Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.3K All Categories
- 27.2K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 14 June 2024 LSAT
- 3 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 42 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 4 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 581 Technical Problems
- 276 Off-topic
Related Discussions
pt 72 section3 q12
The video explanation was a bit murky here. I'm not so sure why the answer choice is C. I have a good theory on why people likely mistakenly pick C even though it is the right a/c. There are some issues I have with it.
1. its trying to say that if the number of science and engineering students in university programs has increased in the last 5 years then that is somehow proof or strengthening the idea of there being no shortage of scientist and engineers. This is a problematic shift, it requires us to assume they stay in that program, graduate it, AND work in that field. There is no evidence that these people have even graduated never mind ward off an IMMINENT and CATASTROPHIC shortage. Imminent means about to happen, how can people who entered university 3 years ago and are not even employed ward off and IMMINENT shortage? we don't even know when in the last 5 years this increase happened. We just know generally
2. It is also using a raw number to address a question about a total proportion. In otherwords, the correct answer choice here, C, is a percents and numbers FLAW! It would be like saying ok you have a shortage of 90% of workers. C is saying but you have a significant increase in the NUMBER of science grads, so what, you went from 10,000 to 50,000, that doesn't ward of the IMMINENT AND CATASTROPHIC shortage of 400,000 science grads needed. This matters because shortage means proportion it is a ratio not a raw number. It is the amount of jobs to job seeker ratio. You cannot solve this question with a total number.
3. I try to see how C could at least be right, but I have a real problem with it. I suspect most people don't recognize it as a ratio issue and just say yeah more students ----> more grads -----> -more job seekers ----->avert shortage and therefore Strengthen conclusion. There is a problem at literally everyone of these jumps but the worse one is you can have a significant increase of students, grads, job seekers, and still not avert an IMMINENT and catastrophic shortage. Maybe I am just not seeing where he is trying to strengthen correctly.
4. So which a/c would I have chosen? Probably D? Why, it is the only question who addresses the issue in the argument and thus has the POTENTIAL to strengthen. If certain science fields have an oversupply and others have a shortage. That indicates 2 thins. 1) For the oversupply field clearly there is no imminent and catastrophic shortage, supporting the conclusion. 2) For the shortage field there is also no imminent and catastrophic shortage, it is a shortage but its not described as imminent or catastrophic, so it indeed also supports the conclusion.
1. its trying to say that if the number of science and engineering students in university programs has increased in the last 5 years then that is somehow proof or strengthening the idea of there being no shortage of scientist and engineers. This is a problematic shift, it requires us to assume they stay in that program, graduate it, AND work in that field. There is no evidence that these people have even graduated never mind ward off an IMMINENT and CATASTROPHIC shortage. Imminent means about to happen, how can people who entered university 3 years ago and are not even employed ward off and IMMINENT shortage? we don't even know when in the last 5 years this increase happened. We just know generally
2. It is also using a raw number to address a question about a total proportion. In otherwords, the correct answer choice here, C, is a percents and numbers FLAW! It would be like saying ok you have a shortage of 90% of workers. C is saying but you have a significant increase in the NUMBER of science grads, so what, you went from 10,000 to 50,000, that doesn't ward of the IMMINENT AND CATASTROPHIC shortage of 400,000 science grads needed. This matters because shortage means proportion it is a ratio not a raw number. It is the amount of jobs to job seeker ratio. You cannot solve this question with a total number.
3. I try to see how C could at least be right, but I have a real problem with it. I suspect most people don't recognize it as a ratio issue and just say yeah more students ----> more grads -----> -more job seekers ----->avert shortage and therefore Strengthen conclusion. There is a problem at literally everyone of these jumps but the worse one is you can have a significant increase of students, grads, job seekers, and still not avert an IMMINENT and catastrophic shortage. Maybe I am just not seeing where he is trying to strengthen correctly.
4. So which a/c would I have chosen? Probably D? Why, it is the only question who addresses the issue in the argument and thus has the POTENTIAL to strengthen. If certain science fields have an oversupply and others have a shortage. That indicates 2 thins. 1) For the oversupply field clearly there is no imminent and catastrophic shortage, supporting the conclusion. 2) For the shortage field there is also no imminent and catastrophic shortage, it is a shortage but its not described as imminent or catastrophic, so it indeed also supports the conclusion.
