Q14 - In 1712 the government of

[velvet]

This problem was harder for me because I struggle with Arguments that contain quantity statements (all, some), and I easily get tripped up proportions.

I was trying to fit in some numbers and I don't get how (C) is the right response. If the first censor denied 50 %, and the second censor denied 25%, yet both approved the same number of books, I just don't get how they can make any conclusion about the number of manuscripts submitted for approval. I know I'm missing something here.

[maryadkins]

First censor: 1/2 of the books not allowed.

Second censor: 1/4 of the books not allowed.

But both approved the same number.

So let's work backwards.

Suppose they both approved 150 books. What does that mean?

That means the first censor disallowed 150 books (1/2 of the ones submitted were approved; 1/2 were not). A total of 300 were submitted to the first censor.

The second censor disallowed 1/4 of the ones submitted, which means the 150 books would have to compose 3/4 of the books submitted. 150 is 3/4 of what number? 200. 200 books were submitted to the second censor.

(C): More books were submitted to the first censor.

If you don't want to get into the math, think about it this way.

They ended up approving the same number of books. The first censor knocked out a greater percentage than the second. That means the first must have had more books to deal with in the first place.

Hope this helps!

[soyeonjeon]

Thanks for your explanation.
Although I didn't plug in the number, I did use a quantitative method. I thought I chose the wrong process.
But seeing that you have solved it via quantitative method, when I see a problem like this on the test date, is it the best strategy to approach it via quant method? like by plugging in numbers?

I saw only one other problem with quant method in the preps so far.

can someone help me out here please? Does LSAT someimtes require us to utilize the quantitative method?

Thanks for the help.

[alex.cheng.2012]

The bullet-proof way would be to plug in some real numbers as maryadkins did.

But, as maryadkins said:

If you don't want to get into the math, think about it this way.

They ended up approving the same number of books. The first censor knocked out a greater percentage than the second. That means the first must have had more books to deal with in the first place.

I got to answer (C) by process of elimination.

So when I first read the argument, my hunch told me it would have something to do with the percentages (the 1/2 and the 1/4). So something to do with numbers/proportions/percentages. Alright let's read on.

(A): We don't know anything about books critical of the government. The argument only talks about legally published books, which are not critical of the government
(B): This one deals with numbers. Let's keep it for now.
(C): This one also deals with numbers, let's keep it as well.
(D): We have no way of knowing this. We don't know what criteria the first censor used, and we don't know what criteria the second censor used. And we def don't know how they compare against each other.
(E): Number of writers? Argument talks about number of books. Eliminate

So we're down to B and C.

(B) is wrong because if the first censor and the second censor prohibited the same amount of books, and, as the argument states, also published the same amount of books, how is it possible that the first censor prohibited 50% while the second censor prohibits 25%? The math doesn't add up.

That leaves us with (C). I could explain why (C) is correct, but maryadkins pretty much killed it, so refer to her post for more detail.

In response to the question regarding using a quantitative method, I would say, in my humble-totally-not-expert opinion, to just use whatever is best/quickest for you. If you're doing a timed PT, just do with what feels best/natural. If you're reviewing, try several methods, and see which one suits you best.

Personally, I tried plugging in the numbers in my head and then I got lost (which in retrospect, is weird because now that I think about it, the math really wasn't that hard) so I just went ahead and did what I just illustrated above.