Self-study
I was completely stuck between C and D.
Was D incorrect because it alluded to incompatibility when government standards are undefined?
#Help
spargament239
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
LSAT
Not provided
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
Not provided
Discussions
spargament239
Friday, Jun 25, 2021
For beliefs involving true dichotomies/binary cuts that are negative (e.g. I believe there is NOT...), you MUST INEVITABLY accept a new belief in order to reject another.
E.g.
I believe there are no cats in the garden.
[Someone shows me live video footage of cats in the garden]
I do not believe there are no cats in the garden.
BY DEFAULT I MUST NOW BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME CATS IN THE GARDEN.
Any rebuttal of this is even more semantically inane than the above. A is correct. B is correct. Don't regret choosing B. Would do it again.
JY really needs to re-evaluate explanations that dismiss a wrong answer out of hand when the data shows it was more commonly selected than the "correct" answer. I would have loved to hear and be informed by a legitimate explanation as to why the above example does not provide a loophole. Instead, we just get a flippant, "this is just wrong because it says so", when by saying so, it creates room for a contradiction.
spargament239
Friday, Jun 25, 2021
Actually got to E by "do most" contradicting "whose actions, and nothing else". By definition, not implicit, but I'll take it XD.
spargament239
Tuesday, Jun 22, 2021
JY really drops the ball on this explanation in a multitude of ways. I initally selected B, and upon blind review, changed my answer to D, and feel justified in doing so (more to come). However (intentionally bolded; more to come later), there's another bone to pick when it comes to the explanation as to why C is incorrect (which I agree that it is).
With C, the exception isn't met. It's QUITE clear in the answer choice that their interests don't coincide, unless I've been missing out on a lot of parties that consist of two people. If I'm correct that parties typically include three or more, the advice Yvette gives IS to her advantage, and their interests don't necessarily coincide. Who's to say that the other party goers share her tastes? It seems equally as likely that Yvette's advice is self-serving as it is that her advice is wholly altruistic (with respect to the other party-goers), or that Mario's interest is to satisfy Yvette without regard to the feelings of the other party goers.
What JY SHOULD have identified as the problematic aspect of C, is that the advice was explicity solicited: "...when he consults her"
On to the problem with B:
I really liked B when I completed this section timed.
I saw that, as JY notes, it fulfills all conditions detailed in the stimulus/principle: unsolicited advice that benefits the person giving it, as well as incongrous interest. HOWEVER (intentionally bolded again), when reading the last sentence SEVERAL times during BR, no reasonable person that understands what the word "however" means should conclude that the answer is correct. The last sentence reads:
"However, the salesperson's commission increases with the price of refrigerator sold, so Ramon should [be skeptical]."
I take no umbrage that the end of the sentence is effectively synonymous with Ramon being skeptical. That's exactly what it does. HOWEVER, read that sentence enough, and you'll realize that what it effectively says is:
"Despite the information already provided, the salesperson is advantaged if Ramon were to follow her advice, THEREFORE he should not reject it on her advice alone."
That makes no sense in English, nor Lawgic. "However" indicates a departure from the information that preceded it. For example:
I like to run when it's warm outside. However, I'm sick today, so I won't.
Which reads the same as:
"Despite the fact that I normally run when it's warm, I won't run BECAUSE I'm sick today."
This answer choice effectively tells us that Ramon shouldn't reject her advice prima facie BECAUSE she is advantaged by giving it. It serves to disconnect the fulfillment of the other conditions (unsolicited advice, incongrous interests) previously mentioned from the rationale behind the skepticism. I'm beyond shocked this wasn't an "item removed from scoring" question.
I also think that while D is a flawed answer choice, it is just as, if not more sound than B.
Advice is unsolicited. Check.
Person giving advice benefits. Check.
The magnitude of assumption necessary to claim that Sara's interests are incongrous to Ron's (e.g. that her interest is to ingratiate herself to the publisher, whether professionally or as her friend), is equal to or lesser than that required at multiple points in answer choice B (e.g. that the salesperson doesn't think Ramon would take her advice as a reason to leave).
JY even admits that he can't conclusively state that Ron and Sara's interests are in alignment. This is even more problematic given the nature of the language employed in the stimulus for this condition ("good reason to believe...interests...substantially coincide"). There's just as good reason to believe that their interests don't coincide as there is the other way around.
People that think this is a great question have been incredibly charitable given what AC B says, and have been slightly myopic with their interpretation of AC D.
#EndRant
spargament239
Wednesday, Jun 9, 2021
Pretend there's only two regions, K and M.
K has an initial population of 1
M has an initial population of 3
Initially, K has 25% of the population and M has 75%.
Using the answer in D:
K grew by 1 resident to 2.
M grew by 2 residents to 3.
This satisfies the answer choice, BUT:
K now has ~28.57% of the population and should receive that percentage of federal aid, 3.57% more than they initially did, DESPITE seeing a numerical rise smaller than that of M.
M now has approximately 71% of the population and should receive that percentage of federal aid, 4% LESS than they initially did, DESPITE seeing a numerical rise GREATER than that of K.
spargament239
Friday, May 7, 2021
While I did answer this correctly, I figured the following was worth a thought:
With the exception of the phrase "always", answer choice B actually does paraphrase the conclusion.
"End of an action" is operationally defined as that action's intended outcome at the beginning of the stimulus. If one removes the word "always"and adds "only" from choice B, it becomes identical to choice C. The presence of "always" is the sole reason answer B is incorrect.
Q1:
How are Italian Renaissance and "pre-Columbian..." equivalent to trends in modern art?
Got this right initially and wrong on BR as I couldn't justify "trends in modern art".