A Confusing Question

xuanhe

From LSAT pretest 10, section 4, question 19:
Many people change their wills on their own every few years, in response to significant changes in their personal or financial circumstances. This practice can create a problem for the executor when these people are careless and do not date their wills: the exector will then often know neither which one of several undated wills is the most recent, nor whether the will drawn up last has even been found. therefore, people should not only date  their wills but also state in any new will which will it supersedes, for then there would not be a problem to begin with.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument:
a. treats a partial solution to the stated problem as though it were a complete solution
d. claims that a certain action would be a change for the better without explicitly considdering what negative consequences that action might have.

I think the answer is d, but a is correct. I think it IS a complete solution since dating the will would know which one is the last one, and the one with the latest date is the one the drawn up last.

Any idea? maybe my analyzing is wrong.....

stockingman

Do you know where the conclusion or main idea of the paragraph is?

Conclusion: "Many people change their wills on their own every few years" creates "a problem...".

It is the infrequent update of wills that cause the problem.

xuanhe

I think the conclusion is the last sentence, not only because of the indicator but also, it provideds a way of solving the problems caused by sentence one.

If I am wrong, can you analyze a little bit about the passage? I just couldn't think the first sentence is the conclusion..........

stockingman

Ah...it is true words like "therefore", "hence", and etc. could indicate a conclusion, but a sentence could also be a conclusoin without preceeded by these words.

"This practice can create a problem for the executor when these people are careless and do not date their wills".

Ask yourself:

What is the practice? If you do not see it is the first senetnce, then I think you should read it again.

Last sentence is bascially saying, if people date their wills, then problem solved.

Do you see there is a logical structure in the question? A->B. I leave you to fill in what A and B are.

So the question is saying (not A), therefore (not B). This is the flaw.

xuanhe

A--B
indicator: when
when
these people are careless and do not date their wills------This practice(the first sentence) can create a problem for the executor

not A---not B
indicator: then
people should not only date  their wills but also state in any new will which will it supersedes----there would not be a
problem to begin with

partial solution:
A is sufficient for B, but not A could not lead to not B completely. it maybe true that not A not B, but not A could not GURANTEE not B.

 

Is it right? I am not sure, but your answer inspired me about this question. thanks a lot!

xuanhe

pretest 22, section 2, question 12:
Music critic: Some people argue that, unlike certain works of Handel, which set to music familiar religious texts, the organ symphonies of Louis Vierne are not religious music. Quite the contrary.Sitting in Notre Dame cathedral in Paris and hearing his organ symphonies demonstrates that Vierne's works are divinely inspired.

flaw:
b. confuses two different meanings of the term "religious"

For my understanding: the conclusion here is: the organ symphonies of Louis Vierne ARE religious music. and the flaw is that: it jumped from the evidence of "divinely inspired" to religious music, and there is a gap which is : if it is divinely inspired, then it is religious music. but there is no answer choice about it. I guess, again, there is something worng with the way I am understanding this question.....

is it again an conditional question or it is just my understanding?

stockingman

When I was first studying LSAT, I read too much into the question and made the question harder to understand. When you are intrepret a statement into conditional statement, it will probably confuse you more than the test writer's intention unless you are already very comfortable with conditional statements.

Conditional statement are, 95% of time, indicated with keywords (when, unless, if, and etc ). Nevertheless, your "translation" is correct. Let me give my reasoning here.

"Music critic: Some people argue that, unlike certain works of Handel, which set to music familiar religious texts, the organ symphonies of Louis Vierne are not religious music".

A: Music critic is saying "religious texts" is a necessary for a music to be relgious music. Therefore Virene's symphonies are not religous music. To be religious music, "religous texts" is necessary.

B: "Quite the contrary.Sitting in Notre Dame cathedral in Paris and hearing his organ symphonies demonstrates that Vierne's works are divinely inspired".

Someone is saying, I disagree with music critic because Vierne's works inspires me, i.e. inspiring music is "sufficient" to be religious music.To be religious music, being insipiring is sufficent.

They disagree about the definition of religious music.  A is saying Virene's works lack "religious texts". But B is not arguming whether Virene's works lack "religious texts" or not. B just says for it to be religious music, all it has to do is to inspire me.

xuanhe

this  is so wow!! your reasoning is awesome!

can you share some experiences about improve accuracy and speed? from what you post here, i believe you are very good at logic reasoning, and I am still struggling with how to both improve accuracy and balance the relationship between speed and accuracy.