丁丁倒数 62# （距考两月纪念= =# 相当有价值的LR）

玛莎丁丁 · 发表于 2012-8-7 00:05:19

Over the last 25 years, the average price paid for a new car has steadily increased in relation to average individual income. This increase indicates that individuals who buy new cars today spend, on average, a larger amount relative to their incomes buying a car than their counterparts did 25 years ago.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

(A) There has been a significant increase over the last 25 years in the proportion of individuals in households with more than one wage earner.
(B) The number of used cars sold annually is the same as it was 25 years ago.
(C) Allowing for inflation, average individual income has significantly declined over the last 25 years.
(D) During the last 25 years, annual new-car sales and population have both increased, but new-car sales have increased by a greater percentage.
(E) Sales to individuals make up a smaller proportion of all new-car sales they did 25 years ago.

玛莎丁丁 · 发表于 2012-8-7 00:07:59

Compare it with the following LR:

Over the past 20 years, skiing has become a relatively safe sport due to improvement in ski equipment. There has been a 50 percent drop in the number of ski injuries over the last 20 years. Clearly, however, there have not been decreases in the number of injuries in all categories, as statistical data readily show, for although broken legs and ankle injuries have decreased by an astounding 90 percent, knee injuries now represent 16 percent of all ski injuries, up significantly from the 11 percent of 20 years ago.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument does which one of the following?

(A) It fails to allow for there being ski injuries other than broken legs, ankle injuries, and knee injuries.
(B) It infers disparate effects from the same single cause.
(C) It ignores the possibility that the number of skiers has increased over the past 20 years.
(D) It assumes that an increase in the proportion of knee injuries rules out a decrease in the number of knee injuries.
(E) It proceeds as though there could be a greater decease in injuries in each category of injury than there is in injuries overall.

玛莎丁丁 · 发表于 2012-8-7 00:15:05

The second LR is a very typical LSAT question dealing with portion and amount. OA is D. While the first LR is a bit tricky by surpassing the portion-amount loop, instead it's a under-cover introducing-variable type. OA is E. also classic type =)

simonshen · 发表于 2012-8-9 11:34:18

LZ的照片是本人吗？貌似美女

new car这题是E吗？这题很搞哦，看了半天才猜出来，哈哈。

郎莫长 · 发表于 2012-8-10 20:08:08

这些题目是prep里的？还是bible的？？

玛莎丁丁 · 发表于 2012-8-10 20:51:18

Prep里的，正好做到觉得可以拿来比一比哈~

Bensontuo · 发表于 2019-8-10 18:11:26

For the question regarding new car sales

Spot the question type: necessary assumption - weaken.

Core of the argument:

The correlation between the price paid for new cars and the average incomes could sufficiently be guaranteed that people pay more for a car than they did 25 years ago.

Necessary assumption: the correlation must be true, which is to say, the correlation shown should be “ average of income of people who purchase new car “

Let’s see E, sales of new cars for individuals only account for a small portions of sales 25 years ago

So which is to say, certain portions of the sales of new car is to the entity, which income has not be calculated as “ the average income “ of individual. In that sense, the whole correlation must be not 100% perfect.

Bensontuo · 发表于 2019-8-10 19:03:49

For the question of ski, apparently we do not know the “ numbers “ of injuries of broken legs and also any other categories. In that sense, decreased percentage does not means numbers being reduced, nor does the increased of it guarantees increasing the numbers.

D, perfect answer

丁丁倒数 62# （距考两月纪念= =# 相当有价值的LR）

所属分类: 法学院申请

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()