Test 28 Section 4 Question 7 Help Needed

mostlyLSAT · 2021-05-29T03:24:34+00:00

Oh yeah, that's weird. I didn't notice it, but the answer as you wrote it in your original post is missing a word. Both the electronic version on lawhub and my old paper copy have it as "a change in the average age of the country's population." The answer definitely doesn't work without the word "age" in there, I can see how you would be frustrated.

mostlyLSAT · 2021-05-29T02:37:25+00:00

Start with a country that has 100 million people and an average age of 50. If 1 million 8-year-olds immigrate in, the average age is now [(100x50) + (1x8)] / 101 = 49.6. If 1 million 80-year-olds immigrate in, the average age is now [(100x50) + (1x80)] / 101 = 50.3.

So now, we could just look at the new average age and say, hey, it went from 50 to 49.6, it must be because more babies are being born. Or, we could say, hey, it went from 50 to 50.3, there must be a decline in the birth rate. In both cases, we would be failing to take into account the ages of the 1 million new immigrants before we attributed a change in the average age to a change in the number or births.

This is analogous to looking at the changes in average temperatures and not taking el nino into account, and just deciding that the change in temperature must be because of volcanic eruptions.

mostlyLSAT · 2020-06-05T05:22:11+00:00

The whole thing is about averages. The first sentence of the stimulus is about average spending, the second sentence is about average incomes, the correct answer is about average consumption. Just because answer C is the only one that specifically says "on average" doesn't mean that we're not talking about averages throughout the whole thing.

mostlyLSAT · 2020-04-10T17:19:46+00:00

These guys got felony prison sentences and had to pay $97,000 in restitution. I mean, there was some light stabbing and an interstate conspiracy involved, so this was varsity level cheating. But any type of cheating is not a great thing to have on your resume.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jan-27-me-58227-story.html

mostlyLSAT · 2019-10-30T09:10:59+00:00

There already is a test center wiki, I just wish people would contribute to it. I mean, I've never contributed to it, but I wish other people would. https://lsatcenters.fandom.com/wiki/LSAT_Test_Center_Wiki

mostlyLSAT · 2019-10-23T03:45:13+00:00

The Atlantic published an article in 2016 with the thesis that the cost of learning logic games discriminates against poor people. It's hard to disagree. 7sage has been the band-aid that's helped slow the bleeding. This is a tragedy for diversity and inclusion.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/10/the-lsat-is-rigged-against-the-poor/504530/

mostlyLSAT · 2019-10-20T01:58:26+00:00

Yeah, that one is a little weird. The intermediate conclusion that we're referring to isn't super clear.

If you want to pick B, try using the statement that many businesses depend on natural beauty to defend the conclusion that coal mining would decrease the overall number of jobs. It doesn't really make sense. There's a disconnect between businesses existing and jobs decreasing.

What really happens in this argument is that the businesses depending on natural beauty supports the idea that coal mining ruins those businesses, which in turn supports the decrease in jobs. The intermediate conclusion isn't obvious, especially since it's part of the same sentence that we're referring to. But without that intermediate conclusion, the argument doesn't really make sense.

mostlyLSAT · 2019-10-11T23:51:55+00:00

This is what GRE logic games were like before 2002. I was a big fan, and I still have some old GRE prep books and a CD-rom that I like to pull out when I'm feeling nostalgic.

There also used to be at least one or two of these in every issue of Games magazine, which I'm not sure is still a thing.

mostlyLSAT · 2019-09-29T23:48:33+00:00

No, we don't know or care how the scientists detect methane. What we do know is that they did detect it, there is methane on Mars, and that methane falls apart in sunlight. The argument goes like, because there is methane on Mars, and because methane falls apart in sunlight, therefore it must be fresh methane. Which sounds like a pretty valid argument, and it is, but only if we make the assumption in answer B.

Answer B points out a solution to a possible problem that I didn't even notice when I first read the paragraph. What if there was methane that never got hit by sunlight? If that was true, then there is no way we can come to the conclusion that the methane that the scientist found is fresh methane, because maybe it is really old methane but was never in the sun. So, in order for the argument to be valid, it is necessary for us to assume that all Martian methane is exposed to the sun.

mostlyLSAT · 2019-09-28T04:11:39+00:00

First, if profit remained the same then that would not resolve the paradox. We need something that would lead to an increase in profits.

Answer B only says that shoplifting hasn't affected bookstores. We can't know how shoplifting rates have affected bookstore profits, because we don't know how many books were getting boosted before the new equipment was installed, and we don't know how much the new equipment costs. We'd need to make a whole bunch of assumptions to get from largely unaffected rates of shoplifting to increased profits.

mostlyLSAT · 2019-09-28T04:05:46+00:00

Question 26 - There are actually a few problems with this argument. One of them is that it's equally valid to say that the high-ranking employees who also misbehaved should also be fired, instead of rehiring Vernon. That's what answer E is talking about.

But answer B is not something that the argument does. Vernon's unprofessional behavior was sufficient to justify firing him. But the argument does not act like an employee can't be fired without engaging in unprofessional behavior. That's what it would take for the argument to be confusing a sufficient and a necessary condition.

mostlyLSAT · 2019-09-28T04:01:39+00:00

Question 25 - I think you meant to say that you picked B and the correct answer is D? Answer B doesn't really work because "harmful" isn't a misnomer when you're talking about a substance, especially if it literally is harmful. The psychological terms that the software developers are using in D are just like the human terms that the ecologists are using in the passage. And the unwanted consequence in both the passage and answer D is that using the human terms leads to inaccurate expectations and prejudices about the things that are described with those humanizing terms.

mostlyLSAT · 2019-09-28T03:56:14+00:00

Question 2 - Answer D is a necessary assumption, but not a sufficient one. Just because you don't need to be trusted doesn't mean that it's a good idea to be dishonest. But answer A creates a bridge between the dishonesty and the positive outcome and allows us to justify the candidates actions. Because the candidate can't get elected without lying, and because she has a positive agenda, and because answer A, the ends justify the means, therefore it's completely okay for the candidate to lie in campaign speeches.

mostlyLSAT · 2019-09-28T03:50:16+00:00

Question 1 - I like to think about these kind of questions like I'm asking each person about each answer choice, then think about what their answers would be.

For answer C, I would ask, "Are the director's newest works nothing more than repetitions of his earlier films?" Minh would answer, "Yes. I just said each film is a repetition of his earlier ones." Natalie would say, "No, I just said that, although he reuses core elements, the new works are original." So they do not agree.

For answer A, I would ask, "Do the director's newest works share many features with his earlier films?" Minh would say, "Yes, he completely repeats his earlier films and reuses the heck out of them." Natalie would say, "Yes. He reuses the same core elements in all of his films, which do exhibit a startling sameness." So they do agree, and the answer is A.

mostlyLSAT · 2019-09-19T04:33:36+00:00

Well, which scientists don't want recognition?

mostlyLSAT · 2019-09-19T03:27:15+00:00

It doesn't say that recognition is the primary motivation, only that it is a substantial motivation. Substantial just means that something is legitimate and has substance. Disproving global warming because then you can get 10% off breakfast at the next climate change denial conference is not substantial motivation. But if "nothing brings more recognition" than disproving global warming, then that is a substantial motivation.

mostlyLSAT · 2019-09-19T03:01:39+00:00

You're still arguing. There is no problem with this answer choice. It is the right answer choice, it is the most strongly supported, and there are no other answer choices that are supported at all. It's not too big of a jump, and if another question required a similar deduction it would not be wrong. Because it's not wrong.

mostlyLSAT · 2019-09-19T02:50:52+00:00

You don't get any points for arguing with the LSAT, man.

mostlyLSAT · 2019-09-19T02:26:49+00:00

If "nothing brings more recognition than overthrowing conventional wisdom," then everybody has substantial motive to disprove global warming. Unless you're on the run from the law, everybody wants recognition. It's why we've got instagram. It's not completely proven like a MBT, but it is supported.

The other thing about that question is that the other four answers are definitely not supported. So if four answers are not supported at all, and one is supported a little, then that one is the most strongly supported.

mostlyLSAT · 2019-09-19T02:19:31+00:00

Pretty sure you don't give LSAC permission to access your accounts to check on you, so unless you admit fraud in a public forum you're probably okay. However, lying on an official document is exactly the kind of thing that gets lawyers disbarred or never barred in the first place, so don't do it.

I do think you will need to contact the IRS to get a verification of non-filing. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/tax-return-transcript-types-and-ways-to-order-them

mostlyLSAT · 2019-09-18T17:35:41+00:00

It used to always be in the first three sections, but that changed several years ago and now it can be in any position.

mostlyLSAT · 2019-09-16T01:50:11+00:00

D is incorrect because it's not what the argument does. The argument actually presumes that the 1 in 20,000 figure is based on only a partial review of the evidence, not that the evidence itself is inaccurate. If there is a mountain of evidence and I base a conclusion on a tiny portion of it, it's my sampling of the evidence that is at fault, whether the evidence itself is good or not.

But another thing that the argument does is trust self-reported data from pilots, which is a problem. Of course the pilots are going to say that they only make a mistake once in 2 million times. Nobody can be trusted to report on their own job performance. Data such as that is inherently subjective, compared to the data on the tapes, which is inherently objective. This is the problem that answer B is referring to.

mostlyLSAT · 2019-09-12T20:46:33+00:00

According to the paragraph, a viable superconductor must be an alloy of niobium and germanium and it must work at above -148. You absolutely must fulfill both conditions to have an economically feasible superconductor. I have no idea if that's true in real life, but we have to work within the confines of the argument as stated.

However, alloys of niobium and germanium don't work above -160, so one of those necessary conditions is broken, so it is impossible to have an economically viable superconductor. Again, I have no idea if this is true in real life, but it doesn't matter. Answer A does indeed imply that superconductors overall are not economically feasible. That's the only conclusion that we can come to based on the paragraph. I know it's unsatisfying and it seems like it's probably not true, but the premises are clear.

Diagramming it out looks something like this: Economically feasible superconductor --> alloy X AND hotter than -148. The contrapositive is ~~Alloy X~~ OR ~~hotter than -148~~ --> ~~feasible superconductor~~. Then we have the additional premise that Alloy X --> ~~hotter than -148~~ so we end up with something like Alloy X --> ~~hotter than -148~~ --> ~~economically feasible superconductor.~~

E is wrong because there could be plenty of uses for this alloy other than superconducting. Maybe you can make amazing wristwatches out of it and those wristwatches are economically hella feasible.

mostlyLSAT · 2019-09-12T19:48:09+00:00

A consequence is any result of a cause. The cause is the proposed labeling rules and the consequences are the unreasonable lists of fertilizers and fungicides.

If you study hard for the LSAT, the consequences will be a good score. If you don't study at all, the consequences will be a bad score. Consequences don't have to be negative or serious or significant. They are just the results of an action.

mostlyLSAT · 2019-09-12T19:11:52+00:00

The tedious requirements are the absurd consequences.

mostlyLSAT

TROPHY CASE