This will be difficult because nutrients have been depleted, land has been heavily fertilized which resulted in problem weeds like thistles. Removing and replacing topsoil is a quick fix but will not help with such a large landscape such as Europe. The Netherlands is investigating a process accelerating nature reestablishing plant diversity on previous farm land.
Paragraph 2: Details study and through study we discover thistles are forced out when the broadest species were sown and thistles disappeared from grass mats in plots sown with fewer seed varieties. On control plots that were untouched, thistles became dominant.
Paragraph 3: Through additional experiments, it has been hypothesized that fields farmed for many years are overrun with aggressive disease organisms while beneficial fungi are lacking. From these events, implications indicate restoring a natural balance of microorganisms in the soil - and from this a solution is possible if beneficial microorganisms are sown in the soil in concert with a wide variety of native plant seeds.
MP: Attempt to restore a natural balance of flora/deal with environmental problems by investigating a study and its implications, researchers have put together a solution.
Structure: There is an attempt of addressing a problem, the effects of the problem are enumerated, a potential solution is described and provides an accompanying problem, another solution is provided with a study mentioned. The study is detailed, implications of the study, and a final solution is stated.
Tone: The author is clearly in support of the study and the researchers solution.