LSAT

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 338
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:49 am
Thanked: 9 times
Followed by:3 members

LSAT

by kaulnikhil » Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:00 pm
Advertisement: Anyone who exercises knows from firsthand experience that exercise leads to better performance of such physical organs as the heart and lungs, as well as to improvement in muscle tone. And since your brain is a physical organ, your actions can improve its performance, too. Act now. Subscribe to Stimulus: read the magazine that exercises your brain.
The Advertisement employs which one of the following argumentative strategies?
(A) It cites experimental evidence that subscribing to the product being advertised has desirable consequences.
(B) It ridicules people who do not subscribe to Stimulus by suggesting that they do not believe that exercise will improve brain capacity.
(C) It explains the process by which the product being advertised brings about the result claimed for its use.
(D) It supports its recommendation by a careful analysis of the concept of exercise.
(E) It implies that brains and muscle are similar in one respect because they are similar in another respect.


When Alicia Green borrowed a neighbor's car without permission, the police merely gave her a warning. However, when Peter Foster did the same thing, he was charged with automobile theft. Peter came to the attention of the police because the car he was driving was hit by a speeding taxi. Alicia was stopped because the car she was driving had defective taillights. It is true that the car Peter took got damaged and the car Alicia took did not, but since it was the taxi that caused the damage this difference was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior. Therefore, Alicia should also have been charged with automobile theft.

19. If all of the claims offered in support of the conclusion are accurate, each of the following could be true EXCEPT:
(A) The interests of justice would have been better served if the police had released Peter Foster with a warning.
(B) Alicia Green had never before driven a car belonging to someone else without first securing the owner's permission.
(C) Peter Foster was hit by the taxi while he was running a red light, whereas Alicia Green drove with extra care to avoid drawing the attention of the police to the car she had taken.
(D) Alicia Green barely missed hitting a pedestrian when she sped through a red light ten minutes before she was stopped by the police for driving a car that had defective taillights.
(E) Peter Foster had been cited for speeding twice in the preceding month, whereas Alicia Green had never been cited for a traffic violation.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:49 pm
Location: California
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:3 members

by heshamelaziry » Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:22 pm
For first question I will choose B[/spoiler]. Second question, I am totally at loss :(

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:46 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by fruti_yum » Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:21 pm
heshamelaziry wrote:For first question I will choose B[/spoiler]. Second question, I am totally at loss :(
1 question.. i'll go with A
2nd question.. i'll go with e... however no strong reasons for not choosing B

Legendary Member
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:49 pm
Location: California
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:3 members

by heshamelaziry » Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:47 pm
I have someone betting $100 on E :D I disagree on E and still think it is B

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:10 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by PAB2706 » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:42 am
IMO

1) E comparing the similarity and extending it to generalize the theory.

2 ) i am confused betwn C and E.. will choose C bcos that shows peter violated some rule and that is why he was charged whereas alicia was just avoiding the trafic so she shud not be charged.

wht is the OA..? i am sometimes way off the mark :wink:

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:05 am
Thanked: 19 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:690

by sreak1089 » Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:04 am
1) E 2) E
OA please .......... :)

Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:34 am
IMO 1.[spoiler]E
2.C[/spoiler]

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:52 am
Location: Jersey City, NJ
Thanked: 14 times
GMAT Score:770

Re: LSAT

by shadowsjc » Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:09 am
kaulnikhil wrote:Advertisement: Anyone who exercises knows from firsthand experience that exercise leads to better performance of such physical organs as the heart and lungs, as well as to improvement in muscle tone. And since your brain is a physical organ, your actions can improve its performance, too. Act now. Subscribe to Stimulus: read the magazine that exercises your brain.
The Advertisement employs which one of the following argumentative strategies?
(A) It cites experimental evidence that subscribing to the product being advertised has desirable consequences.
(B) It ridicules people who do not subscribe to Stimulus by suggesting that they do not believe that exercise will improve brain capacity.
(C) It explains the process by which the product being advertised brings about the result claimed for its use.
(D) It supports its recommendation by a careful analysis of the concept of exercise.
(E) It implies that brains and muscle are similar in one respect because they are similar in another respect.
A - the experiments cited are about physical activities, not brain activities. so even though it's implied, it's not A
B - it doesnt ridicule anyone
C - it could possibly be C, but i wouldn't choose it as my #1 choice yet
D - again, a possibility, but i'll read on to see if any other choice is better
E - my personal choice, since the ad states that working out your brain will improve your brain much in the same way that working out your physical organs improve their performance
When Alicia Green borrowed a neighbor's car without permission, the police merely gave her a warning. However, when Peter Foster did the same thing, he was charged with automobile theft. Peter came to the attention of the police because the car he was driving was hit by a speeding taxi. Alicia was stopped because the car she was driving had defective taillights. It is true that the car Peter took got damaged and the car Alicia took did not, but since it was the taxi that caused the damage this difference was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior. Therefore, Alicia should also have been charged with automobile theft.

19. If all of the claims offered in support of the conclusion are accurate, each of the following could be true EXCEPT:
(A) The interests of justice would have been better served if the police had released Peter Foster with a warning.
(B) Alicia Green had never before driven a car belonging to someone else without first securing the owner's permission.
(C) Peter Foster was hit by the taxi while he was running a red light, whereas Alicia Green drove with extra care to avoid drawing the attention of the police to the car she had taken.
(D) Alicia Green barely missed hitting a pedestrian when she sped through a red light ten minutes before she was stopped by the police for driving a car that had defective taillights.
(E) Peter Foster had been cited for speeding twice in the preceding month, whereas Alicia Green had never been cited for a traffic violation.
the question is asking which of the choices CAN'T be true based on the preceding argument. the original argument is that if Peter were arrested, then Alicia should have been arrested as well. You can diagram this as:

If Peter arrested -> then Alicia arrested

and the converse:

If Alicia (not arrested) -> then Peter (not arrested)

Choice A is states that justice would have been better served had Peter not been arrested. Since the argument tells us that Alicia was not arrested, then it follows that peter should also not have been arrested. so i don't think it's A.

B is irrelevant to the argument, so i would exclude that

C is IMO the best answer. The part of the argument that's important is: but since it was the taxi that caused the damage this difference was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior.. This part of the argument states that neither driver was at fault or to blame. However, choice C states that Peter ran a red light, which would imply that he was at least partially to blame. Since we know that this can't be true, I think C is the answer.

D the fact that Alicia almost hit a pedestrian before getting pulled over has nothing to do with the argument

E this one might be tricky since you could assume that Peter had been given previous warnings in the past, and that's why he got arrested. but if you look at the argument, it has nothing to do with it.

just to recap, the main points of the argument are

- P and A both took cars
- P and A both got caught by cops
- P and A had incidents, neither of which were caused by either of them
- if P was arrested, then A should have been as well.
my GMAT debrief: https://www.beatthegmat.com/came-through ... 44327.html

You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day,
nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness, nor the plague that destroys at midday.
A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right, but it will not come near you.

- Psalm 91: 5-7

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:08 am
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:500

by boy141 » Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:01 pm
what's the answer then?

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 338
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:49 am
Thanked: 9 times
Followed by:3 members

by kaulnikhil » Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:52 pm
OA E C