Agreed. I’ve also taught LSAT. (I’ve taught for Kaplan, and also written sample LSAT questions for them.) This is much more like an SAT or ACT (or even GRE) question. I cannot imagine why a question like this would appear on the LSAT and I suspect your LSAT review company put it in the wrong place on their site. If you can get real LSAT questions they are absolutely the best to study with, even if you have to pay for them.*
Personally, I would have picked “indifferent” because it was the closest to “neutral.” However, I’m guessing their answer hinges on the test-taker’s understanding that “calm and friendly” = “compassionate” (in some circumstances). Several posters seem to be inferring an emotion behind the Japanese official’s reply and the LSAT specifically wants you not to add any information they don’t give you.
That may be true, but the dude says Americans are wanting in perspicacity–wanting in insight. That’s not an inference, that’s what he says. There’s a disconnect between his demanor and his words, and in any such case, it’s the more negative emotion that wins.
Question 2)
If the legislator votes against the judicial activism bill, then which of the following CANNOT be true?
a) She votes against both the defense bill and the gun control bill
b) she votes against both the gun control bill and the health care bill
c) She votes for both the health care bill and the defense bill
d) she votes for both the health care bill and the environment bill
e) she votes for both the environment bill and the free trade bill
answer:
c
I have issues with the logic used to answer this question. Someone spell it out for me, please?
[Test Prep Tutor Mode]As other people have indicated, this is the main issue. A real SAT question (on whichever test of theirs) would have vetted, reviewed, picked apart, revised and honed, and submitted for testing to a number of people in the target test population long before it would show up on an official exam. The ones which are crafted for prep-courses and prep-books have not undergone said vetting process and are typically examples of what the person who made the material thinks a typical question of that type should look like.
That said, indeed sometimes you are forced to choose the “best of the worst” answer, with no truly superior or reasonably apt choice available.
Unsolvable as stated, imho, without a precise way to interpret “She votes for the gun control bill only if she votes against the environment bill”. The solution that Thudlow gives assumes that that is the same as if AND ONLY if.
I agree with LHOD: the man is pissed. The fact that he says it in a gentle way just means that he’s pissed and disguising it well. A Japanese-American might put it, “WTF? I’d fuckin’ A rather be inscrutable than a flaming asshole flapping his goddamn gums at other cultures.”
IMHO Compassion clearly doesn’t work. Compassion is defined as:
So even if the American was suffering, there’s no indication of feeling of distress or pity on the part of the Japanese Official. I mean, he insults the guy right back.
Anger is:
We see no indication if displeasure or belligerence. Clearly the guy isn’t happy about the question, but does he have strong feelings? Probably not.
IMHO, the right answer is indifferent:
The guy doesn’t seem to have much interest in the question. He gets a jab in, and that’s that.
Now, I can see the culture factor ocming in and saying that for A Japanese official to get a jab in means he’s angry. But I think as the response is written, indifferent is better.
The object of the exercise is to give as many answers as one can during the time available that LSAT deems to be correct.
LSAT will have deemed a particular answer as correct, so concluding that the question is unsolvable is not going to meet the object of the exercise.
All other things being equal, Boink gets in to law school and you don’t, for he recognized that “if and only if” is assumed by LSAT for this type of question.
Muffin, the term is “Ceteris Paribus,” alright? I didn’t bust my ass to get into law school, just so I could speak in the vernacular to the laypeople!
I got a 162 on the LSAT, which is pretty good. I got the Japanese dealie wrong. I thought he was being angry, just being a passive aggressive bitch about it.
Despite having only taken the LSAT once in my life and having no real personal grudge against them, I think they’re rubbish, and a silly metric to measure law school fitness by. YMMV, I suppose!
[QUOTE=LSAT Question]
On Wednesday, a legislator remembers that she must vote on 7 bills - defense, environment, free trade, gun control, health care, immigration, and judicial activism - by the end of the week. Because the legislator wants to align herself with a major political party, she will vote on the bills in accordance with the following conditions:
She votes for the gun control bill only if she votes against the environment bill.
Unless she votes against the judicial activism bill, she will vote for the immigration bill.
She will vote for either the environment bill, the judicial activism bill, or both.
She votes for the gun control bill if she votes for both the health care bill and the defense bill.
Question 2)
If the legislator votes against the judicial activism bill, then which of the following CANNOT be true?
[/QUOTE]
Damn, I can’t help it but throw back to 3 years ago…okay…line 'em up:
D E F G H I J
Question #2: She votes against J, you have
D E F G H I
Stipulation #2: Since she voted against J, she voted against I:
D E F G H
Stipulation #3: She voted against J, E is definitely in
Stipulation #1: G is out, since E is in:
D E F H
Stipulation #4: She can’t vote for D & H both, since G is out…
No, the object of THIS THREAD is to assess and comment on “sample LSAT questions”. If I were taking the LSAT, I would realize that no answer was right, hold my nose, and assume that there should be an if or only if there. But I’m not, so my comments stands.
I’m not sure how you are parsing this. Are you saying that the statement is ambiguous enough to mean that she could vote against both the gun control bill and the environment bill? That’s true, but the answer is still the same. Since she voted FOR the environment bill, then she cannot vote for the gun control bill.
Oh, I think you’re right… I think I left out a NOT while writing everything down in logic notation.
“She votes for the gun control bill only if she votes against the environment bill.” means that if we know she voted for the environment bill, then we know she voted against the gun control bill, E -> -GB.
This is how I interpreted it too. I would have picked E on the basis that the Japanese official chose not to get angry and not to respond harshly because he felt bad that the American ambassador just didn’t get it. Kind of like a “You’re ignorant but I feel bad for you so I will try to be as nice as I can” response.
