PTB.S1.Q25: How to approach RRE

Ashley2018Ashley2018 Monthly Member

What should your thought process be on a question like this? On easier RRE, I could often come up with a paraphrase, but it definitely wasn't the case here. I felt like I was going into the choices blind.

Comments

  • mattscrappymattscrappy Alum Member
    138 karma

    Paraphrasing is a great tool sometimes, and a time sink other times. For me, I decided that the right answer would probably highlight a difference in the two groups (7% vs 9%), but I also know that trying to think of all the possible ways they could be different would burn through my time. So I moved on to the questions. I'd count this as going in blind because virtually all RRE answers are based on a difference between the two variables. It's not special that I "figured that out" here.

    Eliminate the obvious no's, then do a deeper dive on the remaining.

    AC A - This might have worked if the recycled % was less than the inspected %, but it isn't, Eliminate.

    AC B - Who cares why they get returned? This doesn't differentiate the groups. It still fits neatly into the conditions of "unsalable."Eliminate.

    AC C - This would only apply to the 7%, as we don't know that the inspectors have any hand in the recycled garments, only in the "unsalable." I think this is a compelling trap answer because the assumption is pretty easy to make. Still eliminate.

    AC D - Again, who cares? How many garments produced year to year doesn't affect what percent are getting returned, so this is an obvious eliminate. By the time any of us takes an LSAT, we should be experienced enough the be immediately skeptical of this answer choice on any question.

    AC E - Perfect. The two categories are just measured differently, thats all! An obvious difference between the two, but it would have been a huge waste of time to come up with this on my own.

  • Ashley2018Ashley2018 Monthly Member
    edited November 2021 2054 karma

    @mattscrappy said:
    Paraphrasing is a great tool sometimes, and a time sink other times. For me, I decided that the right answer would probably highlight a difference in the two groups (7% vs 9%), but I also know that trying to think of all the possible ways they could be different would burn through my time. So I moved on to the questions. I'd count this as going in blind because virtually all RRE answers are based on a difference between the two variables. It's not special that I "figured that out" here.

    Eliminate the obvious no's, then do a deeper dive on the remaining.

    AC A - This might have worked if the recycled % was less than the inspected %, but it isn't, Eliminate.

    AC B - Who cares why they get returned? This doesn't differentiate the groups. It still fits neatly into the conditions of "unsalable."Eliminate.

    AC C - This would only apply to the 7%, as we don't know that the inspectors have any hand in the recycled garments, only in the "unsalable." I think this is a compelling trap answer because the assumption is pretty easy to make. Still eliminate.

    AC D - Again, who cares? How many garments produced year to year doesn't affect what percent are getting returned, so this is an obvious eliminate. By the time any of us takes an LSAT, we should be experienced enough the be immediately skeptical of this answer choice on any question.

    AC E - Perfect. The two categories are just measured differently, thats all! An obvious difference between the two, but it would have been a huge waste of time to come up with this on my own.

    So I went through all the choices initially and thought all were incorrect. I got desperate and then picked C because I thought if inspectors were over reporting defects, then it might be able to explain why the defective goods actually were a larger proportion of all garments. (The "defective" garments the inspectors reported were removed) In retrospect, I had to add in assumptions but it made sense to me at the time. Why is this reasoning wrong and how do you snap yourself out of an incorrect reading? Ideally I'd like to answer all questions on one go but sometimes it's just not the case.

  • mattscrappymattscrappy Alum Member
    138 karma

    @Ashley2018 I think this came down to the details. In the stimulus, the "inspectors" only applied to the "unsalable" items; they did not not inspect the "recycled" items. So even if they over report defective items, it doesn't matter because they are independent of the recycled items. Remember, 7%=unsalable; 9%=recycled.

    Also, let's say they did over-report the unsalable category - mathematically, wouldn't that mean the actual recycled % should be lower than 7%?
    If it were say, recycle=5%, then AC C would be good because it would say "Oh the inspectors are over reporting how much is unsalable, and we can see that by how much actually gets recycled."
    Since we know the reverse is true, it can't be that they're over reporting. I think that if it said "under reporting" instead, this would be a solid AC.

    Translation drills really helped me get better at focusing on the details and which objects applied to which parts of the stimulus, and more importantly, knowing what wasn't actually in the stimulus (a.k.a. my own assumptions). Knowing more confidently whats in the passage helps you prevent these outside assumptions from obscuring your logic.

Sign In or Register to comment.