标题: PT - 46 LR Analysis ( 8/7/2020 ) [打印本页] 作者: Bensontuo 时间: 2020-8-8 07:06 标题: PT - 46 LR Analysis ( 8/7/2020 ) So, after scoring 169 on my lsat, I had registered for my second test by the end of this year. As for now, I will be working on few questions from every preptest, best representing varous types of LR principles, starting from 46 here with precise analsis here for both my own reviewing purposes and anyone desring to followmy path. Feel free to ask me any question.
PT46 S2 18
Many physicists claim that quantum mechanics may ultimately be able to explain all fundamental phenomena, and that, therefore, physical theory will soon be complete. However, every theory in the history of physics that was thought to be final eventually had to be rejected for failure to explain some new observation. For this reason, we can expect that quantum mechanics will not be the final theory.
Inferences:
1. Some of peoplle say A be able to do all B, and C will be complete ( A -> All B -> C )
2. C in the past had to be rejected because fail to do E ( Cp -> E -> ~C )
C:
A - > ~C
What happened here ? If A -> C and IF Cp -> E -> ~ C, and conclusion is A -> ~C, apparently, author presumed that every C must share all the characteristic that Cp shares, and vice versa.
However, as known from the fact that regardless of the fact that C must share all the chracteristic that Cp shares does not mean Cp will also do the same thing.
C -> scientific therory and Cp -> scientific theory does not mean that C must always = Cp.
So Just because C -> Cp, by extrapolating Cp -> C is mistaken reverse, and this is exactly the flaw must be sustained from the answer.
In plain English, we can say, author takes for granted that whatever happened in the past will also happen now.
Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?
(A) Only a few species of plants now grow in very dry climates; therefore, few species of animals can live in those climates.
In order for this one to be correct, we have to change few speciies of animals into few species of the " plants " there are 2 different parties being compared, hence, its wrong.
(B) Four companies have marketed a new food processing product; therefore, a fifth company will not be able to market a similar product.
We can eliminate B as we eliminate A, just because they are all companies does not mean that they are all comparable, also, there is no any misplaced sufficient/necessary kinda mistake, hence, its wrong.
(C) Your sister is a very good chess player but she has never won a chess tournament; therefore, she will not win this chess tournament.
Ok same party being compared, the relationships between the charactiristic to the events being compared
A -> B, A -> ~CTp, so A -~CTw ( Whatever happened in the past will be happened in the nearfuture ) Exactly what we want. Bingo.
(D) A rare virus infected a group of people a decade ago; therefore, it will not reinfect the same population now.
If we change " not " into yes, this be the correct answer.
(E) Each team member has failed to live up to people's expectations; therefore, the team will not live up to people's expectations
If we change " Each team member to the whole team or vice versa ", then it serves a better answer.
This one also fails by equating 2 different groups discussed. However, its not the flaw commited as which from the stimulus.
What we learned ?
1. Conditional Logic - Mistake Reverse
2. Detecting the presumption of the author - Justifty/ Sufficient Assumption / Necessary Assumption
3. Detecting the false equate of different relationships that exist between parties and also the characteristics of those parties.
PT 46 S2 19
In an experiment, researchers played a series of musical intervals - two-note sequences - to a large diverse group of six-month old babies. They found that the babies paid significantly more attention when the intervals were perfect octaves, fifths, or fourths than otherwise. These intervals are prevalent in the musical systems of most cultures around the world. Thus, humans probably have a biological predisposition to pay more attention to those intervals than to others.
Inference:
Correlation to prove the causation.
Babies -> paying attentions to O, F, F2, and All musical systems of most cultures -> O,F, F2. So, BP serves the cause to lead to the effect that baby pay more attentions to O, F, F2 than others.
Thats the big jump from the logic. Its like saying our greed makes us like more chocolate than others because we enjoy suger, fat, and cocoa from it, and all of the chocolate from most of the countries all do have suger, fat, and cocoa.
Then it must be true that beside greed, there is no anything that can make us like chocolate more than the others, such as the past experiences of having certain kinds of chocolate which determines our preference.
So, author presumes that there is no any other cause exists to sufficiently lead to the effect discussed.
Which one of the following, if true most strengthens the argument?
To strengthen the argument, choosing the one that eliminate the alternative cause.
A) Several similar experiments using older children and adults found that these subjects, too, had a general tendency to pay more attention to octaves, fifths, and fourths than to other musical intervals.
This answer actually in a certain degree weaken the answer by indicating the fact that " general tendency " as the other cause can lead to the same effect discussed, and, also, we are discussing baby in the stimulus, but not older children and adults.
B) None of the babies in the experiment had previous exposure to music from any culture.
If babies all had not any previous exposure to music from any culture, then we know, no way that those baby could develop any experiences that lead to " preference " as alternative cause. Match what we predict. Perfect answer.
C) All of the babies in the experiment had been exposed to music drawn equally from a wide variety of cultures around the world.
It basically mean that everyone could possibly " all have their own preferences ", and that we do not know if BP serves the only cause to lead to the effect discussed.
D) In a second experiment, these same babies showed no clear tendency to notice primary colors more than other colors.
you love apple can not prove that you love orange, aint it ?
E) Octaves, fifths, and fourths were played more frequently during the experiment than other musical intervals were.
It weakens the argument by telling you that its not BP as the cause, but " might be " the more frequency of O, F, F2 being played.
What we learned ?
1. Correlation never proved causation, it could only either strengthen or weaken it.
2. If C -> E, then we can immediately think of ways to either weaken or strenghten it.
a. ~ C -> ~ E
b. C/new case -> E/ new case
C. E -> C does not exist
E. There is no any other C could lead to E
F. There is no any other C could both lead to both original C & E, and original C & E do not necessary have any relationship.
G. There is no errors from the correlations discussed to have author extrapolate C -> E
3. Assumption - Necessary Assumption
PT46 S3 Q5
Psychologist: Because of a perceived social stigma against psychotherapy, and because of age discrimination on the part of some professionals, some elderly people feel discouraged about trying psychotherapy. They should not be, however, for many younger people have greatly benefited from it, and people in later life have certain advantages over the young—such as breadth of knowledge, emotional maturity, and interpersonal skills—that contribute to the likelihood of a positive outcome.
For A and B, old C - D, however Old C - ~ D, for young C - Z and Y, such as y1, y2 and y3 all - Z
A and B are reasons to support old C - D; however, C - ~D is the conclusion supported by 1. Young C - Z, and 2. y1, y2, y3 all - Z
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the psychologist’s argument?
(A) Certain psychotherapists practice age discrimination.
That's reason B
(B) Elderly people are better able to benefit from psychotherapy than are younger people.
Comparison trap. apple & orange are all delicious does not mean apple or orange must be more delicious than another.
(C) Elderly people should not be reluctant to undergo psychotherapy.
Correct: C - ~ D
(D) Characteristics associated with maturity are important factors in psychotherapy’s success.
y1, y2, and y3 are all implications of the reason why Y - Z
(E) Elderly people are less inclined to try psychotherapy than are younger people.
Thats C - D, as the author attempts to refute.
What we learn ?
1. Method of the reasoning
PTT46 S3 15 * The most complicated LR one that every explaination online are not perfect. Some of them even missed the core of the agument.
看過的就知道好, 沒看過的太可惜了。
Critic: Works of literature often present protagonists who scorn allegiance to their society and who advocate detachment rather than civic mindedness. However, modem literature is distinguished from the literature of earlier eras in part because it more frequently treats such protagonists sympathetically. Sympathetic treatment of such characters suggests to readers that one should be unconcerned about contributing to societal good. Thus, modem literature can damage individuals who appropriate this attitude, as well as damage society at large.
1. People in old book dislike society and claim desire to be seperated from it.
2. New book sympathize such people with that attitiude.
3. " Being sympathetic to the attitude of such people " as one of the characteristics of new book suggests reader that they should be unconcerned about contributing to societal good as a view
Conclusion: New book hurt individual who " accept " that view/ attitude -> hurt those individual + hurt society.
First of all, there are so many justifications we need to figure out, and the majority are all necessary assumptions.
1. The attitude of the people from the old book that new book being sympathetic is not necessary equal to the attitude being appropriated/ accpeted by the individual.
Dislike society ( Score allegiance to the society ) and desire to seperate from the society ( advocate detachment rather than civic - mindedness ) are not the samething as being unconcered about contributing to societal good. SO, apparrently, the first thought we want to have is that does the critic assume 2 value system here ? Which is to say, if they are the samething, then the contrapositve of that assumption will be - only if people concerned about contributing to societal good, those people would not score allegiance to the society and would " advocate " civic - mindedness.
Which is to say, the attitude of people from the old book sufficiently lead to the attitude that one of the chraracteristic of the newbook suggests its readers.
2. By having one of the characteristic from an object to promote a view to its audiences does not necessary mean their audiences would do as told.
so, we know author also assume that by appropriating the attitude, you not only would " accpet " the attitude, but you also would act as what causes that attitude to be derived from.
3. a single characteristic of an object does have one trait does not mean that the object as a whole also have one trait. ( Part vs whole flaw )
From premise 3, we know its one of the characteristic of the new book to suggest its reader of certain view, but the fact that does not mean the whole newbook's detail and all the chapters " all " suggest that view.
4. Lets see... how can we arrive to the conclusion by connecting all the justifications.
New book that with certain sympathetic treatments suggested a view to its readers -> Damage individual only if those who approriate the attitude ( Unconcern about contributing societal good ) would act as told + Damage society.
( NB/ CST ) -> Damage peope being unconcern about contributing societal good + Damage the society as whole
+
Only if people concerned about contributing to societal good, those people would not score allegiance to the society and would " advocate " civic - mindedness. ( People scorn allegaince to the society and advocate detachment -> People unconcerned about contributing to societal good )
IF New book that contains sympathetic treaments to people who score alliegiance to the society and advocate detachment from the society, suggesting an attitude of being unconcerned to the societal good, damages individual and society, It must be those individual being unconcerned to contributing the societal good and society they live in.
Contrapositive:
If Individual Being concerned to the societal good -> No damages to those individual and society they live in from New book that contains sympathetic treaments to people who score alliegiance to the society and advocate detachment from the society, suggesting an attitude of being unconcerned to contributing the societal good.
We also know that...
those individual would not score allegiance to the society and would " advocate " civic - mindedness -> individual being concerned to the societal good. -> No damages to those individual and society they live in from New book that contains sympathetic treaments to people who scorn alliegiance to the society and advocate detachment from the society, suggesting an attitude of being unconcerned to contributing the societal good.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the critic's argument relies?
A. Some individuals in earlier eras were more concerned about contributing to societal good than is any modem individual.
Comparisoning trap. No one be compared from both era.
B. It is to the advantage of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing to societal good.
Tricky concept.
those individual would not score allegiance to the society and would " advocate " civic - mindedness -> individual being concerned to the societal good. -> No damages to those individual and society they live in from New book that contains sympathetic treaments to people who scorn alliegiance to the society and advocate detachment from the society, suggesting an attitude of being unconcerned to contributing to the societal good.
Simple English: People that not socre allegaince to the society and advocate civic mindeddness are those people, being concerned to contributing to the societal good, suffer no damage to themselves and society they are in caused by the new book ( mordern literature )
In more simplistic way: People of A are people of B, and those people do not suffer as people of ( ~B ) do from the damange cause by C.
To best test whether B is the defender assumption for the argument, let us negate it.
1.
To Some people of ( B ), it is " not " adavantage. Wait... if people of (~B) would suffer but not people of (B), then why no need to suffer is not advantage to them ? Here is the key part.
2.
It is to the advantage of no people of ( B ). Wait... if people of (~B) would suffer but not people of (B), then at least one people of B gotta enjot the advantage. Which is to say, it break the argument by introducing that there " might " be things other than modern literature to sufficiently lead to the damage.
Both way works
C. Some individuals must believe that their society is better than most before they can become concerned with benefiting it.
If someX are A, then we can assume that Some X are not A, and if some people can still concern benefiiting it without believing their society is better than most, and some could be presenting from at least 1 to 99, then it does not really break the logic.
D. The aesthetic merit of some literary works cannot be judged in complete independence of their moral effects.
Regardless whether it could be judged or not based on anything, if the effect of a cause doomed to be happened, then it be happend.
E. Modem literature is generally not as conducive to societal good as was the literature of earlier eras.
Let's go back to our inference that From premise 3, we know its one of the characteristic of the new book to suggest its reader of certain view, but the fact that does not mean the whole newbook's detail and all the chapters " all " suggest that view.
Which is to say, whether the modern literature is generally more/less/equal conducive to scoietal good as was the old literautures is not necessary.
What we learned ?
1. Necessary Assumption
2. Justify
PT46 S3 Q16
Psychologist: Some people contend that children should never be reprimanded. Any criticism, let alone punishment, they say, harms children’s self-esteem. This view is laudable in its challenge to the belief that children should be punished whenever they misbehave, yet it gives a dangerous answer to the question of how often punishment should be inflicted. When parents never reprimand their children, they are in effect rewarding them for unacceptable behavior, and rewarded behavior tends to recur.
Some say A for B, that view1 is C for countering M-> ~A as view2. However, A is dangerous because X, If A, then M
View 1: B -> A
View 2: M -> ~A
View 1 is C as against View 2.
X -> A -> M, and M tends to recur.
The view that children should never be reprimanded functions in the psychologist’s argument as a statement of a position that the psychologist’s argument
(A) is designed to discredit entirely
No, Laudable means applaud.
(B) is designed to establish as true
No, it does have flaw, since from View 2, we know A -> ~M ; however, from View 1, A -> M
(C) is designed to establish as well intentioned
Half wrong half right answer. Laudable means the intention of view1 is good; but it fails to mention that argument still detect the flaw in it.
(D) claims has a serious flaw though is not without value
Correct
(E) claims is less reasonable than any other view mentioned
There is no anyother view mentioned.
What we learned ?
1. Method of Reasoning
2. Conditional Logic
3. Must be True.
PT46 S3 Q22
Over the last 10 years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people over the age of 65 living in this region. This is evident from the fact that during this time the average age of people living in this region has increased from approximately 52 to 57 years.
* Not a really challenging question; however, i love the concept behind.
Inference:
If a phenomenon happened that the average age of people from a area increase from 52 - 57, it must be true that there has been a dramtic increase in the number over 65 in this area.
If it must be true that dramatic increase in the number of people over 65 as the conclusion on the basis of a phenonmenon that the average age of people from that area increased from 52 -57, then it also must be true that as caculating the average ages of people from that area, dramatic increase in the number of people over 65 serves as the cause to lead to that 5 years of increase average age wise.
If the causality must be true, then it also must be true that there should not be any cause to also lead to this effect. Or, we can say, If the argument is correct, then what will be the acceptable necessary assumption ?
It's not because of the decrease of the population of people younger than 52 as the cause to lead to the effect that the average age of that area got increase.
Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?
(A) The number of people in the region under the age of 18 has increased over the last 10 years.
If number of people under 18 also increase, but we do still have our average age gone up, then our conclusion can definitely serve as the cause to explain that effect. ( 變相排除他因 ）
(B) The birth rate for the region decreased significantly over the last 10 years.
Its the oppositive what we are looking for,
(C) The total number of people living in the region has decreased over the last 10 years.
It does not really tell us which exactly the age group of people got decreased. What if its people under the age of 52 got decreased ?
(D) The number of people who moved into the region over the last 10 years is greater than the number of those who moved out.
Not really relevant.
(E) The average age for people in the region is higher than that for people in the surrounding regions.
