请教4道题：LSAT-Set12-II-6,11,12,24

yumi55 · 发表于 2003-7-15 15:28:00

6. Cigarette smoking has been shown to be a health hazard; therefore, governments should ban all advertisements that promote smoking.

Which one of the following principles, if established, mast strongly supports the argument?

(A) Advertisements should not be allowed to show people doing things that endanger their health.

(B) Advertisers should not make misleading claims about the healthfulness of their products.

(C) Advertisements should disclose the health hazards associated with the products they promote.

(D) All products should conform to strict government health and safety standards.

(E) Advertisements should promote only healthful products.
答案：E。A为什么不对呢？
我觉得E太绝对了。文中是说，不利于健康的产品不应该打广告，而E是说只有有益健康的产品才可以，连于健康无关的产品都排除了，而原文显然没有这个意思。

The labeling of otherwise high-calorie foods as "sugar-free," based on the replacement of all sugar by artificial sweeteners, should be prohibited by law. Such a prohibition is indicated because many consumers who need to lose weight will interpret the label "sugar-free" as synonymous with "low in calories" and harm themselves by building weight-loss diets around foods labeled "sugar-free." Manufacturers of sugar-free foods are well aware of this tendency on the part of consumers.
11. Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis for challenging the conclusion in the passage?

(A) Food manufacturers would respond to a ban on the label "sugar-free' by reducing the calories in sugar-free products by enough to be able to promote those products as diet foods.

(B) Individuals who are diabetic need to be able to identify products that contain no sugar by reference to product labels that expressly state that the product contains no sugar.

(C) Consumers are sometimes slow to notice changes in product labels unless those changes are themselves well advertised.

(D) Consumers who have chosen a particular weight-loss diet tend to persist with this diet if they have been warned not to expect very quick results.

(E) Exactly what appears on a product label is less important to consumer behavior than is the relative visual prominence of the different pieces of information that the label contains.
答案：B
但B只是说消费者应有能力辨别标有无糖的食品是否真的无糖。我觉这对原论点的削弱于否起不到任何作用嘛。就算他们能辨别，无糖食品还是照样含有高卡路里。如果起削弱作用的话，应该讲：“消费者应有能力辨别标有无糖的食品是否真的底卡路里”

12. In the Centerville Botanical Gardens, all tulip trees are older than any maples. A majority, but not all, of the garden's sycamores are older than any of its maples. All the garden's maples are older than any of its dogwoods.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true of trees in the Centerville Botanical Gardens?

(A) Some dogwoods are as old as the youngest tulip trees.

(B) Some dogwoods are as old as the youngest sycamores.

(C) Some sycamores are not as old as the oldest dogwoods.

(D) Some tulip trees are not as old as the oldest sycamores.

(E) Some sycamores are not as old as the youngest tulip trees.
答案：E，我选C。答案是不是错了

从原文推出：tulip > maple > dog
some syca > dog; some syca unknow
要找出一定正确的，我觉得只有C.

24. Since Mayor Drabble always repays her political debts as soon as possible, she will almost certainly appoint Lee to be the new head of the arts commission. Lee has wanted that job for a long time, and Drabble owes Lee a lot for his support in the last election.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Mayor Drabble has no political debt that is both of longer standing than the one she owes to Lee and could as suitably be repaid by an appointment to be the new head of the arts commission.

(B) There is no one to whom Mayor Drabble owes a greater political debt for support in the last election than the political debt she owes to Lee.

(C) Lee is the only person to whom Mayor Drabble owes a political debt who would be willing to accept an appointment from her as the new head of the arts commission.

(D) Whether Lee is qualified to head the arts commission is irrelevant to Mayor Drabble's decision.

(E) The only way that Mayor Drabble can adequately repay her political debt to Lee is by appointing him to head the arts commission.
答案：A。D为什么不对呢？
我觉得不应该在题目设的套子里绕圈圈，就象第9题：
9. Any announcement authorized by the head of the department is important. However, announcements are sometimes issued, without authorization, by people other than the head of the department, so some announcements will inevitably turn out not to be important.

The reasoning is flawed because the argument

(A) does not specify exactly which communications are to be classified as announcements

(B) overlooks the possibility that people other than the head of the department have the authority to authorize announcements

(C) leaves open the possibility that the head of the department never, in fact, authorizes any announcements

(D) assumes without warrant that just because satisfying a given condition is enough to ensure an announcement's importance, satisfying that condition is necessary for its importance

(E) fails to distinguish between the importance of the position someone holds and the importance of what that person may actually be announcing on a particular occasion
中选D一样。

谢谢指教

mindfree · 发表于 2003-7-16 03:01:00

Due to time constraints, let me answer the first three.

1. You made an unwarranted assumption that promoting smoking in the advertisement shows people smoking.

2. You did not get the true rasoning of the argument and answer B. Sugar-free labeling should be banned because it gives false information to people in wieght-loss programs who prefer low C diet. B indicates exactly that it should not be banned as diabetic patients can correctly pick sugar-free foods. In another word, it is a life-saving situation that requires the labeling of sugar-free foods.

3. Unfortunately, E is the right answer.
All T older than M. Most S older than M --> some younger than M --> some S younger than T.

C cannot be derived from the passage. Some S younger than M does not mean they necessarily younger than D. For example M is in the range of 100-150. S is in the range of 120-500. D is in the range of 10-20. The reasoning still holds.

mindfree · 发表于 2003-7-16 04:35:00

4. D is not discussed in the passage. You are making unwarranted assumption again. The qualification might be very relevant. The passage never says it is not relevant. Not mentioning the relevance of qualification does not mean it is not relevant.

Let me give you another example: I want to appoint someone honest and capable as the chief officer for this company. You cannot argue that whether this "somebody" is alive or dead is irrelevant.

5. A-->B ==> not A-->not B. Typical logic error.

Buddy, you have a lot of work to do...

mindfree · 发表于 2003-7-16 04:36:00

Sorry, just saw your icon and relaized your might be a girl.

So, sis, you have a lot of work to do...

yumi55 · 发表于 2003-7-16 10:02:00

[face=楷体_GB2312][/face]

谢谢mindfree,

不好意思，第12题看错题问了个白痴问题。

以后一定不乱加自己的assumption 了

Bensontuo · 发表于 2019-7-25 21:24:58

yumi55 发表于 2003-7-15 15:28
6. Cigarette smoking has been shown to be a health hazard; therefore, governments should ban all adv ...

Question 6

1. Spot the question stem : If " the answers assumed ", most strongly supports the argument of the question

2. Question type: Sufficient assumption - principle.

3. Tactics analyze:

a. Bridge the conditional logic chains if there is any - ( the new concept from the conclusion to the premises. )

b. If A, then B, and B is the argument of the question. Then If No B, then No A ( Slightly different tactics versus the negate tactics to the questions type of necessary assumption, but the core concept is the same. )

So, negate the the argument of the original question and to see if the negate version of the original argument could be sufficient enough to guarantee the negate version of every question answer to see if answer is necessary.

4. Looking for the premises and conclusions

P1: Cigarette smoking has been shown to be a health hazard.

Inference: CS ---> HeHa

C: Government should ban all advertisement that promote smoking

Inference: Promote smoking ---> Government ban the advertisement

why promote smoking should be banned ? Because smoking cigs shows to be a health hazard.

Cigs smoking ---> Health Hazard ---> promote smoking  ---> ban the advertisement

So, Health hazard ---> Ban the advertisement

No Ban the advertisement ---> No Health Hazard. ( Perfectly match with our E option )

A. Show people of doing something does not mean that people must be doing that thing. If People would not be doing the things shown by the advertisement, then even though the thing itself causes health issue, people still would not be affected by it, and if people would not be affected by it, it would be reasonable to ban advertisement the promote smoking.

B. There is no any info nor any reasoning steps involving " mislead "

C. Regardless of the fact that it disclose the health hazards associate to the products they promote, it won't really affect the argument.

D. Regardless of the fact that whether they confirm to the strict government heathl and safety standards, it would not be matter to the point of whether should the government ban it or not.

E. Perfect answer.

Question of Calories

1. Spot the question type - If " the answer is assumed ", then the original argument must be weakened

2. Question type - Sufficient assumption + Weaken

3. Tactics:

a. Bridge

b. Double - Negate.

4. Looking for the premises and conclusions:

C: Labeling high calorie food as sugar free ---> Replacement of all sugar by artificial sweeteners ---> Prohibit by law.

P1: Consumer who need to lose weight ---> Interpret the label of sugar free as low in calories ---> harm themselves --- > building weight loss diets around foods label sugar free.

P2: Manufacturers of sugar free foods are well aware of this tendency.

Inference: False interpretation of " sugar free " as " low in calories " ---> harm Consumers ---> Label of " sugar free " should be prohibited.

ok, so in order to weaken it, we need to find an answer to support of the negate version of the last part of the inferred logical chain - Label of " sugar free " should not be prohibited.

Since the principle of the argument is, as long as the consumer would be harm, and manufacturers knows the tendency well, we have to find the answer that best support of a point that " why it would harm the consumer, if we prohibited. "

A.Regardless of the fact that whether they would respond to a ban on the label of sugar free by reducing the calories in sugar free products by enough to be able to promote those products as diet foods does actually strengthen the argument but not weaken the argument ( Which is to say, the argument is convincing, so they would respond ).

B. Be careful, Individual who are diabetic does not 100% represent of the group of the consumer who needs to lose weight. However, as long as there are slightly chances that individual who are diabetic are also the consumers who also needs to lose weight, then by prohibiting the label of " sugar free" would definitely harm the customers. Correct answer.

C. Sometimes = At least one.

If consumer are none at once slow to notice changes, the changes must be well advertised.

Which is to say, they could normally or fast to notice the changes only if the changes must be well advertised. However, whether they could notice the changes or not does not really relevant whether the label should be banned or not nor whether the customer would be harm or not.

D. Totally non relevant

E. One thing mentioned does not have the same effects on the outcome as the other thing does, the fact that does not prove whether that one thing does not the effects on the outcome.

Question12

Spot the question type: If argument in the statement is true, then one of the following answer must also be true "

Question type: Necessary assumption - Must be true.

Tactics analysis:

A. If A, then B, So If no B, then No A. As a result, If no B can't not guarantee the necessary being of No A, then B itself does no need to be necessary. So, We are looking for the answer : If No B ( answer ), the A.

The premises and conclusion in the question

* Young to the left = from left to right

P1: All M ---- All T P2: ( 1 - 49 )/100 S ---- All M ---- ( 50 - 99 )/ 100 S P3:  All DW ---- All M

Inferences:

1. All T must be order than All Dw, and  some ( 1- 49) of the S, since All T are order than all M, and all m are order than some ( 1 - 49 ) S.

2. ( 50 - 99 )/100 S must be older than all DW, since All M are order than all DW.

However, regarding the ages between ( 50 - 99 )/100 S and All T, we dont have any evidences to prove the which one is either younger or older.

Let us dive into the options and start to negate the logical stand of each answer to see if the answer itself is necessary enough.

1. Negate: No Dw are as old as the youngest tulip tree.  Does it overturn any part of the logic chains we have ?

Apparently no, no dw are as old as the youngest tulip tree could mean all dw are all older or younger than youngest tulip trees. ( however, it should not be all older )

2. Negate: No dw are as old as the ( 1 - 49 )/100 S.  We know that All M must be older than ( 1 - 49 )/100 S, and All M must be older than all DW. However, we do not know the relationship between All Dw and ( 1 - 40 )/100 S.

3. Negate: No S are not as old as the oldest DW. So based on the negate logic, Some S must be either in the same age as the oldest DW ( Could be true , since ( 50 - 99 ) / 100 S must be older than all M, and All M must be older than all DW ) or some S must be younger than the oldest DW ( could be true , since ( 50 - 99 ) / 100 S must be older than all M, and All M must be older than all DW ). So, the negate of the answer choice C is not sufficient enough to lead to any necessary scenarios of the negate versions of original logic chains.

4. negate: No T are not as old as oldest S. Ok, since we only do know that All T and ( 50-99)/100 s must be order than all m; however, based on our inference 2, we know that the relationship between all T and ( 50-99)/100 S is not clear stated. As result, for both possible scenarios that all t are older than oldest S and All T are younger than oldest S, are not sufficient enough to negate the logic chain inferred above.

5. Negate: No S are not as old as the youngest T

Ok, It's either all S are all older than youngest T ( perfectly refute the original logic chains ) or All S are all younger than youngest T ( We are not certain, but we know that ( 1-49)/100 must be younger than youngest T ). And if the negate version of E could be set as, If no B ( Scenario A or Scenario B, but not both ) happened, then no A.  Then apparently, Scenario A successfully guarantee No A is necessary. Correct answer.

Question 24:

1. Spot the question type : Necessary Assumption

2. Tactics analysis : Negate ( Defender )

3. Spot the premises and conclusions from the questions:

P1: D always repay her political debts asap.

P2: Lee wants the job for a long time and D owes lee a lot for his support in the last election

C: D will appoint lee to be the new head of the arts commission

Argument:

If ( a person want a job from D ) + ( D owes lee political debt ), then D will appoint that person as new head of the arts commission.

Contrapositive: If D will not appoint a person as new head of the arts commission, then it must be either that person does not want a job from d for a long time or D does not owe that person political debt or both.

A: Negate: D does have political debit that is both of longer stand then the one she owes to lee and could as suitably be repaid by an appointment to be the new head of the arts.

If D needs to pay the political debt asap and there is a higher debit D has to pay, then lee must not be the first person to be paid back with, and If there is a a person long standing for being suitable be paid by an appointment to be the new head of arts, then for sure, Lee will " not " be appointed as the arts commission.

Correct answer.

B. Negate: There is at least one to whom D owes a greater political debt for support in the last election than the political debt she owes to lee. ok, we know D must pay back the political debt asap; however, does the person could be paid back appropriately by being appointed as art commission ? Can't determine.

C. Lee is not " the only " person that D owes political debt who be willing to accept an appointment from her as the new head of the arts commission.

Ok, even we do have Susan, Tom, Greg, and Chen are all owed by D and all be willing to accept an appointment as the end of the arts commission, can we be 100% certain that Lee would " not " be appointed ?
No

D. Whether Lee is qualified to be appointed is " relevant " to D's decision.

SO ? Does Lee would not be appointed because D decide to check his qualifications ?

E. Negate: It is not the only way to repay the political debt to lee by appointment him as the head of the arts commission.

So? we still can't not eliminate the chance that Lee would " not " be appointed as the art commission even D still does have other options for him, and what if he does not like the other offerings ?

Question 9

Spot the question type: Flaw

Spot the premises and conclusion

P1: All announcement authorized by the head of the department is important

( all announcement authorized by the head of the department ) ---> Important

( Not important ) ---> ( no announcement authorized by the head of the department )

P2: Announcements ---( Sometimes ) --- > issues without authorization by people other than the head of the head of the department.

C: Some announcements will inevitably turn out not to be important.

Apparently

If A, then B. And now, author presumed the lacking of the sufficient condition will certain lead to the happenings of lacking the necessary condition of which ( Mistaken Negate )

Well, let us look D

( Without warrant that just because satisfying a given condition is enough to ensure an announcement's importance, satisfying that condition is necessary for its important ) = Mistreat the sufficient condition as the necessary condition.

请教4道题：LSAT-Set12-II-6,11,12,24

请教4道题：LSAT-Set12-II-6,11,12,24

所属分类: 法学院申请

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()