PT7 Section 1 Question 14

Comments

• bSM45LSAT Member

  July 2015 edited July 2015 522 karma

  A) is irrelevant as we are not concerned with Lobsters not caught in lobster traps.
  
  D) is also irrelevant as we are not concerned with members of other marine species.
  
  I think you should figure out what exactly the argument is in the passage, and what support is being used to get to it.
  
  The marine biologists are hypothesizing that lobsters kept together in lobster traps eat one another in response to hunger. But hey there's an instance where no lobsters did this. Hmm weird. Therefore, conclusion, the marine biologists are WRONG.
  
  Before reading the answer choices think of how this argument is flawed. Well first thing that comes to my mind is what if the lobsters found food in another way? And that's exactly E), you assume that any food that the 8 lobsters were able to obtain wasn't enough for them to ward off their hunger.
• Dr. Yamata Member Inactive ⭐

  July 2015 edited July 2015 578 karma

  First of all, the arguments in PT7 and other earlier PTs are weird. I like them, but they are not as relevant as later tests to the current questions asked on the LSAT. They can certainly assist with analyzing arguments, but just be aware that some of the types of questions and patterns of questions they ask are obsolete.
  
  The question asks which one of these answers would add a fact that makes the advertisement of the product containing "44 percent fiber" misleading. Well, my first thought is, "44 percent of what?" E addresses this concern by pointing out that the pill contains way less than 44 percent of the daily recommended dose of fiber, which could be misleading to consumers who read "44 percent" on the label.
  
  A is like a stock wrong answer choice, "other products such and such" (this answer may be right on a few questions, but rarely)
  B doesn't really cause me to feel misled about the statement, it's just some superfluous fact
  C is just completely out of left field
  D this seems like it could be somehow related, but when I add this to the statement I don't see any misinformation occurring, or at least at face value.
  E ah ok. If the RDA of fiber is like 90x more than what is contained in this product, the statement that this product contains 44% of fiber could mislead me into thinking that means 44% of the daily allowance.
  
  This question is really odd.. and there's not really a way to pre-phrase I don't think. I got this one mostly by POE, just be eliminating answers that don't make any sense.
  
  EDIT: OOPS i answered for question 4! HAHA if you need that explanation check here! ^
• c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  July 2015 2398 karma

  @bSM45LSAT nailed the explanations for A and D! It's important to note what the conclusion is about, and keeping tabs on that will help you to see why A and D can't be correct. The author is concluding that marine biologists are wrong when claiming lobsters kept together in traps will eat each other in response to hunger, i.e. the author only cares about specifically lobsters in traps and A and D are therefore irrelevant.
  
  Also, be careful about assuming too much on your own. I know when I first read this stimulus I assumed that lobsters would be hungry if they were in traps for weeks because I assumed there would be no food in the traps...but we don't know these things! Maybe lobsters can go months without any food and still not feel hungry, or maybe, even inside the trap, the lobsters have access to food that would ward off their hunger. The latter possibility is exactly what E hints at.
  
  Good luck and keep crushing the LSAT!