Section 2: LR, Question 5, what is difference between B and E?
Section 2: LR, Question 18, Why is E and inferior choice than D (Correct answer)?
Section 2: LR, Question 25, Why is C necessarily true? The question stem says all contributions to campaigns in excess of $100 not made by residents or former residents must register with city council, but that doesn't mean those made by residents and former residents do not - the question does not rule out this possibility - yet the correct answer is C.
Section 3: LR, Question 7, Why is C better than D as an answer? Is this cause D's language does not have the certainty found in C?
Section 3: LR, Question 11: I cannot see why A is the correct answer, although I got to this by elimination of the other ones. Is it because it shows that people who got Hep E as children and supposed to have the antibodies are still vulnerable to getting it again, thus rendering the vaccine potentially ineffective in achieving its goal of permanent immunity?
Section 3: LR, Question 25, why is E better than B?
Thanks so much for any help on these questions.
Couple questions in PT 57 June 09 Forum
-
ConsideringLawSchool
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:18 pm
Re: Couple questions in PT 57 June 09
I'll take a stab at these questions since I recently did this PT 
Section 2 - #5
Though B and E certainly share a common theme, E conforms more closely to the information provided. We are trying to support a conclusion that health experts should try to get people to eat nutritious foods by highlighting their flavor rather than their nutrition. E offers study results that show that this strategy is effective. B talks more about people's general food preferences but does not incorporate the marketing component.
Section 2 - #18
E does not really in any way parallel the first statement. The first statement talks about why we should turn to doctors rather than random people for medical advice--but it does not address the definition of a good doctor. B, on the other hand directly addresses the advisibility of using the advice of average people for making public welfare decisions even as we have addressed the advisibility of using advice of average people for making medical decisions.
Section 2 - #25
I had the exact same problem with this question, and I really am not satisfied. The best explanation I got was that the word "The" implies that the law stated is the only law regarding the reporting of campaign contributions. Again, I don't like this question, but all the other answers are clearly incorrect.
Section 3 - #7
Answer D does not refer in any way to plankton. It merely says that the absence of viruses can facilitate the flourishing of bacteria that damage "some organisms." Since we don't know whether plankton is one of these organisms, Answer D does not do much to explain the contradiction.
Answer C specifically refers to plankton and provides a plausible explanation. Removing the viruses has decreased the availability of nutrients (in the form of organisms killed by the plankton). WIth fewer resources, the population of plankton decreases.
Section 3 - #11
I think your explanation is correct. In the stem, it states that the portion of the virus used in a vaccine is "as effective as exposure to the whole virus," but not that it can be more effective. Therefore, if exposure to the whole virus does not yield permanent immunity, why should exposure to the portion of the virus used in the vaccine?
Section 3 - #25
The generalization involved in B goes far beyond what is supported by the stem. All the stem tells us is that employees at another company seem to prefer the old software to a newer software package that is advertised as being more flexible and user-friendly. Who knows why they don't use the new software? Maybe it's really less flexible and harder to use. Maybe it crashes a lot. Maybe it has some other flaw. We do not have the evidence even to say that it is actually more flexible/easier to use.
E on the other hand sticks much more tightly to the information provided. Based on the fact that employees in a similar situation prefer the old software, one could conclude that the employees at the company in question may well share the preference.
Hope that helps--let me know if you're looking for any clarification--in a bit of a hurry at the moment.
Section 2 - #5
Though B and E certainly share a common theme, E conforms more closely to the information provided. We are trying to support a conclusion that health experts should try to get people to eat nutritious foods by highlighting their flavor rather than their nutrition. E offers study results that show that this strategy is effective. B talks more about people's general food preferences but does not incorporate the marketing component.
Section 2 - #18
E does not really in any way parallel the first statement. The first statement talks about why we should turn to doctors rather than random people for medical advice--but it does not address the definition of a good doctor. B, on the other hand directly addresses the advisibility of using the advice of average people for making public welfare decisions even as we have addressed the advisibility of using advice of average people for making medical decisions.
Section 2 - #25
I had the exact same problem with this question, and I really am not satisfied. The best explanation I got was that the word "The" implies that the law stated is the only law regarding the reporting of campaign contributions. Again, I don't like this question, but all the other answers are clearly incorrect.
Section 3 - #7
Answer D does not refer in any way to plankton. It merely says that the absence of viruses can facilitate the flourishing of bacteria that damage "some organisms." Since we don't know whether plankton is one of these organisms, Answer D does not do much to explain the contradiction.
Answer C specifically refers to plankton and provides a plausible explanation. Removing the viruses has decreased the availability of nutrients (in the form of organisms killed by the plankton). WIth fewer resources, the population of plankton decreases.
Section 3 - #11
I think your explanation is correct. In the stem, it states that the portion of the virus used in a vaccine is "as effective as exposure to the whole virus," but not that it can be more effective. Therefore, if exposure to the whole virus does not yield permanent immunity, why should exposure to the portion of the virus used in the vaccine?
Section 3 - #25
The generalization involved in B goes far beyond what is supported by the stem. All the stem tells us is that employees at another company seem to prefer the old software to a newer software package that is advertised as being more flexible and user-friendly. Who knows why they don't use the new software? Maybe it's really less flexible and harder to use. Maybe it crashes a lot. Maybe it has some other flaw. We do not have the evidence even to say that it is actually more flexible/easier to use.
E on the other hand sticks much more tightly to the information provided. Based on the fact that employees in a similar situation prefer the old software, one could conclude that the employees at the company in question may well share the preference.
Hope that helps--let me know if you're looking for any clarification--in a bit of a hurry at the moment.
