First of all, hook 'em.
Second, it's definitely a MBT. Your formulation of the second premise is a bit confusing. I would read that to say that "if a mail piece is correctly addressed, THEN it must not arrive in 2 days, THEN it must be damaged in transit". (Think of what the arrow means in your diagram.) I might change that to drop the first arrow such that it says MCA AND greater than two days -> damaged.
I'm also not sure what your third premise means.
I actually think though that the second premise is not necessary to your getting the right answer. The first premise says that NEARLY ALL correctly addressed mail arrives within two days (so definitely >50%). They've set up a binary so there is going to be mail that is correctly addressed and mail that is not correctly addressed (there are at this level only two types of mail). So if more than 50% of the mail arrives in three days or more, and nearly all of one type of mail (correctly addressed mail) arrives in fewer than two days, then we KNOW that that there must be "a lot of" incorrectly addressed mail - a nonzero portion of which must arrive in three days or more - in order to satisfy the first claim that more than 50% of the total mail population arrives in three days or later.
It's a pretty weak MBT - as are a lot of them. But I think the best way to arrive at this is to quickly go through all the options:
A - Irrelevant, as it still must be the case that "nearly all" mail in the correctly addressed category arrives in two days or fewer.
B - Way too strong. Nothing in the text to support this. Only necessary that some portion of the incorrectly addressed mail arrives later than two days, not that no portion arrives in two days or fewer.
C - Does not need to be the case. Consider the weighting of the two types of mail (correctly addressed and not correctly addressed). If not correctly addressed makes up 90% (or some high percentage) of the total pool, it could be the case that incorrectly addressed mail makes up most of both letters arriving in two days or fewer and three days or more.
D - Correct.
E - Dismiss as the the division thus far has been between "less than or equal to two" and "greater than or equal to three". (Nowhere else have we considered portions of days.)
Hey guys,
I saw a recommendation in one of threads to study up on the weirdest logic games in prep for the test on Saturday given the recent tendency to have one really weird game. Seems like a good idea to me. I have been playing "the ten hardest logic games" according to Power Score (link: http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/lg_10-hardest-logic-games.cfm) but thought this group might have additional suggestions on the toughest/weirdest games. Any ideas?
Gotcha. I think we have different readings on the relationship between speed and time on the road. I don't think it's the case of one versus the other but rather that there's a pretty high correlation between the two and one leads to the other: slower speed limit must mean more time on the road. Which, the argument claims, means more emissions. But it's possible - even likely - that slower speed limits would yield lower emissions per time unit of travel to compensate for any increase in total emissions from an increase in time on the road such that total emissions would be lower with a lower speed limit. That's what the argument ignores - that there's another variable that impacts total emissions to a greater degree than does the total amount of time on the road.
First off I think this is a good case of needing to be really specific about what exactly the stimulus is arguing. There are a lot of questions/answer choices that set you up for failure by exploiting loose phrasings of the argument - and that's what's going on with B.The argument is designed only to show that reducing speed limits does not protect lives or the environment, so considering any benefits other than protecting lives or the environment would not impact the conclusion about those two things (why B is not the correct answer). Now, if the conclusion of the argument was that reducing speed limits is "not worthwhile" or "more trouble than they're worth" (or another, broader, claim than the one the stimulus makes) then B would be more attractive, as there might be other evidence outside of environmental benefits or safety benefits that undercut the argument that reducing speed limits is "not worthwhile".
On D - this is one correct answer. I think you're right that it only addresses the flawed connection between one of the premises and the conclusion. This could just as easily say that it "fails to consider that collisions would be less dangerous at lower speeds", which I think would also be correct. But that it only addresses one of the premises doesn't make it incorrect I think, especially since there's no better answer.
Regarding your question on becoming more accurate on new LGs - I think so. As you do more (new/fresh) LGs you'll see that there's a finite number of set up types and finite number of inferences that you'd be expected to make as part of the game. Recycling helps you to get better/faster at 1) identifying the board 2) making inferences and 3) anticipating restrictive parts of the game. As you get better at that I think you'll experience less of the shock and get better at "attacking" the game.
Sure! The argument goes something like:
C: Computerized expert systems CANNOT be as good as human experts.
P1: Experience is required for a proficient person to become an expert.
P2: Experience allows one to gradually develop repertory of model situations
P3: Computers can store a lot of data, but it is stored in the form of rules and facts as human knowledge is not.
The info we've been given should call attention to the use of "rules and facts". In order for the argument to hold - that computers CANNOT be as good as human experts - we have to assume something about the quality of that method of storage (or how appropriate it is to developing a "repertory of model situations..." relative to the human method). There is something about the human method (whatever exactly it is) that must be preferable to the computer method of storing with rules and facts. (This is all before looking at As). Looking at As:
A: I'd immediately eliminate. "Originality" is unhelpful here in that it is not clear what relationship that concept has to "the use of rules and facts" or the method of computer storage. (Or, at least, that relationship is arguable.)
B: I like this, because it fills the hole between the premise stating that info is stored in comps and humans differently and the conclusion that computers - by nature it seems - cannot be as good. If the way knowledge is stored gives humans the deciding advantage, and computers cannot be programmed to store info in this way (assumption), then the conclusion holds that computers cannot be as good as humans.
C: Supports a different conclusion.
D: I think this is the second most attractive answer, but according to the stimulus the critical matter is HOW the information is stored, not how much information can be stored.
E: The stimulus doesn't say anything about intuition.
For sure - identifying the conclusion of the stimulus and the supporting premises as you read each will help out. I bracket the conclusion and underline the relevant premises. Can be tedious at first but does help you to be more focused on the structure of the argument and does become faster with practice. I think this is generally helpful, including identify the conclusion questions and support/weaken (especially the more difficult from this set) questions.
What do you mean by distractions in the stimulus?
Question is asking you to identify a possible reason why it is not uncommon to find "writing of high literary quality" in dissenting opinions even though judicial decisions - which are indented as determinations of law - are rarely of high literary quality. You should be able to prephrase this one on finishing the stimulus. We only have two facts to rely on regarding judicial decisions: they are 1) rarely of literary quality (which is not suited to the avoidance of misinterpretation) and 2) they are determinations of law. Further, they are not of high literary quality specifically because they are determinations of law. So, in looking for an answer choice you're looking for something that would enable the dissenting opinion to not necessarily avoid misinterpretation (such that it can be of high literary quality). Not constituting a determination of law would provide that needed space, so C.
Also, C should be a quick choice given that the one (possible) distinction in the stimulus between the majority and the dissenting opinion is that the majority opinion is "a determination of law". C has "determination of law" explicitly in the text of the answer choice.
Me too - are yall just starting out or have you been studying for a while? (I've been studying for a bit and could use a study buddy who's also been studying for a while.) PM me!
Thoughts/advice from people who continued to study even after using up all of the PTs? (was planning to take in June - now taking in Sept)
Hi admin - Is there a way I can enter just one and not have the rest of the test be marked wrong? I very much want to use the grader to keep track of my progress across different question types but I am not at the point where I am taking whole tests right now - just individual sections. It'd be very helpful to be able to keep track of that without taking full tests at a time.
I don't think it's necessary to assume that the media is a "huge part of national campaigning", but we can safely intuit that debates are the subject of some news. Since this is a (form of a) weaken question, we should be on the lookout for an answer that provides an additional premise that contradicts or does not support the conclusion (conclusion being that candidates for national pol office should use this argumentative technique). Skipping answer choice A:
B - There's no clear takeaway from this. This applies to any argument style that a politician may use. Since it's given in the stimulus that politicians are going to have debates, the answer choice here doesn't discredit the argumentative technique in question over any other technique that a pol may use.
C - This supports the conclusion, because we read in the stimulus that the technique makes speakers appear "fair minded and trustworthy".
D - Similar to C. Supports the conclusion as the technique involves consideration of the opponent's side.
E - Size of audience is irrelevant here.
On A - Assuming that some reporting of debates takes place, this suggests a potential cost to use of the technique that would give candidates reason to not use the technique. Weakens the conclusion that candidates should use the technique.