Q10 - Almost all of the books

[jackie8848]

I picked (B) because I thought it could be inferred from the first two sentences. I eliminated (A) because I felt that the word "completely" was too strong.

Can anybody help me understand why (A) is correct and (B) is incorrect?

Thanks!

[maryadkins]

This is an inference question, as you correctly noted. We're told:

-almost all (i.e. most) books in last 150 years were on acidic paper

-EVERY kind of acidic paper destroys itself (note: this gives us two extreme facts--every kind of paper, and "destroy")

-this process is slowed if they're stored in a cool place

-techniques being developed to deacidify will probably be applied only to books with historical significance

(A) we can infer. We know most books in the last 150 years are acidic, and of these books, ALL of them will destroy themselves unless they're salvaged by the new techniques. That means a book that is not historically significant is probably (because of the "almost all") in this category.

(B) doesn't account for the historically significant books that may be saved by the new techniques.

(C) reverses logic. If acidic --> gradually deteriorates. (C) tells us gradually deteriorates --> acidic.

(D) is too extreme. We aren't told they definitely will be, just that if they are, they're probably historically significant.

(E) is out of scope. We have no idea.

[accostjen]

I'm not quite understanding the explanation for why answer choice B is wrong. Yes, it's true the answer doesn't explicitly state "historically significant books will not be destroyed"...but in a way it does with the language 'almost all'

In the main passage I was under the impression that the number of books with historical significance that would be de-acidified was a very small portion compared to the total number of books that would deteriorate. Therefore, wouldn't 'almost all' refer back to this small proportion of books that are saved.(?)

[timmydoeslsat]

I'm not quite understanding the explanation for why answer choice B is wrong. Yes, it's true the answer doesn't explicitly state "historically significant books will not be destroyed"...but in a way it does with the language 'almost all'

In the main passage I was under the impression that the number of books with historical significance that would be de-acidified was a very small portion compared to the total number of books that would deteriorate. Therefore, wouldn't 'almost all' refer back to this small proportion of books that are saved.(?)

You cannot infer that the historically significant books are a small amount. That is an assumption and not something that must be true as this question is asking.

This answer choice is not a must be true answer because of what Mary Adkins stated: the deacidify process may be introduced to save a great amount of books.

[maryadkins]

You cannot infer that the historically significant books are a small amount. That is an assumption and not something that must be true

Yes! Be super careful about making quantity inferences, especially, on the LSAT. If you're not told how many books are historically significant, that means that--for logic purposes--it could be anywhere from zero to all of them.

Good question!

[soyeonjeon]

But you're mistaken, I think, since it stqtes that the process cqn be slowed, not reversed or anything. So eventually almost all the books will destroy themselves eventuqlly. What I saw as the key for solving this problem is recognizing the fact that the techniques being developed may be different fron being stored in q cool, dry environment. Otherwise books will eventually destroy themselves.

[lsatfreak2013]

I assumed that answer choice (a) was negated by the last sentence of the stimulus, which states that techniques are being developed to deacidify only historical books. While I noted:

(1) Simply because the stimulus states that it will ONLY be used on books of historical significance does not necessarily mean that it definitively will be used on said books, or if will be used on some or all historical books for that matter; primarily because

(2) The technique discussed in the stimulus is still being developed (i.e., it is impossible for books of historical significance developed in the past 150 years to be kept from deteriorating at this present point in time until a successful technique actually exists);

However, answer choice (a) still came across as having a conclusion that was too definitive given the discussion mentions there are new techniques under way that will be used solely on books of historical significance. (A) uses the word probably, which leaves room for possibility, but in context it seems too bleak. Furthermore, the answer structure essentially addresses all historical books, which definitely seems out of scope given the almost all clause in the first sentence.

This looks like a classic MBT question, and while (B) may not account for the historically significant link, it is almost a verbatim restatement of the stimulus. It seems to be 100% true--the ideal answer for a MBT question.

Clearly there is a misstep in my deductive process. I get that. To some extent I see why (A) is right but I fear if I were faced with the question again I would make the same mistake and pick (B) a second time. So if someone can explain where I went wrong, it would be greatly appreciated. Better yet can someone explain my mistake generally, not just in context of this question?

[deedubbew]

How do we know that there are not any other present or future ways other than the developing techniques that may slow or prevent the deterioration of acidic paper?

This is an inference question, as you correctly noted. We're told:

-almost all (i.e. most) books in last 150 years were on acidic paper

-EVERY kind of acidic paper destroys itself (note: this gives us two extreme facts--every kind of paper, and "destroy")

-this process is slowed if they're stored in a cool place

-techniques being developed to deacidify will probably be applied only to books with historical significance

(A) we can infer. We know most books in the last 150 years are acidic, and of these books, ALL of them will destroy themselves unless they're salvaged by the new techniques. That means a book that is not historically significant is probably (because of the "almost all") in this category.

(B) doesn't account for the historically significant books that may be saved by the new techniques.

(C) reverses logic. If acidic --> gradually deteriorates. (C) tells us gradually deteriorates --> acidic.

(D) is too extreme. We aren't told they definitely will be, just that if they are, they're probably historically significant.

(E) is out of scope. We have no idea.

[Mab6q]

Manhattan experts, please help me with A. I think this is a bad answer to a MBT question. Why? Because when we look at A, it assumes that the books with historical significance are not going to be alot. Maybe the books that are not historically insignificant are only a few, and the books that are not made of acidic paper (those that are not in almost all category) out numbers the insignificant ones, could we conclude that the book in A would probably deteriorate. My point is that I dont think A is a MBT answer. Hope that makes sense.

Example: 200 books total. 150 are made on acidic paper, 50 are not. Of the 150, 125 will be saved because they are significant. 25 left that will deteriorate plus the 50 that are not made of acidic paper. Could we conclude that the book in A would probably deteriorate.

[einuoa]

Manhattan experts, please help me with A. I think this is a bad answer to a MBT question. Why? Because when we look at A, it assumes that the books with historical significance are not going to be alot. Maybe the books that are not historically insignificant are only a few, and the books that are not made of acidic paper (those that are not in almost all category) out numbers the insignificant ones, could we conclude that the book in A would probably deteriorate. My point is that I dont think A is a MBT answer. Hope that makes sense.

Example: 200 books total. 150 are made on acidic paper, 50 are not. Of the 150, 125 will be saved because they are significant. 25 left that will deteriorate plus the 50 that are not made of acidic paper. Could we conclude that the book in A would probably deteriorate.

While I think A is not a great answer to this question, I realized the rest of the answers are even worse.

I don't think A assumes historically insignificant books are little or a lot, and in fact the stimulus never assumes the quantity of historically significant or historically insignificant books, it just says that almost all of the books (sig. + insig.) were printed on acidic paper.

I would disagree with your example in that I think almost all entails more than 150/200 but I'm not sure if we can equate almost all with most in this case. I was assuming almost all would mean all but a few, maybe at like 95+/100 or something like that, but if any LSAT geek can answer my question about almost all= most, that would be great !

If we assume almost all meaning maybe 98/100 books are made of acidified paper, and 75/98 of those are historically significant, I think we can conclude that 23/98 are historically insignificant and so answer A would still stand.

I guess, if the stimulus said 'Most' instead of 'Almost all' this would be harder to prove. Nonetheless, I think this is not the best MBT question.

[donghai819]

I think A is a good answer. "probably" refers to "almost all".

[jm.kahn]

Manhattan experts, please help me with A. I think this is a bad answer to a MBT question. Why? Because when we look at A, it assumes that the books with historical significance are not going to be alot. Maybe the books that are not historically insignificant are only a few, and the books that are not made of acidic paper (those that are not in almost all category) out numbers the insignificant ones, could we conclude that the book in A would probably deteriorate. My point is that I dont think A is a MBT answer. Hope that makes sense.

Example: 200 books total. 150 are made on acidic paper, 50 are not. Of the 150, 125 will be saved because they are significant. 25 left that will deteriorate plus the 50 that are not made of acidic paper. Could we conclude that the book in A would probably deteriorate.

While I think A is not a great answer to this question, I realized the rest of the answers are even worse.

I don't think A assumes historically insignificant books are little or a lot, and in fact the stimulus never assumes the quantity of historically significant or historically insignificant books, it just says that almost all of the books (sig. + insig.) were printed on acidic paper.

I would disagree with your example in that I think almost all entails more than 150/200 but I'm not sure if we can equate almost all with most in this case. I was assuming almost all would mean all but a few, maybe at like 95+/100 or something like that, but if any LSAT geek can answer my question about almost all= most, that would be great !

If we assume almost all meaning maybe 98/100 books are made of acidified paper, and 75/98 of those are historically significant, I think we can conclude that 23/98 are historically insignificant and so answer A would still stand.

I guess, if the stimulus said 'Most' instead of 'Almost all' this would be harder to prove. Nonetheless, I think this is not the best MBT question.

You don't have to accept 150/200 to be equivalent to "almost all" to know that A is not MBT. It's a fine choice for an MBA question, but it's definitely is not must be true. Any counterexample where A is not true can prove that A is not a correct choice.

Say we take "almost all" to mean 98/100 are made on acidic paper. If 97 out of those 98 are historically significant, those 97 will likely be deacidified. The 1 remaining on acidic paper will def deteriorate. Of the other 2 books are not on acidic paper may not dteriorate at all and may be historically insignificant. So, of the 3 total historically insignificant books, only 1 deteriorates and 2 don't, which is less than 50% and so A is not true in this case. Therefore A is not an MBT.

The issue arises out of "almost all" wording in the first sentence. If it were "all, or the q stem asked for a MSS, then A would be fine.

The way it's written, it's definitely a flawed question created by LSAC. This issue with this q item has to be known to experts.
Anyone find surprising that it's remained unnoticed for so long??

[a8l367]

Hi

For A
Is "gradually destroys" results in "deteriorate completely"?
I mean could we 100% say about a book which was "gradually destroyed" that this book "deteriorated completely"?
I mean could a book be "gradually destroyed" and not at the same time "deteriorated completely"? Kind of linguistic question.

For C
Q: - 99% (almost all) of the books are acid.
- Every acid is will deteriorate (99%)
A: - almost all that deteriorate are acid

Why it's wrong? Even if 1% is not acid and deteriorates, we can still say that almost all that deteriorate (99%acid+1%non-acid) are acid. 99/100.

Please comment