Identifying LR Question Stems

Comments

• s_jricke Alum Member

  July 2018 360 karma

  @"elsa.raker" said:
  I've noticed that there are some LR question stems I can't identify. Can anyone help me out?

  -Which one of the following principles is best illustrated by the study described above?
  -Each of the following assignments of computer programmers is consistent both with the principle expressed by Vanessa and with the principle expressed by Jo EXCEPT:
  -Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the consumer advocate's argumentation?

  I would think of the first and last stems as pseudo sufficient assumption type questions and the second stem sounds like a must be false question.
• samantha.ashley92 Alum Member

  July 2018 1777 karma

  "Justify the reasoning" is another term for PSA, so that's my assumption. (See what I did there?) The "except" question sounds like and "MSS Except" question, and the first one seems like a standard "principle" question.
• JustDoIt Alum Member ⭐

  July 2018 3112 karma

  They are PSA but I also think it helps to look at them as their own question type. Think about it as a new rule or something that would be foundational to assume in order to bridge the gap. In a sense, that is why they are PSA. But I believe that this more exacting approach could be more helpful.
• s_jricke Alum Member

  July 2018 360 karma

  @"samantha.ashley92" said:
  "Justify the reasoning" is another term for PSA, so that's my assumption. (See what I did there?) The "except" question sounds like and "MSS Except" question, and the first one seems like a standard "principle" question.

  I wouldn't call the except question a MSS except because the wrong ACs in that question don't have to be supported by the stimulus. The wrong answers just have to not violate either of two principles whereas the right one is a contradiction of one or both principles (MBF).

  Like if I say, "People who physically harm others should be punished," it would be consistent to say that "People who vandalize another's property should be punished," even though the second statement draws no support from the first statement. Applying the question stem to my made up principle, a correct AC would say something like, "Tim punched Mark and deserved no punishment for it." The wrong ACs don't have to be supported by the principle; they just can't violate the principle.