Hepl, LSAT-2-4-12,LSAT-2-4-15,LSAT-2-4-22

wujie_ren

LSAT-2-IV-12,15,22
12. “Though they soon will, patients should not have a legal right to see their medical records. As a doctor, I see two reasons for this. First, giving them access will be time-wasting because it will significantly reduce the amount of time that medical staff can spend on more important duties, by forcing them to retrieve and return files. Second, if my experience is anything to go by, no patients are going to ask for access to their records anyway.”

Which one of the following, if true, establishes that the doctor’s second reason does not cancel out the first?
(A) The new law will require that doctors, when seeing a patient in their office, must be ready to produce the patient’s records immediately, not just ready to retrieve them.
(B) The task of retrieving and returning files would fall to the lowest-paid member of a doctor’s office staff.
(C) Any patients who asked to see their medical records would also insist on having details they did not understand explained to them.
(D) The new law does not rule out that doctors may charge patients for extra expenses incurred specifically in order to comply with the new law.
(E) Some doctors have all allowing their patients access to their medical records, but those doctors’ patients


The Key is A, but I can not see how A establishes the doctor’s second reason which is no patients are going to ask for their records anyway, but A refers to a rule that doctors must produce the records, any one can explain this, thanks.



15. In a large residential building, there is a rule that no pets are allowed. A group of pet lovers tried to change that rule but failed. The rule-changing procedure outlined in the building’s regulations states that only if a group of tenants can obtain the signatures of 10 percent of the tenants on a petition to change a rule will the proposed change be put to a majority vote of all the tenants in the building. It follows that the pet lovers were voted down on their proposal by the majority of the tenants.
The argument depends on which one of the following assumptions?
(A) The pet lovers succeeded in obtaining the signatures of 10 percent of the tenants on their petition.
(B) The signatures of less than 10 percent of the tenants were obtained on the pet lovers’ petition.
(C) Ninety percent of the tenants are against changing the rule forbidding pets.
(D) The support of 10 percent of the tenants for a rule change ensures that the rule change will be adopted.
(E) The failure of the pet lovers to obtain the signatures of 10 percent of the tenants on their petition for a
rule change ensures that the rule change will be voted down by a majority of the tenants.

The key is A, but why C can’t be the assumption, if ninety percent of the tenants are against…, the the propal will also vote down by the majority. Can anyone? Thanks.


22. All intelligent people are nearsighted. I am very nearsighted. So I must be a genius.

Which one of the following exhibits both of the logical flaws exhibited in the argument above?
(A) I must be stupid because all intelligent people are nearsighted and I have perfect eyesight.
(B) All chickens have beaks. This bird has a beak. So this bird must be a chicken.
(C) All pigs have four legs, but this spider has eight legs. So this spider must be twice as big as any pig.
(D) John is extremely happy, so he must be extremely tall because all tall people are happy.
(E) All geniuses are very nearsighted. I must be very nearsighted since I am a genius.

The key is D, but what’s wrong with B, I think B alos followed this reasoning.

番茄炒蛋

12题以前有解释，你最好在回头去看看
大夫给出的理由有冲突，一个是说给看了很浪费时间，一个是病人根本就不想看
a就是化解了这个冲突

第二个问题你自己看多了，谁说过一定要有90％的同意才可以放狗啊，文中没有提到这个比例，10％只是说可以提到居民大会上讨论的比例，和通过这个决议没有关系


第三的逻辑错误在于搞错了充要关系，后一个结论无法从前一个假设得出来
选项中得错误也正在于此

建议你还是先做gmat得题吧，呵呵，lsat你可能上得太快了

carina

番茄炒蛋，你在仔细讲讲22题吧，b为什么不对

crusaders

可能是这样吧
All intelligent people are nearsighted. I am very nearsighted. So I must be a genius.
Which one of the following exhibits （both of the logical flaws） exhibited in the argument above? 问的是以下哪个犯了上面犯的两个逻辑错误
All intelligent people are nearsighted.（论据本身是个错误,以偏盖全） I am very nearsighted. So I must be a genius. 无关因果又是错误
All chickens have beaks.（正确的事实） This bird has a beak. So this bird must be a chicken.只犯了一个无关因果的错误

番茄炒蛋兄弟再帮忙看看对不对 :]

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-1-10 23:51:59编辑过]

dansy

我觉得22题有关那个extremely. Genius 对应extremely intelligent。
     All intelligent people are nearsighted. I am very nearsighted. So I must be a genius.
(D): All tall people are happy,John is extremely happy, so he must be extremely tall.
这样是不是看得更对应了。

crusaders

thinking...

dansy

thinking完没？呵呵。。。我对22题是这么看的，有点流氓解法。不知有没有更精辟的见解。

dorbear

[face=Verdana]22. All intelligent people are nearsighted. I am very nearsighted. So I must be a genius.

Which one of the following exhibits both of the logical flaws exhibited in the argument above?
(A) I must be stupid because all intelligent people are nearsighted and I have perfect eyesight.
(B) All chickens have beaks. This bird has a beak. So this bird must be a chicken.
(C) All pigs have four legs, but this spider has eight legs. So this spider must be twice as big as any pig.
(D) John is extremely happy, so he must be extremely tall because all tall people are happy.
(E) All geniuses are very nearsighted. I must be very nearsighted since I am a genius.

The key is D, but what’s wrong with B, I think B alos followed this reasoning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before we are able to pick up the option, it is prerequisite that we pinpoint the logic fallacies the argument commits. The two fallacies are as follows:

(1) A =>B 不能推出： B => A
     intelligent => nearsighted 得不到 nearsighted =>intelligent

(2) 不同属性修饰词限定的非法传递。A => B, 得不到 Ax =>Bx
    nearsighted =>intelligent 得不出 very nearsighted => genius (very intelligent).

Once we get to this point, it is no sweat we select D as the credited option. In term of the option B, it only commits the first fallacy which is out of the criteria of the stem requiring both the fallacies should be commited.
Hope helps.[/face]

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-1-11 1:01:21编辑过]

crusaders

以下是引用dorbear在2004-1-11 0:57:00的发言：
Before we are able to pick up the option, it is prerequisite that we pinpoint the logic fallacies the argument commits.

i am totally agree with dorbear about this point,and pls allow me to articulate :]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sentence one
"All intelligent people are nearsighted."
this argument commits the fallacy of "all things are equal" （错误1:前提以偏盖全）
and it goes so far as to let us believe that all intelligent people are nearsighted.
infact there are only some of intelligent people are nearsighted.

Sentence two is a fact
"I am very nearsighted. "
and then in Sentence three
by using the word "So" the author trys to connect the flawed premise, namely sentence one, with the fact that presant in sentence two and (to) draw a conclusion("So I must be a genius.")
Therefore the author commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification,which means one try to darw a logical conclusion form two or more logically irrelevant elements.
So that is his second FLaw 错误2: 无关因果

Last,let's focus on the chain fo reasoning of selection D
fact ("I am very nearsighted. ") + premise "All intelligent people are nearsighted."
---------->conclusion "So I must be a genius."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------now the question asks "Which one of the following exhibits both of the logical flaws exhibited in the argument above? " (问以下哪个犯了上与上面所给例题相同的两个logical flaws.),and D,the answer, perfectly fits in the two criteria presanted above well.
D. John is extremely happy, so he must be extremely tall because all tall people are happy.
fact (John is extremely happy) +premise "all tall people are happy"
---------->conclusion "he must be extremely tall "
Now we can find the line of reasoning of D commits the sencond fallacy,which presant above(a fallacy of causal oversimplification,which means one try to darw a logical conclusion form two or more logically irrelevant elements.) 错误2: 无关因果 , Moreover, apparently, the premise part of the answer D (all tall people are happy) also commits the same fallacy----"all things are equal" 错误1:（前提以偏盖全）
so,D is the answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And finally,let's see B,the most controversial selection.
(B) All chickens have beaks. This bird has a beak. So this bird must be a chicken.
s1 All chickens have beaks.（premise: 所有鸡都有嘴 indeed, it is a fact,but,anyway ,just take it as a premise.）
s2 This bird has a beak. （fact）
s3 this bird must be a chicken. (conclusion)
B also commits the fallacy2 (错误2: 无关因果 a fallacy of causal oversimplification,which means one try to darw a logical conclusion form two or more logically irrelevant elements )
s1(all chickens have beaks) + s2(This bird has a beak.)
-------->Conclusion s3 (this bird must be a chicken.)
与 D 不同是在B中s1并没有范以错误1（"all things are equal"）
也可以说
D和给出的例子 是用错误的逻辑前提（"All intelligent people are nearsighted."/"All tall people are happy"）+ 事实  得出  错误的逻辑结论  
而B只是用逻辑关系把两个无关的事实错误地联系在了一起.
希望大家提出建议 (Comments are welcome)
:]

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-1-11 2:34:19编辑过]

crusaders

以下是引用dansy在2004-1-11 0:36:00的发言：
thinking完没？呵呵。。。我对22题是这么看的，有点流氓解法。不知有没有更精辟的见解。

Thinking illuminates life
不过现在不思考了,睡觉咯 :]

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-1-11 2:36:03编辑过]