The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Try this Logic Problem and explain your reasoning
Poast new message in this thread
Date: November 20th, 2015 4:23 PM Author: Jade Garrison Mother 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. |
 |
Date: November 20th, 2015 4:25 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse oh boy a real brain teaser eh (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221194) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 4:25 PM Author: provocative athletic conference C (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221197) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 4:43 PM Author: Jade Garrison Mother Why C? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221288) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 4:46 PM Author: Up-to-no-good alcoholic kitty national security agency C provides another explanation for why their scores went up - they wanted to join the team and had to get good grades to do so. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221303) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:18 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit Yeah that actually make sense. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221433) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:21 PM Author: odious theater nowag FMA I didn't make that connection. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221447) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:58 PM Author: Sexy French Chef it jumped off the page dood (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29222011) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 7:46 PM Author: Medicated school puppy The key word is "sought."
Also, obese people should not be allowed to use public transportation.
Obese people should not be aloud. |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 4:26 PM Author: Glassy sick associate I find this question culturally biased. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221206) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 4:28 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse we play OTHELLO in are country (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221211) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:17 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit D, because it could suggest that any additional program might aid in achievement, and undermines the notion that spatial reasoning inherent in Go had anything to do with the higher achievement. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221425) |
Date: November 20th, 2015 4:29 PM Author: elite boyish state F. Students of African descent were culturally alienated by the game and would have been better served by learning traditional African strategy games. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221220) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 4:33 PM Author: Mahogany costumed sound barrier Oral tradition, actually. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221246) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 4:31 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse G. Azns, the subgroup most likely to complete the go program, were pressured to increase their level of academic achievement so they could "try harder and be in study at yale next time". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221233) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 4:32 PM Author: nudist gaming laptop parlor Is it B? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221236) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 4:33 PM Author: provocative athletic conference retard or sarcasm? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221242) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 4:34 PM Author: Razzle yarmulke B. Study is not randomized is the problem w/ the argument, and B is closest to identifying this problem. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221249) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 4:44 PM Author: rose box office it's not an issue if you are only comparing performance increases for individual children. it would be an issue if you were looking at an average.
i'm going with a, niggers. if the kids learned to play at home, given the methodology of the game was the same, and didn't improve their achievement, then the conclusion is weakened. |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:17 PM Author: odious theater nowag "and didn't improve their achievement" A doesn't say that, it just says some learned to play at home. |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 4:36 PM Author: Ruby appetizing pisswyrm B
Didn't read c d or e.
Edit. Read the rest of the choices. It's c. |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 4:49 PM Author: disturbing saffron brunch EDIT: shit, i misread the question. the key word is "increase" in achievement. i'm gonna go with C. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221320) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 4:51 PM Author: insecure brindle resort C (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221330) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:06 PM Author: Jade Garrison Mother C is right (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221390) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:22 PM Author: Razzle yarmulke I would have put C on the real test, but it is a dumb answer, bc the fact that the students SOUGHT ADMISSION logically says nothing about whether / how much their performance improved. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221452) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:46 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse ...the idea is that because they ended up liking go and all wanted to join the preftigiouf go club it introduces the possibility they had to raise their gpas to do so, which was the real cause of the improvement. like a wrestler only getting Cs so he can wrestle, not because he cares about getting a D-. so you're now studying the impact of two things at once (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221583) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:49 PM Author: Razzle yarmulke I understand why it is tcr, it's just illogical as phrased. It provides an alternate causal mechanism that is purely speculative because based on motive only. That does not undermine the equally speculative argument in the stem. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221606) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:51 PM Author: provocative athletic conference are you retarded? the entire arugment is that passing the course caused these kids to do better when you are given an alternative that after passing the course, these kids were given the option of something and it was that something that motivated them to do better. if you can't see that, you are retarded (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221616) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:54 PM Author: Razzle yarmulke I see it, but lots of kids are motivated and don't actually increase their grades. So it's just a just so story. There's no logical connection bt motivation and grades, hence, as a logical matter, it does not undermine the argument. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221650) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:55 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRxqY4wuTHw (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221660) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:58 PM Author: provocative athletic conference 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? |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:04 PM Author: Razzle yarmulke 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.
|
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:05 PM Author: provocative athletic conference (guy MAF about his 153 LSAT score) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221723) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2015 10:32 AM Author: arousing white cuckoldry ape are you a fuckin retard? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29229360) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:59 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit there is a logical connection, because the Go-program kids are more likely to want to get into the high-grade-Go-club than kids who have never heard of Go in their life. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221697) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:05 PM Author: Razzle yarmulke No, it just says they "sought membership."
Wait sry I misread your poast. What you said is not sound - wanting to be on the team has no necessary connection with having the GPA to maek it. |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:09 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse I seek membership to prestigious law school in America. I have much training in the arts of political science, professor say help with law. I enter good law because political science, or because study LSAT which need for law club result in good? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221733) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:10 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit so, many of the students in question had a potential cause of increased performance. That tends to undermine the conclusion that the Go program (or at least the spacial logic attributes) caused the increased performance. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221736) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:15 PM Author: Razzle yarmulke But it doesn't, I can't assume that wanting to be on the go club actually helps your gpa. There's no logical connection. That's my point.
I do understand why it's tcr. But it is for dumbs. Identifying another wholly speculative cause doesn't undermine the stem argument re a speculative cause. |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:19 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit I don't think it's a great question, but I disagree that there is no logical connection between needing a higher GPA to get something you want and achieving a higher GPA. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221784) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:23 PM Author: Razzle yarmulke I think we are having a verbal dispute over the meaning of the word "logical."
I'm just saying that you need a factual premise to make the relation work, and that premise is not supplied by the prompt here. |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:20 PM Author: Razzle yarmulke I thought of a cleaner way to illustrate my point. C boils down to the premise that playing go provided a motive for the students to increase their gpa. With no facts showing that additional motivation translates to higher gpa, I don't see how this new fact casts doubt on the original speculative explanation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221786) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:21 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit At the very least, even if we are ignoring common sense if common sense is not explicit in the fact pattern, it introduces an extra variable for many of those who participated in the program, which tends to undermine the conclusion that one particular variable is the identifiable cause of a result. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221794) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:28 PM Author: Razzle yarmulke Yes, but you could say the same about b, except that b is stronger because it actually compares the two groups.
Also, you are forced to tout 'common sense,' but that is not supposed to matter on the LSAT, where cats can get diesel by stretching if thy test says they can. I declare victory. |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:38 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit You can declare whatever you want, but B only introduces a variable for a group of students that don't factor into the argument. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221867) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:44 PM Author: Razzle yarmulke Not so fast - it implies that the completion group had higher achievement starting out. Normally one would think this would make it less likely they could improve upon their baseline, but given their demonstrated grit in finishing the go program, it could be that they are just on an upward slope generally. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221894) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:57 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit wut? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221999) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 7:01 PM Author: Razzle yarmulke You said B introduces a variable about students who don't factor into the argument - the dropouts. But B says the dropouts, at baseline, had lower scores than the non-dropouts. Hence B implies something about the non-dropouts - that they had higher scores at baseline. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29222033) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:22 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse "With no facts showing that additional motivation translates to higher gpa"
so you're basically requiring the test question derive common fucking sense from the ground up as an excuse for giving the wrong answer. |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:24 PM Author: Razzle yarmulke Ok, so now you've finally understood my point. I'm happy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221805) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:29 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse I hope you're not one of those posters who bitch about people whining re: cultural biases in tests, because this is the exact same line of argument. Except that the idea effort->better is present in some form in every culture that I'm aware of, although this is really just my position of PRIVILEGE making judgments!
Sorry I wasn't PC, bro. |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:35 PM Author: Razzle yarmulke 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. |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:37 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse lol it's not asking you to accept the premise overall, it's saying factually this happened in many of the kids who were in this one particular trial. jfc, write more screeds instead of just saying "yes I picked the wrong answer because I didn't think enough". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221865) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:41 PM Author: Razzle yarmulke It asks you to accept, as a causal mechanism for higher gpa, that the kids transformed into HUNGRY LITTLE GOPIGS. Otherwise the answer does not work. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221884) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:51 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse the question isnt "how would you design a rigorous scientific study on the impact of go proficiency and spatial reasoning development", it's "given this argument, like it or not, which option, like them or not, contradicts it the most". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221618) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:55 PM Author: Razzle yarmulke Right, and the people who wrote the test, which caters to dumbs, erroneously think that answer c contradicts the argument the most, when in fact it is simply unrelated as a matter of logic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221662) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:58 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse The inventors of the FAGGOT POZ PILL claim that the FAGGOT POZ PILL reduces chances of POZ by 95%. Coincidentally, the group which bought the FAGGOT POZ PILL in the study were also given a Worthers Original(TM) each time they wore a condom. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221688) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:34 PM Author: odious theater nowag not "reduces the chances," but "contributes to a reduction" if you're following the relevant language in the hypo. This diminishes the impact of choice C, since the language of the hypothesis recognizes that it there may be several contributing factors. But in the end, C is the only one that undermines the hypothesis at all, so it's tcr by default. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221843) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:38 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse *hands u a Worthers Original(TM)* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221870) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:41 PM Author: odious theater nowag ty man :) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221885) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:07 PM Author: nudist gaming laptop parlor (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221394) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:07 PM Author: electric background story wholly shit xo is done here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221395) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:18 PM Author: Contagious opaque psychic potus C is a pretty easy choice for anyone with a 170+ LSAT. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221429) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:19 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit Wasn't an easy choice for me, but I only got 170. :( (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221438) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:27 PM Author: Lascivious Gaped Roast Beef Feces It's definitely not A or B.
It seems like C, D, and E are all plausible depending on how you define 'achievement'. |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:38 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit I don't see how E could be right. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221537) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:45 PM Author: provocative athletic conference jfc lots of dumb fucks on this site how. it look like 20 seconds for me to pick C. soon as I read C I knew it was C. no other answer is even semi close. this would be like one of the first LR questions that are "gimme" ones. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221575) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:48 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit I don't know. I think both D and C tend to undermine the argument, so picking which "most" tends to undermine the argument is in no way a gimme. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221596) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:49 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse D is just a random observation. it has nothing to do with the specific argument that "go makes you smart" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221607) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:56 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit I disagree. If a non-Go extracurricular program also results in higher achievement, that tends to undermine the assertion that the spatial logic inherent in Go is the cause of the enhanced achievement. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221672) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:57 PM Author: deep dead mood university no it just means that there is moar than one way to enhance achievement. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221680) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:01 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit Sure. Like offering someone entry to a Go-club if they get high grades. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221708) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:04 PM Author: provocative athletic conference sorry bro. if the arugment was running got the kids fit, saying that some other kids also got fit by riding bikes wouldnt undermine the arugment that it was the running that got the kids fit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221716) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:08 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit 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). |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:14 PM Author: provocative athletic conference we dont have not X to be fair.
We have X --> Y and Z --> Y |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:17 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit I think it's fair to assume that the "after school study sessions" in D for people who did *not* participate in the Go program are not the Go program. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221774) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:20 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse 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).
this is literally basic logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_true
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth
|
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:59 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse jfc. it doesn't argue that "playing go is the cause of ALL enhanced achievement". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221695) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:00 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit I understand that. My argument is not predicated on that principle. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221702) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:04 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse 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?
|
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:13 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit 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. |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:15 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse Fool. Nowhere say fear directly cause lung capacity. Fear build alpha, alpha used for lifeskill (run) which result lung capacity up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221760) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:20 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit Ok, I'm going to stop responding to you now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221787) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 8:40 PM Author: razzle-dazzle shrine don't apply to law school (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29222632) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:51 PM Author: salmon legal warrant office Who the fuck cares about what worked or didn't work for other kids? We only care about the ones in this program. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221623) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:58 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit Look, if program X+1, X+2, and X+3 all result in higher achievement, that tends to undermine the argument that it is the 1 aspect of program X+1 that is causing the higher achievement. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221684) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:51 PM Author: provocative athletic conference I can't help you if you think D even remotely undermines the arugment. are you a woman? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221624) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:58 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit Not a woman. See my explanation above. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221689) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:02 PM Author: provocative athletic conference (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? |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:04 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit I'm not disputing that C undermines the argument also. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221715) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:52 PM Author: deep dead mood university yea correct me if i'm wrong but for this question as phrased seems like it's easy to dismiss the answer choices that were discussing people who weren't in the program (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221634) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2015 2:50 PM Author: mind-boggling house I knew it was C when I immediately read it but I still went through and discounted the other ones. depending on how much time i had remaining on the real test i might or might not do that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29225722) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:52 PM Author: Dashing autistic hominid JFC why am i here (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221626) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:53 PM Author: provocative athletic conference I wonder sometimes too brother. A bunch of retards poast on xoxo. Its sad. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221639) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 5:53 PM Author: deep dead mood university (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221640) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:39 PM Author: pungent rebellious chapel regret 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. |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:45 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse (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. |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:47 PM Author: pungent rebellious chapel regret but do you see how my interpretation is consistent with the language? they "subsequently" - after - sought to join the program. this could easily mean that they sought to join after seeing the grade ipmrovement caused by the program. That's why they wanted to join, because they now had the gpa good enough. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221915) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:53 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse sure, but a test question isn't going to try to trick someone with bad grammar that somehow implies anything other than the obvious reading. they would have phrased it something like "sought membership BECAUSE the team required a high gpa", which directly implies the (fairly weird) interpretation you read. your interpretation involves reading more into the statement than is there, which actually is one of the goals of people writing test questions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221958) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:55 PM Author: pungent rebellious chapel regret meh, i'm a 178 lsat bro just a little stumped by this question. usually alternate causes, even on the toughest of questions, are less ambiguous than this. if it had said, "immediately after completing the program, they sought" then i'd go for it no question. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221980) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:56 PM Author: Razzle yarmulke (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221986) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:55 PM Author: Razzle yarmulke mojito I really think your lack of an autism spectrum disorder prevents you from fully engaging with this material. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221982) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 7:01 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse TY (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29222034) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 7:20 PM Author: Maniacal school cafeteria dysfunction . . . a COMPELLING argument that C is NOT the correct answer . . . (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29222165) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:45 PM Author: odious theater nowag 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? |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 6:54 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse nobody is legitimately struggling after the reasoning has been pointed out, it's about making excuses and constructing elaborate defenses because they're too proud to admit they done fuckt up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29221970) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 7:00 PM Author: Smoky dog poop hissy fit (guy who pretended he couldn't form a sentence in English to avoid explaining why D couldn't also be right) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29222022) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 7:21 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse http://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&mc=108&forum_id=2#29221789
|
|
Date: November 21st, 2015 3:42 AM Author: Primrose mewling field faggot firefighter tyft
op is flawed because nobody is actually motivated to raise their GPAs to get on the fucking go team. "seeking" to get on the team means nothing |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 7:00 PM Author: Grizzly Massive Selfie 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 |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 7:02 PM Author: pungent rebellious chapel regret yes, it's very ambiguous. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29222038) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 7:04 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse 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.
|
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 7:07 PM Author: pungent rebellious chapel regret what was your lsat score (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29222075) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 7:08 PM Author: Outnumbered whorehouse ljl I've fucked up many ways in life but never have I ever considered becoming a lawyer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29222085) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 7:27 PM Author: Maniacal school cafeteria dysfunction 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 . . . |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 7:28 PM Author: Razzle yarmulke (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29222219) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 8:36 PM Author: adventurous sienna karate keepsake machete Stereotype threats got in the way. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29222620) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2015 8:40 PM Author: razzle-dazzle shrine yeah was really hoping for racist flame. disappointed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29222637) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2015 3:24 AM Author: azure piazza shitlawyer here pciked B (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29224193) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2015 3:46 AM Author: Primrose mewling field faggot firefighter 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 |
|
Date: November 21st, 2015 5:04 AM Author: Confused honey-headed mexican bawdyhouse 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. |
|
Date: November 21st, 2015 7:57 AM Author: Razzle yarmulke The "mere treatment effect"
Also agreed re many/most - only "some" necessarily overlap, further weakening the answer, and there's no rigorous (a priori) way to weight this weakness compared to wraknesses in other answers. |
|
Date: November 21st, 2015 10:01 AM Author: Jade Garrison Mother the credited response is C and it's real (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29224576) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2015 10:50 AM Author: judgmental indirect expression menage I bet your state school classmates would have found this very persuasive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29224721) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2015 2:42 PM Author: Confused honey-headed mexican bawdyhouse ...the rat-faced man chortled (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29225681) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2015 8:15 AM Author: Comical light point multi-billionaire 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 |
|
Date: November 21st, 2015 11:03 AM Author: fuchsia 180 juggernaut 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. |
|
Date: November 21st, 2015 2:57 PM Author: Primrose mewling field faggot firefighter 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. |
|
Date: November 21st, 2015 2:49 PM Author: mind-boggling house C obviously. jfc. most of the other ones are completely unrelated and about completing vs not completing the program, which has nothing to do with why the ones who DID complete the program showed increased scores. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29225713) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2015 3:01 PM Author: Startled out-of-control liquid oxygen 169 lsat here picked B (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29225762) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2015 10:36 AM Author: laughsome site dragon this question is a joke. the only answer that relates to kids that actually completed the program is C. its baffling that someone who speaks english could get this question wrong (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3050092&forum_id=2#29229366) |