Try this Logic Problem and explain your reasoning
| alcoholic copper internal respiration sweet tailpipe | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | Salmon associate institution | 11/20/15 | | alcoholic copper internal respiration sweet tailpipe | 11/20/15 | | passionate halford hospital | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | arousing round eye degenerate | 11/20/15 | | haunting appetizing rehab | 11/20/15 | | Bipolar shrine dopamine | 11/20/15 | | motley sanctuary tattoo | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | galvanic partner crackhouse | 11/20/15 | | Maroon adulterous heaven | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | Excitant hot forum | 11/20/15 | | Salmon associate institution | 11/20/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/20/15 | | Cobalt Adventurous Laser Beams Marketing Idea | 11/20/15 | | arousing round eye degenerate | 11/20/15 | | Low-t wild office | 11/20/15 | | Soul-stirring Center Ladyboy | 11/20/15 | | saffron provocative nursing home trust fund | 11/20/15 | | alcoholic copper internal respiration sweet tailpipe | 11/20/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/20/15 | | Salmon associate institution | 11/20/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | Salmon associate institution | 11/20/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/20/15 | | Salmon associate institution | 11/20/15 | | Spruce exhilarant theater wrinkle | 11/22/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/20/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | arousing round eye degenerate | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | arousing round eye degenerate | 11/20/15 | | Excitant hot forum | 11/20/15 | | glittery parlour affirmative action | 11/20/15 | | Comical sepia house | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | Citrine Contagious Mexican Preventive Strike | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | Salmon associate institution | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | Concupiscible thirsty garrison | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | Salmon associate institution | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | Salmon associate institution | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | Light Telephone | 11/20/15 | | Bearded Mauve Voyeur Coffee Pot | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | Salmon associate institution | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | Salmon associate institution | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | Concupiscible thirsty garrison | 11/20/15 | | laughsome coiffed juggernaut roast beef | 11/21/15 | | emerald boyish cruise ship french chef | 11/20/15 | | Salmon associate institution | 11/20/15 | | Concupiscible thirsty garrison | 11/20/15 | | Fantasy-prone Indigo Senate | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | Fantasy-prone Indigo Senate | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | Fantasy-prone Indigo Senate | 11/20/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/20/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | Gaped potus mood | 11/20/15 | | arousing round eye degenerate | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | Amethyst state | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | multi-colored mint goal in life | 11/21/15 | | Lavender dilemma mad-dog skullcap | 11/20/15 | | Fantasy-prone Indigo Senate | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | Fantasy-prone Indigo Senate | 11/20/15 | | talented hilarious locus legal warrant | 11/20/15 | | Gaped potus mood | 11/20/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/20/15 | | hairraiser impressive trailer park | 11/20/15 | | Light Telephone | 11/20/15 | | Overrated azn | 11/21/15 | | multi-colored mint goal in life | 11/21/15 | | Disgusting area kitty cat | 11/21/15 | | vigorous plum persian | 11/21/15 | | alcoholic copper internal respiration sweet tailpipe | 11/21/15 | | Flickering doobsian mediation | 11/21/15 | | Disgusting area kitty cat | 11/21/15 | | Swollen filthpig | 11/21/15 | | pearl titillating theater stage | 11/21/15 | | multi-colored mint goal in life | 11/21/15 | | laughsome coiffed juggernaut roast beef | 11/21/15 | | know-it-all pocket flask | 11/21/15 | | Violet swashbuckling range gunner | 11/22/15 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: November 20th, 2015 4:23 PM Author: alcoholic copper internal respiration sweet tailpipe
At a large elementary school researchers studied a small group of children who successfully completed an experimental program in which they learned to play go. The study found that most of the children who completed the program soon showed a significant increase in achievement levels in all of their schoolwork. Thus, it is likely that the reasoning power and spatial intuition exercised in go-playing also contribute to achievement in many other areas of intellectual activity.
Which one of the following, if true, most tends to undermine the argument?
(A) Some students who did not participate in the go program had learned to play go at home.
(B) Those children who began the program but who did not successfully complete it had lower preprogram levels of achievement than did those who eventually did successfully complete the program.
(C) Many of the children who completed the program subsequently sought membership on a school go team that required a high grade average for membership.
(D) Some students who did not participate in the program participated instead in after-school study sessions that helped them reach much higher levels of achievement in the year after they attended the sessions.
(E) At least some of the students who did not successfully complete the program were nevertheless more talented go players than some of the students who did complete the program.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221188) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 7:46 PM Author: Bipolar shrine dopamine
The key word is "sought."
Also, obese people should not be allowed to use public transportation.
Obese people should not be aloud.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29222349) |
Date: November 20th, 2015 4:36 PM Author: Low-t wild office
B
Didn't read c d or e.
Edit. Read the rest of the choices. It's c.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221254) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:58 PM Author: Salmon associate institution
wtf are you even saying? is english your first language?
(C) Many of the children who completed the program subsequently sought membership on a school go team that required a high grade average for membership
TIP: Many of the kids who finished the program increased their performance because they wanted to join this team. This is the same arugment as "niggers who tried out and completed basketball tryouts had increased grades compared to niggers who didnt, therefore trying out for basketball causes niggers to do better in school. you know what weakens that arugment? if the niggers overall who completed tryouts only did better in school because some of them wanted to be on the nigger basketball school, hence it wasnt the "completeing the tryout" but rather joining the team. the niggers who didn't complete the tryouts are clearly not no the team and are still being niggers with no improvement. does this help?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221686) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:04 PM Author: vigorous plum persian
You seem dumb. The argument is that people who finished the go program did better in school bc go helps with reasoning. Answer c says that many of the people who finished the program tried out for a go team that requires a high gpa. To accept that this fact undermines the argument, you have to assume that merely trying out for this go program therefore implies that the students (in fact a sizeable proportion of the non-dropouts) would raise their GPA. There is a PRACTICAL or INFORMAL argument to be made that this would be the case, but it is not a logical one - sheer speculation.
You seem dumb.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221718)
|
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:35 PM Author: vigorous plum persian
The reason it is obvious c is tcr is that shitlibs wrote the test and uniformly believe in the tabula rasa. So in a sense, the question is culturally loaded, in that you have to adopt the shitlib mindset that DeShawn isn't doing well in trig because he's not sufficiently motivated.
Even in practical terms, I'll note, the question is silly. Kids are presumably already motivated to get a good gpa - it would shock me if the desire to play on the go team had such a huge marginal impact that it materially affected gpa for any sizrable # of kids who went through the program.
The question asks you to accept the premise that the kids become HUNGRY LITTLE GOPIGS based on the program - silly.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221853) |
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:27 PM Author: Citrine Contagious Mexican Preventive Strike
It's definitely not A or B.
It seems like C, D, and E are all plausible depending on how you define 'achievement'.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221475) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:08 PM Author: Amethyst state
I think it would, or could, undermine the argument that a certain aspect of the running is what got the kids fit.
Now, since we don't know the details about the other program that also resulted in higher achievement, I see why C is a better option.
But anytime you have "X -> Y" AND "Not X -> Y", it tends to undermine the conclusion that X is what caused Y (although it does not absolutely rule it out, since more than one thing can cause Y).
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221731) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:04 PM Author: talented hilarious locus legal warrant
Some gay frozen scientists in Siberia decided to sick bear on Jew. After many Jew runs, lung capacity increased. Fear caused by bear results in elevated alpha in beta jew, which over time builds Jew into real man.
Moms coached by LifeFaggots(TM) in deep breathing notably increased lung capacity over several months. This contra Soviet?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221717)
|
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:13 PM Author: Amethyst state
Yeah, so, typing in English would make this easier.
It undermines the argument that the bear-scent caused the increased lung capacity.
In the actual question, there are two extracurricular study programs. One is Go, one is not. If the one that is not Go leads to higher achievement, that undermines the conclusion that *a certain aspect of the Go program that is inherent in go and not in other study programs* caused the increase.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221753) |
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:39 PM Author: Fantasy-prone Indigo Senate
LIBTEAMSIX,
what i don't get about C is that it could easily be interpreted as stating that the kids sought to join the high-gpa team after increasing their achievement. so, after the go program, they increased their achievement, and subsequently tried to join the team because of their new, higher gpa/achievement. i read it that way first and i don't see what, grammatically, makes it incorrect.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221874) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:45 PM Author: talented hilarious locus legal warrant
(C) Many of the children who completed the program subsequently sought membership on a school go team that required a high grade average for membership.
the only things that matter are:
a) subsequently -- ie, after they completed the go program
b) school go team that required a high grade average for membership -- no way to interpret this ambiguously
it intentionally makes no statement, implied or otherwise, as to when the students increased their performance. that's the point--you don't know whether it's the motivation to meet the GPA requirements or the go program itself. given the very intentional lack of other information, this is the only choice which could undermine the argument.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221908) |
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:45 PM Author: arousing round eye degenerate
People struggling with this, imagine instead that these were high school students, and C read as follows:
"Many of the dudes who completed the program subsequently received blowjobs from the hottest chick in school, because earlier she had publicly promised to blow anyone who finished with a high gpa that semester."
Make sense now?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221909) |
Date: November 20th, 2015 7:00 PM Author: Lavender dilemma mad-dog skullcap
I picked C because it looked the most correct but this question is fckng annoying since the key phrase "completed the program soon showed" means even C is tenuous at best
How soon was "soon"? If it was immediately after the program was completed as an exit interview then C is not really undermining it and kind of irrelevant
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29222026) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 7:04 PM Author: talented hilarious locus legal warrant
tbf, this is the best critique ITT
c is basically the only option that makes any sense and has to be chosen. but you're correct in pointing out the hypo is (probably intentionally) phrased in a goofy manner to see just how finely people are reading.
I think they're actually counting on some people reading "soon" as "immediately" and excluding C, but then, what is there to pick? the others are just wrong.
if the result was "immediate", then relaying that information is critical to the reader, which it wasn't. so in a sense it's safe to exclude this reading because it assumes more than you're given.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29222061)
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 7:27 PM Author: Gaped potus mood
much more information is needed to pick the 'best' of the possible answers.
There is no 'best' answer with the given information.
Maybe the test writers are 168 . . .
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29222216) |
Date: November 21st, 2015 3:46 AM Author: multi-colored mint goal in life
I don't think this is a real LSAT question--they tend to be higher quality.
Anyway, the correct answer is clearly:
H) Students who did not participate had similar increases in achievement in the same time period
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29224205) |
Date: November 21st, 2015 5:04 AM Author: Disgusting area kitty cat
if the credited response is not D, i will eat my hat.
it's like when scientists/doctors point out that several unrelated treatments have similar results, and therefore conclude that it is the process of seeking any form of treatment -- rather than the modality of the treatment itself -- that is producing the result, thus undermining any claim of special effectiveness of treatment X.
eg,
1. "psychoanalysis is proven effective in 40% of cases of major depression"
2. "giving people sugar pills is proven effective in 40% of cases of major depression."
3. "taking a basket-weaving seminar is proven effective in 40% of cases of major depression."
Etc.
nebulous psychological phenomena like 'improved capacity to earn better grades' or 'improved mood' are particularly impossible to discuss in terms of isolated cause/effect. so showing that two unrelated, organized extracurricular activities led to improved grades suggests that it was heightened engagement/intellectual stimulation in a school setting, in a broad sense, that produced the improvement -- not some kind of fine-grained tweaking of students' transferable abstract logic/reasoning abilities.
C is also a poor answer choice because it is stated in the stem that "MOST of the children who completed the program soon showed a significant increase in achievement levels in all of their schoolwork," while choice C states merely that "MANY" children sought membership on the Go Team.
so, "many" encompasses what proportion of "most"? "many" could possibly refer to a number less than a majority. what accounts for all the children who did well despite not applying to the Go Team?
I rest my case.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29224238) |
Date: November 21st, 2015 8:15 AM Author: Swollen filthpig
C, obviously.
it wasn't the program that improved their grades, it was the fact that this group of kids also wanted to be on the team, which required having good grades, so they had an incentive to work hard in pursuit of good grades
none of the other choices are at all correct
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29224401) |
Date: November 21st, 2015 11:03 AM Author: pearl titillating theater stage
I think we can all agree that it is a dumb, confusing question.
C is the only answer that relates to the kids who actually completed the program. All the other answers relate to kids who didn't complete the program and are thus irrelevant, given that the point being addressed is that the kids who did complete the program had a INCREASE in their own performance (which does not, as written, necessarily mean that they did BETTER than the kids who did NOT complete the program, just that they did better than themselves pre-program).
This is one of those questions where if you studied a lot for the LSAT (or are autistic), it's super-easy, but if you come into it cold, you over think it.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29224756) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2015 2:57 PM Author: multi-colored mint goal in life
See the actual best answer H) above.
Also, there's no plausible causal conection between the go team and higher grades because:
1. Nobody cares about being on the go team, and
2. There's no evidence that this supposed additional desire for good grades would actually result in higher achievement. Assumes that there's a relationship between "seeking" higher grades and higher achievement.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29225742) |
|
|