asking for clarification pg. 386's & 391 & 409 & 432 &451

[RogerD345]

First of all, Thank you so much for your amazing explanations in < Don't get it. pg. 434 & pg.441 & 464 > of 5lb drills.

To clarify (in some cases, more of asking than asking for clarification)

pg. 386's answer 12, in real life LSAT Answer Choice, it would be probably written as appear in LSAT Testing paper: likely that the answer:

"The constituent doesn't deny nor approve the conclusion of the politician, but offers an alternative explanation with an new information."

Pg.391 (Drill.69) isn't Q. 12, ShouldN'T BE expressed AS BOTH of OP and CE since the later part of Q.12 is .... "and has not been successful at the professional level for decades" (Which this part is CE)

Q.53, shouldn't this be BG, not P ?

Pg.408 (Drill 72), Q.20, shouldn't this be application to a principle? I don't see how the principles in Q.20 would be categorized as a "reduced to an absurd."

Pg. 432, (Drill.78), Q.34,35,36, Q.34; Premises, I believe these two points from the question stem should be added as a premise, i believe. Especially these two points from the Question Stem are added on with the indicator, "Because"

1) automation of manufacturing
+
2) other tactics that improve economic productivity will reduce the need for human labor in japan.

in addition of already existing Premise: . Japan has a highly homogenous society and low rates of immigration.

Pg..451,(Drill-81) Q.25, i think the answer is not good. considering there was no mention of "pitch that can generate a strike" from the Paragraph. Shouldn't the answer be more of following principle: "the catcher will call for a fastball unchangeably when the count is behind." According to the rule and dynamics of Baseball GAME, this explanation by Manhattan Prep doesn't make much sense.

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm so confused, because I remember having already responded to all these, but apparently that post never entered correctly. I had to wait a few days to stomach doing this whole thing again.


pg. 386's answer 12, in real life LSAT Answer Choice, it would be probably written as appear in LSAT Testing paper: likely that the answer:

"The constituent doesn't deny nor approve the conclusion of the politician, but offers an alternative explanation with an new information."


I'm not really sure what you're saying here. None of the answers on pg. 386 sound like LSAT answers.

I agree with you that the 2nd person does not agree/disagree with the conclusion. I don't know what you mean by an alternative explanation. 'Explanations' are causal statements about why something is happening or happened.

I don't think the 2nd person makes any causal statement about why something is happening or happened.

The 2nd person is saying that the solution proposed by the 1st person would not be a complete solution to the problem of insufficient funding.



Pg.391 (Drill.69) isn't Q. 12, ShouldN'T BE expressed AS BOTH of OP and CE since the later part of Q.12 is .... "and has not been successful at the professional level for decades" (Which this part is CE)


You're right that Q12 has two ingredients
- OP: "many coaches of youth teams teach non-diversified play"
and
- P: "the non-diversified play style has not been successful at the pro level for decades"

The author's argument is
MC: teaching a non-diversified style is inadvisable
why?
P: It alienates players and limits team success
P: Young players want to learn the habits of top players
P: Top players have a diversified style
P: A non-diversified style has not been successful at the pro level for decades

I'm going to email Errata about this one.


Q.53, shouldn't this be BG, not P ?


The dividing line between BG and P is pretty murky. I see why you're saying #53 feels like BG, but without knowing the three category names, the author wouldn't be able to reach her conclusion.

Her argument relies on the idea that there are three options: I, A, or E.
If you mishandle radioactive, you won't qualify for E.
Thus, if you mishandle radioactive, you'll get I or A.


Pg.408 (Drill 72), Q.20, shouldn't this be application to a principle? I don't see how the principles in Q.20 would be categorized as a "reduced to an absurd."


Yeah, it should be both. We need to add a special note like we do for #7.

It applies the principle of Diminishing Returns to demonstrate the absurdity of holding the position "quitting is bad".
The author is debunking a social stigma (negative attitude) towards quitting.
Why is saying "it's bad to quit" an absurd position?
Well, the law of diminishing returns says that there's a reasonable endpoint to every action beyond which it's not worth still trying.
So if you tell people it's bad to quit, then they'll just keep trying at every action, and so they'll presumably go BEYOND that reasonable endpoint of diminishing returns.
Hence, it's absurd to be anti-quitting.



Pg. 432, (Drill.78), Q.34,35,36, Q.34; Premises, I believe these two points from the question stem should be added as a premise, i believe. Especially these two points from the Question Stem are added on with the indicator, "Because"

1) automation of manufacturing
+
2) other tactics that improve economic productivity will reduce the need for human labor in japan.

in addition of already existing Premise: . Japan has a highly homogenous society and low rates of immigration.


I agree. In fact, I already emailed Errata 11 days ago about this issue. (that's how I know I've already responded to these questions before).

For what it's worth, I actually complained about the entire argument.

-----------------------

The argument overall is a little weird to me.
"in order to regain its past stature as an economic powerhouse, Japan must allow increased immigration"

why? what does increased immigration have to do with regaining economic powerhouse status?

"well, automation and other things that improve economic activity will reduce the need for human labor"

okay ... that had nothing to do with immigration, but you're saying we're doing stuff that improves our economic activity? This automation and other things is helping us maintain/regain our stature as an economic powerhouse? Cool. So, why were you saying we need immigration?

If we're reducing the need for human labor as we improve our economic powerhouse-ness, wouldn't we want fewer immigrants? Wouldn't more of them just potentially increase unemployment?

"well, you're forgetting that Japan has low rates of immigration"

I could give a crap if they're low/high right now. You're talking about making them higher for some reason.

"well, Japan has the most homogenous population"

So ... you want immigration because you want demographic diversity. This has nothing to do with becoming an economic powerhouse again, does it.

"You're right. You nailed me. I'm the opposite of a xenophobe. I'm a xenophile."
-----------------------------------



Pg..451,(Drill-81) Q.25, i think the answer is not good. considering there was no mention of "pitch that can generate a strike" from the Paragraph. Shouldn't the answer be more of following principle: "the catcher will call for a fastball unchangeably when the count is behind." According to the rule and dynamics of Baseball GAME, this explanation by Manhattan Prep doesn't make much sense.


Yeah, this one is also messed up (I also emailed Errata about this one the first time around).
As currently written, the missing bridge idea is just something like,
"If the catcher previously responded to being behind in the count in a certain way, then he will always respond to being behind in the count that way."
or
"The catcher always responds the same way to being behind in the count".

There would definitely NOT be a Sufficient Assumption answer that suddenly brought in some new idea like "a pitch that likely to be called a strike".

I think the original argument is just missing an additional premise that would set up that term shift. We'll have to see once they fix it what they were originally going for.

Thanks for the heads-up.