Stre/Weak PT 82

  • November 9, 2017 at 11:40 am #3340
    ltownsjr1
    Participant

    Hi Mike and Dan, so I had a question about two questions on Pt 82. #9 and #15 for the first LR section. So I got both of these wrong initially on the test. I was able to go over it with someone who took the exam, and I was also able to review the Manhattan explanation for both. To me, I tend to associate all weak/strengthen questions with all the other assumption family questions in that most of the correct answers have to address (in some explicit form) the reasoning. For example, if you have a question like #9 that reasons that the lottery must not have been fair because most of the winners selected submitted forms within the first two days. I would look for answer choice that addresses ideas of lottery entry forms being selected early and fairness. To me the only two choices that express that idea are (c) and (e) They seem relevant to the idea that because the forms were selected within a certain time period, they could possibly be unfair. The other answers don’t fit within the scope of that argument. However, on question 15, I simply can’t rap my head around the notion that (A) addresses the reasoning we have in the argument. I was thinking I would explicitly see something that addresses the idea that something about the gold samples would be different. Which in my head addresses the reasoning in a more specific way. (Maybe something like the artifacts have not been thoroughly examined enough or something to that degree) As I said earlier, I was able to go over both of these questions and I understand why the wrong answers are wrong. I guess I’m just wondering if i’m thinking about the reasoning in a way that is most effective for these type of questions. Thanks, and I’ll be glad to elaborate if something was not clear.

  • November 10, 2017 at 9:39 am #3341
    LSAT Dan
    Participant

    I don’t have a copy of Preptest 82 yet. In general, I would say that many S/W questions work by eliminating or providing an alternate explanation, which leads one to trust or distrust the passage’s conclusion more. The passages are often written as asserting one possible conclusion. For example:

    My student got a 172 on the most recent LSAT. Therefore, I’m a great LSAT tutor.

    I’ve seized on one possible explanation for the score – my tutoring. But if you can think of another (maybe he was scoring really well before we started working together) then you have the basis for a good strengthen OR weaken question – providing or eliminating that explanation.

    Good Weaken Q answer:

    My student was scoring 150 on practice tests before we starting working together.

    Good Strengthen Q answer:

    My student was scoring 172 on practice tests before we started working together.

    Sorry, I can’t give you a more specific answer without seeing the actual questions.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.