Pg..525 (Drill 91) q 21,22,23,24 Hi, since the conclusion of the stem ended with a difference, pointing out difference makes the answer choices stronger therefore 21, 22, as the Strengther and 23 as a weakner, I believe.
also, 24, this point illustrates the relevant differences of purchasing and getting into the concerts, shouldn't this be Weaken or strengthen?
Pg..525 (Drill 91) Q.31-35, Paragraph: Thus, retaining contextual data alongside specimen will ease the job of future researchers and is therefore a paleontology best practice. --- i don't know how to conditionally diagram this.
and I intuitively get q.35 helps but not how exactly support the Q.31-35's paragraph.
in.pg.525's Q.45 's conditional logic diagram : Judge should rule in favor of defendant ----> he believes that all witnesses have unquestionable characters.
Question stem that Q. 45 and Q.41-Q.44 suppose to support, if one expresses using conditional logic diagram :: Given the questionationalibty of the witness character ------> Judge should rule in favor of defendant.
I believe Q.45 is reversed but i am not 100% sure
In. pg. 886 (drill 168), Q.38, isn't this more of IC since 37 supports 38?
inpg.886's Q.45, should n'ts this be listed as BG rather than Premise?
In Pg 903 (Drill.171), Q.34, I don't understand the explanation provided by the book. How does this AND superseded by OR in this Case. ?
Pg. 908, (Drill. 172) For Q.24, I don't even know what is conclusion of the argument and I do not see this is B) Ad Hominem Flaw, according to the book.
Pg. 908, (Drill. 172) , Q.25. I believe the answer D) Opinion vs Fact is more appropriate Flaw than A) Comparison Flaw, (The book says)
Pg. 908, (Drill. 172) , Q.38, I see this Q as both of B) Illegal Reserval and C) False Choice. But I think B) is more appropriate answer but the answer sheet says C) Is. Can you clarify PLZ?
Pg. 908, (Drill. 172) , Q.41, I just cannot see this is A, Self Contradiction as the Textbook says it is. Can you let me know which part i am not seeing well enough?
Pg.926, answer page for Drill. 175, pg. 922, it says Q.9 is part to whole flaw. I believe the correct answer is mistyped and the correct answer for Q.9 is Term Shift. NO?
LSAT Forum
3 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- RogerD345
-
Thanks Received: 4
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 56
- Joined: July 08th, 2018
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: asking for clarification (pg. 525 & 886 & 903 & 908 & 926)
Pg..525 (Drill 91) q 21,22,23,24 Hi, since the conclusion of the stem ended with a difference, pointing out difference makes the answer choices stronger therefore 21, 22, as the Strengther and 23 as a weakner, I believe.
also, 24, this point illustrates the relevant differences of purchasing and getting into the concerts, shouldn't this be Weaken or strengthen?
This argument is both Comparative and Causal.
The Causal aspect is important to acknowledge because of how it helps us think about Strengthening / Weakening.
When LSAT authors present a curious fact, they're implicitly asking "Why is this so?" The conclusion will explicitly or implicitly reveal the Author's Causal Story (her way of explaining or interpreting the curious fact).
In this one, she's implicitly asking
"Why are there more people at the concert arena in town A than in town Z?" (why is this curious fact so?)
"Oh, it must be that the people in town A like seeing live music more than do those in town B." (author's causal story)
STR / WEAK answers on Causal arguments could:
- decrease/increase the plausibility for some OTHER CAUSAL STORY
- increase/decrease the plausibility of the AUTHOR'S STORY
I end up asking myself, "Is there some other way to explain the Curious Fact?" as well as "How Plausible is the Author's Story that ... ?"
"Is there some other way to explain why more ppl are in A's arena than in B's?"
"How plausible is the idea that town A's people like seeing live music more than town B's?"
#21. Weakens, because it's a different way to explain why there are more ppl in A's arena -- "A's arena just has a larger capacity. It seats more people."
#22. Weakens, because it's a different way to explain why there are more ppl in A's arena -- "The people in B just don't like seeing live music at BIG ARENAS. They like their live music as much as A, they just choose to see it in smaller venues."
#23. Strengthens, because it rules out an alternate way of explaining why there are more ppl in A's area --- "There are more ppl in A's arena because better bands play in A's arena, not because town B doesn't like seeing live music as much."
This 'controls' (in the scientific method sense) for quality/type of bands performing at each arena. It makes it less likely that the lower attendance in town B is due to something like inferior quality of performers.
#24. I'm tempted to agree that this Weakens, because it's a different way to explain why there are more ppl in A's arena --- "A's arena is just more accessible than B's, because you can buy tickets at the actual arena." I'm gonna talk to Errata about this one.
Pg..529 (Drill 92) Q.31-35, Paragraph: Thus, retaining contextual data alongside specimen will ease the job of future researchers and is therefore a paleontology best practice. --- i don't know how to conditionally diagram this. and I intuitively get q.35 helps but not how exactly support the Q.31-35's paragraph.
The word "therefore" shows us how to separate the premise half from the conclusion half.
PREM: Keeping the extra data will ease the job of future researchers
and (therefore)
CONC: Keeping the extra data is a paleontology best practice
If we're trying to create a bridge idea from PREM to CONC, it would sound like
"If something would ease the job of future researchers, then that thing is a paleo best practice"
#35 is written in the "should rule-of-thumb" style of strengthening principle, but it still connects
PREM language "makes current or future research easier" = "ease the job of future researchers"
to
CONC language "Paleo's should practice this policy" = "this policy is a paleo best practice"
It's not sufficient, but it's a big strengthener when it comes to filling in that gap.
in.pg.529's Q.45 's conditional logic diagram : Judge should rule in favor of defendant ----> he believes that all witnesses have unquestionable characters. Question stem that Q. 45 and Q.41-Q.44 suppose to support, if one expresses using conditional logic diagram :: Given the questionationalibty of the witness character ------> Judge should rule in favor of defendant. I believe Q.45 is reversed but i am not 100% sure
Yeah, there's a typo here. The argument needs this bridge idea:
"if a witness's character is questionable, then the judge should rule in favor of the defendant"
So Q45 should not have the word "not". It should read:
_______ 45. A judge should rule in favor of a defendant unless he believes that all witnesses have unquestionable characters.
That would translate into
"If a judge doesn't believe that all witnesses have unquestionable characters, he should rule in favor of defendant"
In. pg. 886 (drill 168), Q.38, isn't this more of IC since 37 supports 38?
The way to test whether something is an IC is to ask yourself, "Why should I believe that?"
If you can point to a supporting reason, then it is an IC. If you can't, then it's a premise.
for #38, "Why should I believe that every time over the previous century, when runoff has made the planting fields soggy, the river has overflowed??
#37 would not be an answer to that question. "You should believe that this pattern has held true for a century ... because ... farmers just recently observed that runoff is making planting fields soggy?"
inpg.886's Q.45, should n'ts this be listed as BG rather than Premise?
The distinction there can get fuzzy, but I think it's listed as a Premise because without the information that blue maples lose their leaves early in the autumn, the author would be missing a major idea in her argument.
CONC: this cafe must be less popular in early autumn
(why? what's weird about early autumn?)
EVID: In early autumn the trees encircling the cafe lose their leaves, allowing for direct exposure of the setting sun, with a quite unpleasant glare. And the cafe is usually super busy at sunset. (So since there'd be an unpleasant glare at busy time, the cafe probably doesn't do as well in this season)
In Pg 903 (Drill.171), Q.34, I don't understand the explanation provided by the book. How does this AND superseded by OR in this Case. ?
"Every, Any, All, Each, No, None" are all conditional triggers that introduce sufficient conditions (left side ideas).
"Each spice listed in the recipe is available at most supermarkets" = "Spice in recipe -> Avail in Most S's"
"Every sauce listed in the recipe is available at most supermarkets" = "Sauce in recipe -> Avail in Most S's"
If you agree with what I've just written, then you agree that whether it's a spice in the recipe or a sauce in the recipe, it'll be available in most supermarkets.
The book didn't need to write it as an "OR" statement. It could have otherwise just written two conditionals as I did.
Does it make sense that if we said, "Every lion and every giraffe is a mammal", we could translate that into
"If something is a lion or a giraffe, then it is a mammal".
We wouldn't want to say
"If something is a lion AND a giraffe, then it is a mammal"
(especially since we know that nothing is both lion and giraffe, just as we know nothing is simultaneously spice AND sauce)
Pg. 908, (Drill. 172) For Q.24, I don't even know what is conclusion of the argument and I do not see this is B) Ad Hominem Flaw, according to the book.
CONC: No layoffs are necessary
(why should we believe you?)
EVID: The people who are saying that layoffs are necessary are just peeved that we fought them to get a fair deal in collective bargaining.
The author is dismissing an argument by addressing who is giving the argument rather than the substance of the argument.
Pg. 908, (Drill. 172) , Q.25. I believe the answer D) Opinion vs Fact is more appropriate Flaw than A) Comparison Flaw, (The book says)
Opinion vs. Fact refers to treating something that is an opinion as though it's factually true.
example: Most people think that climate change is not an unfolding crisis. Since climate change apparently isn't yet a problem, we should not make it a major concern of our campaign.
The premises in this argument are facts. Maybe you're thinking, "the conclusion feels like an opinion". It is. (Almost) All conclusions are opinions, but that's not what we mean by Opinion vs. Fact
Pg. 908, (Drill. 172) , Q.38, I see this Q as both of B) Illegal Reserval and C) False Choice. But I think B) is more appropriate answer but the answer sheet says C) Is. Can you clarify PLZ?
I don't know why it would be called a False Choice. I would call it a Causation Flaw, since the conclusion is overly confident in one possible causal explanation for why the Company's seeds are growing in an "unauthorized" field. I'm going to email Errata about this one.
Pg. 908, (Drill. 172) , Q.41, I just cannot see this is A, Self Contradiction as the Textbook says it is. Can you let me know which part i am not seeing well enough?
PREM: the flycatcher decides when to migrate based on day length, which is only affected by rotation (+ revolution) of the Earth
CONC: the flycatcher will start migrating earlier, now that more and more of them are missing their prime feeding window
It's an internal contradiction because we're told that the migration departure date of these birds is dictated by length of day, which makes them migrate every year around the same day (solstices on June 20 and Dec 20 are the longest and shortest days of the year, so a given date of every year is always approximately the same length of day). The climate is changing when they SHOULD go, but the author has already established when they WILL go. So his conclusion seems irrationally hopeful for the flycatcher's sake.
Pg.926, answer page for Drill. 175, pg. 922, it says Q.9 is part to whole flaw. I believe the correct answer is mistyped and the correct answer for Q.9 is Term Shift. NO?
PREM: each trail that Linda tried was a one-dimensional challenge
CONC: the entire ski resort is a one-dimensional challenge (not offering a variety of challenges)
each trail [part] has quality X.
Thus, the resort [whole] has quality X.
also, 24, this point illustrates the relevant differences of purchasing and getting into the concerts, shouldn't this be Weaken or strengthen?
This argument is both Comparative and Causal.
The Causal aspect is important to acknowledge because of how it helps us think about Strengthening / Weakening.
When LSAT authors present a curious fact, they're implicitly asking "Why is this so?" The conclusion will explicitly or implicitly reveal the Author's Causal Story (her way of explaining or interpreting the curious fact).
In this one, she's implicitly asking
"Why are there more people at the concert arena in town A than in town Z?" (why is this curious fact so?)
"Oh, it must be that the people in town A like seeing live music more than do those in town B." (author's causal story)
STR / WEAK answers on Causal arguments could:
- decrease/increase the plausibility for some OTHER CAUSAL STORY
- increase/decrease the plausibility of the AUTHOR'S STORY
I end up asking myself, "Is there some other way to explain the Curious Fact?" as well as "How Plausible is the Author's Story that ... ?"
"Is there some other way to explain why more ppl are in A's arena than in B's?"
"How plausible is the idea that town A's people like seeing live music more than town B's?"
#21. Weakens, because it's a different way to explain why there are more ppl in A's arena -- "A's arena just has a larger capacity. It seats more people."
#22. Weakens, because it's a different way to explain why there are more ppl in A's arena -- "The people in B just don't like seeing live music at BIG ARENAS. They like their live music as much as A, they just choose to see it in smaller venues."
#23. Strengthens, because it rules out an alternate way of explaining why there are more ppl in A's area --- "There are more ppl in A's arena because better bands play in A's arena, not because town B doesn't like seeing live music as much."
This 'controls' (in the scientific method sense) for quality/type of bands performing at each arena. It makes it less likely that the lower attendance in town B is due to something like inferior quality of performers.
#24. I'm tempted to agree that this Weakens, because it's a different way to explain why there are more ppl in A's arena --- "A's arena is just more accessible than B's, because you can buy tickets at the actual arena." I'm gonna talk to Errata about this one.
Pg..529 (Drill 92) Q.31-35, Paragraph: Thus, retaining contextual data alongside specimen will ease the job of future researchers and is therefore a paleontology best practice. --- i don't know how to conditionally diagram this. and I intuitively get q.35 helps but not how exactly support the Q.31-35's paragraph.
The word "therefore" shows us how to separate the premise half from the conclusion half.
PREM: Keeping the extra data will ease the job of future researchers
and (therefore)
CONC: Keeping the extra data is a paleontology best practice
If we're trying to create a bridge idea from PREM to CONC, it would sound like
"If something would ease the job of future researchers, then that thing is a paleo best practice"
#35 is written in the "should rule-of-thumb" style of strengthening principle, but it still connects
PREM language "makes current or future research easier" = "ease the job of future researchers"
to
CONC language "Paleo's should practice this policy" = "this policy is a paleo best practice"
It's not sufficient, but it's a big strengthener when it comes to filling in that gap.
in.pg.529's Q.45 's conditional logic diagram : Judge should rule in favor of defendant ----> he believes that all witnesses have unquestionable characters. Question stem that Q. 45 and Q.41-Q.44 suppose to support, if one expresses using conditional logic diagram :: Given the questionationalibty of the witness character ------> Judge should rule in favor of defendant. I believe Q.45 is reversed but i am not 100% sure
Yeah, there's a typo here. The argument needs this bridge idea:
"if a witness's character is questionable, then the judge should rule in favor of the defendant"
So Q45 should not have the word "not". It should read:
_______ 45. A judge should rule in favor of a defendant unless he believes that all witnesses have unquestionable characters.
That would translate into
"If a judge doesn't believe that all witnesses have unquestionable characters, he should rule in favor of defendant"
In. pg. 886 (drill 168), Q.38, isn't this more of IC since 37 supports 38?
The way to test whether something is an IC is to ask yourself, "Why should I believe that?"
If you can point to a supporting reason, then it is an IC. If you can't, then it's a premise.
for #38, "Why should I believe that every time over the previous century, when runoff has made the planting fields soggy, the river has overflowed??
#37 would not be an answer to that question. "You should believe that this pattern has held true for a century ... because ... farmers just recently observed that runoff is making planting fields soggy?"
inpg.886's Q.45, should n'ts this be listed as BG rather than Premise?
The distinction there can get fuzzy, but I think it's listed as a Premise because without the information that blue maples lose their leaves early in the autumn, the author would be missing a major idea in her argument.
CONC: this cafe must be less popular in early autumn
(why? what's weird about early autumn?)
EVID: In early autumn the trees encircling the cafe lose their leaves, allowing for direct exposure of the setting sun, with a quite unpleasant glare. And the cafe is usually super busy at sunset. (So since there'd be an unpleasant glare at busy time, the cafe probably doesn't do as well in this season)
In Pg 903 (Drill.171), Q.34, I don't understand the explanation provided by the book. How does this AND superseded by OR in this Case. ?
"Every, Any, All, Each, No, None" are all conditional triggers that introduce sufficient conditions (left side ideas).
"Each spice listed in the recipe is available at most supermarkets" = "Spice in recipe -> Avail in Most S's"
"Every sauce listed in the recipe is available at most supermarkets" = "Sauce in recipe -> Avail in Most S's"
If you agree with what I've just written, then you agree that whether it's a spice in the recipe or a sauce in the recipe, it'll be available in most supermarkets.
The book didn't need to write it as an "OR" statement. It could have otherwise just written two conditionals as I did.
Does it make sense that if we said, "Every lion and every giraffe is a mammal", we could translate that into
"If something is a lion or a giraffe, then it is a mammal".
We wouldn't want to say
"If something is a lion AND a giraffe, then it is a mammal"
(especially since we know that nothing is both lion and giraffe, just as we know nothing is simultaneously spice AND sauce)
Pg. 908, (Drill. 172) For Q.24, I don't even know what is conclusion of the argument and I do not see this is B) Ad Hominem Flaw, according to the book.
CONC: No layoffs are necessary
(why should we believe you?)
EVID: The people who are saying that layoffs are necessary are just peeved that we fought them to get a fair deal in collective bargaining.
The author is dismissing an argument by addressing who is giving the argument rather than the substance of the argument.
Pg. 908, (Drill. 172) , Q.25. I believe the answer D) Opinion vs Fact is more appropriate Flaw than A) Comparison Flaw, (The book says)
Opinion vs. Fact refers to treating something that is an opinion as though it's factually true.
example: Most people think that climate change is not an unfolding crisis. Since climate change apparently isn't yet a problem, we should not make it a major concern of our campaign.
The premises in this argument are facts. Maybe you're thinking, "the conclusion feels like an opinion". It is. (Almost) All conclusions are opinions, but that's not what we mean by Opinion vs. Fact
Pg. 908, (Drill. 172) , Q.38, I see this Q as both of B) Illegal Reserval and C) False Choice. But I think B) is more appropriate answer but the answer sheet says C) Is. Can you clarify PLZ?
I don't know why it would be called a False Choice. I would call it a Causation Flaw, since the conclusion is overly confident in one possible causal explanation for why the Company's seeds are growing in an "unauthorized" field. I'm going to email Errata about this one.
Pg. 908, (Drill. 172) , Q.41, I just cannot see this is A, Self Contradiction as the Textbook says it is. Can you let me know which part i am not seeing well enough?
PREM: the flycatcher decides when to migrate based on day length, which is only affected by rotation (+ revolution) of the Earth
CONC: the flycatcher will start migrating earlier, now that more and more of them are missing their prime feeding window
It's an internal contradiction because we're told that the migration departure date of these birds is dictated by length of day, which makes them migrate every year around the same day (solstices on June 20 and Dec 20 are the longest and shortest days of the year, so a given date of every year is always approximately the same length of day). The climate is changing when they SHOULD go, but the author has already established when they WILL go. So his conclusion seems irrationally hopeful for the flycatcher's sake.
Pg.926, answer page for Drill. 175, pg. 922, it says Q.9 is part to whole flaw. I believe the correct answer is mistyped and the correct answer for Q.9 is Term Shift. NO?
PREM: each trail that Linda tried was a one-dimensional challenge
CONC: the entire ski resort is a one-dimensional challenge (not offering a variety of challenges)
each trail [part] has quality X.
Thus, the resort [whole] has quality X.
-
- RogerD345
-
Thanks Received: 4
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 56
- Joined: July 08th, 2018
Re: asking for clarification (pg. 525 & 886 & 903 & 908 & 926)
Thank you so much Sir , for answering this many questions. I just cannot express enough gratitude. Also, if you get answer from Errata, let me know, thx.
3 posts Page 1 of 1