LSATs 126

LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 18

April 21, 2012

There is little plausibility to the claim that it is absurd to criticize anyone for being critical. Obviously, people must assess one another and not all assessments will be positive. However, there is wisdom behind the injunction against being judgmental. To be judgmental is not merely to assess someone negatively, but to do so prior to a serious effort at understanding.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The author says advice against being judgmental is wise. This is because being judgmental is assessing someone before trying to understand. This argument identifies an exception to a claim. The context highlights claim that people should never criticize others for assessing each other negatively. The authors argument says this is not true in cases where one is being judgmental.

Identify Conclusion

The conclusion is the principle the author thinks is wise: “there is wisdom behind the injunction against being judgmental.”

A

To be judgmental is to assess someone negatively prior to making a serious effort at understanding.

This is support for why advice against being judgmental is wise. It shows why being judgmental is wrong.

B

It is absurd to criticize anyone for being critical.

This is the claim provided in the context - to which the author identifies an exception.

C

There is some plausibility to the claim that it is absurd to criticize anyone for being critical.

This inaccurately restates the context. The author says there is “little” plausibility, not “some”.

D

Not all assessments people make of one another will be positive.

This is also part of the context. It is a concession point before the author provides an argument.

E

There is wisdom behind the injunction against being judgmental.

This restates the conclusion verbatim. This is what the author is ultimately arguing - the advice to avoid judging is wise.

27 comments

LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 17

April 21, 2012

16 comments

LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 16

April 21, 2012

3 comments

LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 15

April 21, 2012

Note: The usage of "almost every Wednesday" here is ambiguous. It's unclear whether it's meant to include or exclude every Wednesday. I can see a reasonable disagreement. But the point is that it doesn't matter. The LSAT does not trade on the kind of ambiguity that gives rise to reasonable disagreements. See, if you want to interpret inclusive, then that's how the video lesson does it too and you get to the right answer choice. By default, you are taught in the Core Curriculum to interpret "most" inclusively.

Now what if you want to interpret exclusive? Okay, let's do it. You'll see that this won't change anything about the right or wrong answers.

Exclusive interpretation of "almost every Wednesday is a free poetry reading day" means that it does NOT include every Wednesday. In other words, on some Wednesdays there are no free poetry readings. Okay, so let's translate this to:
W -(e)m-> free poetry reading -> 1/2$ coffee

"-(e)m->" means "exclusive most" as opposed to
our standard "-m->" which means "inclusive most"

Therefore, what's the relationship between Wednesday and 1/2$ coffee?
W -(e)m-> 1/2$ coffee or
W -m-> 1/2$ coffee

I mean, we know most Wednesdays are 1/2$ coffee days. Really the question is whether we can say for sure that there are Wednesdays on which Zack's does not offer 1/2$ coffee. You might say, well, we do have some Wednesdays where there are no free poetry readings. Okay. And on those days... what's the price of coffee?

We don't know. They could well be 1/2$ coffee for some other reason. Because it could well be that Zack's is just crazy about offering 1/2$ coffee all day every day. Because Zack is just a great guy.

Even under the exclusive most interpretation, what (D) says still Must Be True. Zack's offers 1/2$ coffee all day on most Wednesdays, possibly all Wednesdays. Indeed it must be true that it's possible. Answer (E) is still at best a Could Be True. We just don't know that there are some Wednesdays on which coffee is more than 1/2$.

32 comments

LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 14

April 21, 2012

21 comments

LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 13

April 21, 2012

People aged 46 to 55 spend more money per capita than people of any other age group. So it is puzzling that when companies advertise consumer products on television, they focus almost exclusively on people aged 25 and under. Indeed, those who make decisions about television advertising think that the value of a television advertising slot depends entirely on the number of people aged 25 and under who can be expected to be watching at that time.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

People aged 46-55 spend the most money of any age group, but advertisements are aimed almost exclusively at the 25-under group.

Objective

Advertisers have to have some rationale behind their seemingly irrational advertising strategies. The right answer will likely be a hypothesis that explains a difference in consumer behavior between the 25-under and 46-55 age groups that suggests advertising to the 25-under group is more effective.

A

The expense of television advertising slots makes it crucial for companies to target people who are most likely to purchase their products.

If the 46-55 age group spends more money than any other group, aren’t they the most likely to purchase any given product? We would need to know that the products being advertised are intended for the 25-under group, but the stimulus doesn’t tell us that.

B

Advertising slots during news programs almost always cost far less than advertising slots during popular sitcoms whose leading characters are young adults.

Presumably the sitcom slots are more expensive because they appeal to a younger audience. But why do advertisers see an advertising slot as valuable because 25-unders are likely to see it, anyway? This answer doesn’t tell us.

C

When television executives decide which shows to renew, they do so primarily in terms of the shows’ ratings among people aged 25 and under.

The advertisers don’t care which shows are renewed. They care how old the audience who sees their advertisement is, but this answer choice doesn’t explain why that is.

D

Those who make decisions about television advertising believe that people older than 25 almost never change their buying habits.

Advertisements are only effective for audiences 25 and younger, hence why advertisers target them in ads. This perfectly explains the surprise in the stimulus.

E

When companies advertise consumer products in print media, they focus primarily on people aged 26 and over.

We don’t care about print media. We need to know why advertisers almost exclusively target a group that isn’t statistically the most likely to spend money.

25 comments

LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 12

April 21, 2012

13 comments

LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 11

April 21, 2012

3 comments

LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 10

April 21, 2012

Unlike many machines that are perfectly useful in isolation from others, fax machines must work with other fax machines. Thus, in the fax industry, the proliferation of incompatible formats, which resulted from the large number of competing manufacturers, severely limited the usefulness—and hence the commercial viability—of fax technology until the manufacturers agreed to adopt a common format for their machines.

Summary

Fax machines are only useful with other fax machines. The proliferation of incompatible formats from manufacturer to manufacturer severely limits the usefulness of fax machines. This occurred until manufacturers standardized a common format for their fax machines.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

In some industries it is better for competitors to cooperate with each other in some circumstances.

A

Whenever machines are dependent on other machines of the same type, competition among manufacturers is damaging to the industry.

This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is limited to fax machines as an example. We don’t know anything about machines in any other industry.

B

In some industries it is in the interest of competitors to cooperate to some extent with one another.

This answer is strongly supported. If fax machines must work with other fax machines, then it is in the interest of different fax machine manufacturers to cooperate to some extent.

C

The more competitors there are in a high-tech industry, the more they will have to cooperate in determining the basic design of their product.

This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is limited to the fax industry, and we have no information in the stimulus whether this is a high-tech industry.

D

Some cooperation among manufacturers in the same industry is more beneficial than is pure competition.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what the benefits are, if any, of a scenario of pure competition to make this comparison.

E

Cooperation is beneficial only in industries whose products depend on other products of the same type.

This answer is unsupported. Saying cooperation is only beneficial in these types of industries is too strong.

11 comments

LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 09

April 21, 2012

7 comments