Sections 2

LSAT 106 - Section 2 - Question 19

August 20, 2012

Nearly all mail that is correctly addressed arrives at its destination within two business days of being sent. In fact, correctly addressed mail takes longer than this only when it is damaged in transit. Overall, however, most mail arrives three business days or more after being sent.

Summary

Almost all mail that is correctly addressed gets to its destination within 2 business days of being sent.
If correctly addressed mail takes longer than 2 business days to reach its destination, it must be damaged in transit.
Most mail arrives more than 2 business days after being sent.

Notable Valid Inferences

If almost all mail that’s correctly addressed gets to its destination within 2 business days, but most mail arrives more than 2 business days after being sent, that means a significant portion of overall mail must be incorrectly addressed. If this were not the case, then we’d expect most mail to arrive within 2 business days. But most mail takes longer to arrive.

A

A large proportion of the mail that is correctly addressed is damaged in transit.

Could be false. It’s possible only a tiny proportion of correctly addressed mail is damaged in transit. After all, nearly all correctly addressed mail arrives within 2 business days, so those pieces don’t have to be damaged.

B

No incorrectly addressed mail arrives within two business days of being sent.

Could be false. Some incorrectly addressed mail could arrive within two days. We were never told incorrectly addressed mail always takes longer than two days.

C

Most mail that arrives within two business days of being sent is correctly addressed.

Could be false. Most mail that arrives within 2 days might be incorrectly addressed. For example, there are 5 correct pieces and 20 incorrect pieces. 4 correct pieces and 5 incorrect pieces could arrive within 2 days. In this example most of the 2-day arrivals are incorrect.

D

A large proportion of mail is incorrectly addressed.

Must be true. If this weren’t true, we’d expect most mail to arrive within 2 days, because nearly all correctly addressed mail arrives within 2 days. So there has to be a large proportion of incorrectly addressed mail in order for most mail overall to take longer than 2 days.

E

More mail arrives within two business days of being sent than arrives between two and three business days after being sent.

Could be false. We know most mail takes longer than 2 days to arrive. It’s possible, for example, that all of this later-than-2-day mail arrives between 2 and 3 days after being sent. So more mail can arrive between 2 and 3 days of being sent than within 2 days.

133 comments

LSAT 66 - Section 2 - Question 24

August 17, 2012

Here's what the NOT flawed version of the stimulus would look like.

(Premise) sound theories AND successful implementation --> lower inflation rate
(Premise) [not] lower inflation rate
___________
(Good conclusion) [not] sound theories AND successful implementation
(Good conclusion with the negation distributed via De Morgan's) not sound theories OR not successful implementation

(Bad conclusion in the stimulus) not sound theories

The argument is flawed because it could be that the theories were fine, just that we sucked at implementing them.

In its abstract form, the flawed argument looks like this:

N and W --> R
/R
___________
/N

(C) matches this form perfectly.

(E) is an attractive wrong answer choice. It's mostly wrong because its logical form does not match:

N --> W and R
/R
___________
/N'

The argument for (E) being better than (C) is that (E) matches the other "mistake" in the argument.

The stimulus argument assumes that "sound" theories = "not far off the mark" theories. True, it does. But, I don't think it's wrong to assume that a "sound" theory is one that's "not far off the mark". At least it's far more reasonable an assumption than what (E) has us assume: N = N' or "equipment worth the investment" = "equipment better than old".

(C) on the other hand, assumes that "succeed in selling" = "not fail to sell". Isn't that closer to "sound" theories = "not far off the mark" theories?

1 comment

LSAT 66 - Section 2 - Question 25

August 17, 2012

22 comments

LSAT 136 - Section 2 - Question 24

August 17, 2012

Here's what the NOT flawed version of the stimulus would look like.

(Premise) sound theories AND successful implementation --> lower inflation rate
(Premise) [not] lower inflation rate
___________
(Good conclusion) [not] sound theories AND successful implementation
(Good conclusion with the negation distributed via De Morgan's) not sound theories OR not successful implementation

(Bad conclusion in the stimulus) not sound theories

The argument is flawed because it could be that the theories were fine, just that we sucked at implementing them.

In its abstract form, the flawed argument looks like this:

N and W --> R
/R
___________
/N

(C) matches this form perfectly.

(E) is an attractive wrong answer choice. It's mostly wrong because its logical form does not match:

N --> W and R
/R
___________
/N'

The argument for (E) being better than (C) is that (E) matches the other "mistake" in the argument.

The stimulus argument assumes that "sound" theories = "not far off the mark" theories. True, it does. But, I don't think it's wrong to assume that a "sound" theory is one that's "not far off the mark". At least it's far more reasonable an assumption than what (E) has us assume: N = N' or "equipment worth the investment" = "equipment better than old".

(C) on the other hand, assumes that "succeed in selling" = "not fail to sell". Isn't that closer to "sound" theories = "not far off the mark" theories?

10 comments

LSAT 136 - Section 2 - Question 25

August 17, 2012

When a group is unable to reach a consensus, group members are often accused of being stubborn, bull-headed, or unyielding. Such epithets often seem abusive, are difficult to prove, and rarely help the group reach a resolution. Those who wish to make such an accusation stick, however, should choose “unyielding,” because one can always appeal to the fact that the accused has not yielded; obviously if one acknowledges that a person has not yielded, then one cannot deny that the person is unyielding, at least on this issue.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that, to make an accusation stick, one should use the word "unyielding" when accusing a group member in a group that can’t reach a consensus. She supports this by saying that you can always point out that the accused member hasn’t yielded. If the member admits this, he can’t deny being unyielding, at least on this issue.

Describe Method of Reasoning

The author supports the use of the word “unyielding” as an effective accusation against a group member when a group can’t reach a consensus. She does this by showing that, if the accused member accepts the argument’s premise (that he hasn’t yielded on the issue at hand), then he is unable to deny the conclusion (that he is “unyielding”).

A

rejecting a tactic on the grounds that it constitutes an attack on the character of a person and has no substance in fact

The author doesn’t reject a tactic, she advocates for one.

B

rejecting a tactic on the grounds that the tactic makes it virtually impossible for the group to reach a consensus on the issue in question

Like (A), the author advocates for a tactic, she doesn’t reject a tactic. She does note that this tactic “rarely help[s]” the group to reach a consensus, but she doesn’t claim that it makes it “virtually impossible.”

C

conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an accusation that is less offensive than the alternatives

She does conditionally advocate a tactic, but she doesn’t do so on the grounds that it is a less offensive accusation than the alternatives. She just argues that it’s a more effective accusation.

D

conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an argument that would help the group to reach a consensus on the issue in question

She does conditionally advocate a tactic that results in an argument, but she doesn’t claim that it would help the group reach a consensus on the issue in question. Instead, she suggests it would lead to a consensus that the accused person is indeed "unyielding."

E

conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an argument for which one could not consistently accept the premise but deny the conclusion

The author conditionally advocates for using the word "unyielding" to accuse a group member on the grounds that it results in an argument where one can't accept the premise (that they haven't yielded on the issue) but deny the conclusion (that they are "unyielding").

26 comments

LSAT 106 - Section 2 - Question 19

LSAT 66 - Section 2 - Question 24

LSAT 66 - Section 2 - Question 25

LSAT 136 - Section 2 - Question 24

LSAT 136 - Section 2 - Question 25

LSAT 66 - Section 2 - Question 18

LSAT 66 - Section 2 - Question 19

LSAT 66 - Section 2 - Question 20

LSAT 66 - Section 2 - Question 21

LSAT 66 - Section 2 - Question 22