Structure Indicator - Drill 5, 12, 78

[RogerD345]

Drill 5. Structure Indicator - Pg.46 Q.31-Q. 36.

Q. 31, Shouldn't this be CE, since it is helping to support Q.33's -- WHICH BTW, i believe Q, 33 should be labelled is more of OP than CE in this case?

"97th floor located (Q.31) is an evidence combined with Q. 32, for safety of staff would presumably be at risk (Q.33) ."

Also, Q.35 should be IC i believe, cuz the stairs will always be the best exit route (Q.35)
because of the potential to be trapped or injured in a malfunctioning elevator is far riskier (Q.34).

Drill 12, Pg, 86, ,

Q. 8's answer explanation i think is possibly wrong. considering the conclusion sentence including the word "additional," The information of " Most Homeowners and business owners install panels to reduce electricity bills and save money" should not be redacted.

Drill. 78. Pg. 431

Q.18. Main conclusion doesn't make sense ; However, if the main conclusion is rephrased as "control over one's life is at the root of attaining a sense of satisfaction." I can agree with that.

Also Q.16 (the premises), Written Answer Premises are possibly lacking some correct information .

Drill. 78. Pg. 433

Regarding Your kind reply ( I am assuming Ohthatpat would answer my Questions in this thread) located in Pg. 433, Q.42, Main conclusion.

pg. 429 (Drill.78) Q. 42, even though i think this analysis overall is okay. I believe the phrase in the end "will seldom priortize their efforts properly" should be expressed using different words. they don't really get supported.



I think "seldom" is a callback to the frequency words used in the second of the two rules:
intermed goal is easy to achieve --> ALWAYS worthwhile to try to achieve it
intermed goal is not easy to achieve and not intrinsically valuable --> RARELY worth trying

seldom = rarely

From https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... 19087.html

ANYWAYS Q.42, Main conclusion: This is mistaken Negation-Ish Type Conclusion that if this appears on real life LSAT, it would likely appear as one of the Justify the conclusion Question, it needs a justifier to make the conclusion valid. correct?

[ohthatpatrick]

Drill 5. Structure Indicator - Pg.46 Q.31-Q. 36.

Q. 31, Shouldn't this be CE, since it is helping to support Q.33's -- WHICH BTW, i believe Q, 33 should be labelled is more of OP than CE in this case?

"97th floor located (Q.31) is an evidence combined with Q. 32, for safety of staff would presumably be at risk (Q.33) ."

Also, Q.35 should be IC i believe, cuz the stairs will always be the best exit route
because of Q.34. the potential to be trapped or injured in a malfunctioning elevator is far riskier.

I agree that #31 should be CE, because it ties in with #32 and #33 to establish the level of risk to "evacuate via stairs".
I wouldn't make #33 an OP, because it's not a conclusion based on those first two ideas. It's just saying "all the while that you're evacuating via stairs, you are presumably at risk of the fire that's in the building". Why are you at risk of fire in the building? Because there's fire in the building. It's an unsupported idea because our common sense tell us why fire in the building puts someone at risk.

And I agree I think #35 feels like an IC, based on #34. Thanks for letting us know!


Drill 12, Pg, 86, ,

Q. 8's answer explanation i think is possibly wrong. considering the conclusion includes the word "additional" " Most Homeowners and business owners install panels to reduce electricity bills and save money" should not be redacted.


Yeah, I agree with you. That one's weird. thanks.


Drill. 78. Pg. 431

Q.18. Main conclusion doesn't make sense ; if the main conclusion is rephrased as "control over one's life is at the root of attaining a sense of satisfaction." I can agree with that. Also Q.16, Written Answer Premises are somewhat lacking some information .



I agree with you regarding the conclusion. It shouldn't be stated in "sufficient condition" style. I'm not sure what you're worried is missing from the Premise(s) though. It looks like the only support for that first sentence is the claim that being with "only a feeling of ...."


Drill. 78. Pg. 433

Pg. 433, Q.42, Mainclusion.
Q.42, Main conclusion: This is mistaken Negation-Ish Conclusion that if this appears on Justify the conclusion, it needs a justifier to make the conclusion valid. correct?

I'm not really sure what you're asking here. Are you just saying the Conclusion feels like a mistaken negation? If so, I don't really follow / agree.

Suppose I say "tomatoes with prickly stems are extra sweet, whereas tomatoes with soft stems are very tart. As a result, those who fail to notice the texture of a tomato's stem will have seldom know whether a tomato is going to be sweet or tart".

That's not an airtight conclusion -- maybe there's some OTHER way to know whether the tomato will be sweet or tart, but I wouldn't call it a mistaken negation. I guess you're saying it has the vibe of Nec vs. Suff. That's probably fair. I'm not sure why we're discussing that, though.

The arguments in this drill aren't necessarily airtight.

[RogerD345]

perfect replies. you also captured what i was asking in subtle manner that i was not sure what i was not asking too. haha.
Drill 78 one , i was asking the conclusion really had a nec vs suff feel. so it should be dealt in conditional logic way.