PT 42, S 3, Q 4

    • December 16, 2015 at 1:25 pm #1061

      Hi Mike,

      I’m not sure if I should ask specific PT questions here, but I was wondering if you could help me with the elimination process on this question.

      I eliminated A,B, and E right away, and I originally chose C, unprecedented, but after doing a second reading of lines 21-33, it seemed like the author illustrated the test case strategy as something vital to Marshall’s success, so I choose D, necessary. My original choice (C), was right, and although I’m still not completely convinced that the strategy was not necessary, my thinking is that D is incorrect because it does not align with the scope of the question (“most reasonably inferred from the passage“). So if I take the whole passage into account, and the author’s view that Marshall adopted new legal tactics that are still used today, C. unprecedented makes the most sense.

      Is this the right way to go about it?


    • December 16, 2015 at 4:06 pm #1063
      Mike Kim

      Hey RPSALTA —

      Happy to help, but, if you don’t mind, figured I’d move this to the general forum to see if any of the other experts (or students) feel like chiming in first — Mike

    • December 18, 2015 at 12:13 pm #1075
      Mike Kim

      Hey — So I just tried the Q are here are my thoughts —

      – I think the most important issue (and I could be misreading your thought process) is that you may be confusing necessary and important (or vital) — the test writers view these as being two very different concepts, and they will continuously test whether you can differentiate between the two — keeping those distinct in your head can make a lot of tempting wrong answers less tempting (as well as, obviously, helping you out more directly on necessary assumption q’s and such) —

      On the LSAT, necessary means absolutely required. I agree with you that his case strategies were vital, but we have no proof that he absolutely “had to use them,” which is what we would need in order to justify (D).

      “Inferred from the passage” does not mean the right answer has to represent the passage as a whole. Used in this manner, the statement can also refer to something that can be inferred from a very specific part of the passage.

      A couple of lines I saw that can be used for justifying (C) — “developed innovations” in the middle of the first P, and “originally considered to be a radical departure from accepted conventions” at the end of the final P —

      Hope that helps, and if ¬†you have any follow up just let me know — Mike


    • December 18, 2015 at 3:00 pm #1076

      Thanks Mike! The distinction between necessary and important makes sense. Thank you again!

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.