LSAT Forum
3 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ShehryarB30
-
Thanks Received: 2
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 100
- Joined: July 07th, 2018
Q23
Could you pls give an explanation for this question
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q23
The keywords in the question stem are "Temple's research on birds of the island of Mauritius".
Can we find all / almost all of those keywords in any text?
It would probably be Paragraph 1, since paragraph 2 and 3 were specifically about the dodo and about the Calvaria Major trees.
In lines 4-10, we get "Temple / research / birds / Mauritius", so this is probably what we're being tested on.
This sentence says that Temple's MAIN deal on the island was "his research on endangered birds of Mauritius", while the sidelight was investigating Calvaria Major.
(A) Sure. We can support this with lines 4-10. Investigating Calvaria Major was "a sidelight", so investigating "endangered birds" was the main event.
If his main research was on endangered birds, we can say
"his research largely was on species facing the threat of extinction"
main = largely
endangered = facing the threat of extinction
(B) "highly accurate" is way too strong to be supportable. And line 36 says that Temple had "test results" indicating the crush-resistant strength of the pits. It never says that his research on birds gave him these "test results".
(C) "roughly the same" is a loaded phrase we can't support. Temple looked at the abrasive force of turkey gizzards and it was stronger, but maybe "roughly the same" as that of dodo gizzards. But there's nothing in the text that connects turkey gizzards to "Temple's research on birds of the island of Mauritius". We have no reason to think that the turkeys whose gizzards he tested were among the endangered birds on the island.
(D) we can't support the loaded terms "comprehensive in scope" and "methodological precision". We know almost nothing about his research on birds, other than that it was focused on endangered species.
(E) we have no idea what inspired Temple's research on endangered birds, but it sounds like he WENT to the island with that goal, and then, as a sidelight, started looking in to Calvaria major trees. This answer seems to put those in reverse, saying that he started by looking at Calvaria major and that this inspired him to research endangered birds.
The big takeaway for ID Information questions like "according to the passage" / "the author indicates" / "the passage states" is just to find the line of the passage that contains the keywords in the question stem.
The correct answer is found nearby. Incorrect answers grab wording / phrasing from other parts of the passage in the hopes of coaxing us into considering them.
Can we find all / almost all of those keywords in any text?
It would probably be Paragraph 1, since paragraph 2 and 3 were specifically about the dodo and about the Calvaria Major trees.
In lines 4-10, we get "Temple / research / birds / Mauritius", so this is probably what we're being tested on.
This sentence says that Temple's MAIN deal on the island was "his research on endangered birds of Mauritius", while the sidelight was investigating Calvaria Major.
(A) Sure. We can support this with lines 4-10. Investigating Calvaria Major was "a sidelight", so investigating "endangered birds" was the main event.
If his main research was on endangered birds, we can say
"his research largely was on species facing the threat of extinction"
main = largely
endangered = facing the threat of extinction
(B) "highly accurate" is way too strong to be supportable. And line 36 says that Temple had "test results" indicating the crush-resistant strength of the pits. It never says that his research on birds gave him these "test results".
(C) "roughly the same" is a loaded phrase we can't support. Temple looked at the abrasive force of turkey gizzards and it was stronger, but maybe "roughly the same" as that of dodo gizzards. But there's nothing in the text that connects turkey gizzards to "Temple's research on birds of the island of Mauritius". We have no reason to think that the turkeys whose gizzards he tested were among the endangered birds on the island.
(D) we can't support the loaded terms "comprehensive in scope" and "methodological precision". We know almost nothing about his research on birds, other than that it was focused on endangered species.
(E) we have no idea what inspired Temple's research on endangered birds, but it sounds like he WENT to the island with that goal, and then, as a sidelight, started looking in to Calvaria major trees. This answer seems to put those in reverse, saying that he started by looking at Calvaria major and that this inspired him to research endangered birds.
The big takeaway for ID Information questions like "according to the passage" / "the author indicates" / "the passage states" is just to find the line of the passage that contains the keywords in the question stem.
The correct answer is found nearby. Incorrect answers grab wording / phrasing from other parts of the passage in the hopes of coaxing us into considering them.
-
- SmileyEvil
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 1
- Joined: July 24th, 2019
Re: Q23 If Kevin is the sole
Explanations given by @ohthatpatrick for, I assume, RC section.
P.S. I was landed on this page from LSAT Navigator.
P.S.S. Explanations needed for PT69.G4.Q23.
P.S.S.S. If you landed on this page from LSAT Navigator, here's my explanation to this question:
If K is the sole paralegal then G, L, and H must be assigned to the Sicoli's case. Then K or F can be assigned to either Raimes' or Thompson's cases.
F/K HLG K/F
Raimes Sicoli Thompson
P.S. I was landed on this page from LSAT Navigator.
P.S.S. Explanations needed for PT69.G4.Q23.
P.S.S.S. If you landed on this page from LSAT Navigator, here's my explanation to this question:
If K is the sole paralegal then G, L, and H must be assigned to the Sicoli's case. Then K or F can be assigned to either Raimes' or Thompson's cases.
F/K HLG K/F
Raimes Sicoli Thompson
3 posts Page 1 of 1