Sample LSAT question

[Muffin]

@antonio107

I got the Japanese dealie wrong. I thought he was being angry, just being a passive aggressive bitch about it.

I chose angry as well, but I wouldn’t say that it is the wrong answer, for there is no way that is an LSAT question – it is just a botched question pretending to be an LSAT question.

I found the courses helpful in learning how to manage time, recognize question patterns, and quickly solve questions. I did not find their practice questions particulalry useful. I found the actual LSAT questions from previous years to be very helpful. YMMV.

[Muffin]

@MaxTheVool

Oh, I think you’re right… I think I left out a NOT while writing everything down in logic notation.

I’m a big fan of symbolic logic, and used to teach it, but I don’t think it is a good approach to these LSAT questions, for the LSAT is very much a speed test. jtgain’s approach of setting out and removing possibilities gets you to the finish line faster, giving you more time to answer more questions. YMMV.

@jtgain

Damn, I can’t help it but throw back to 3 years ago…okay…line 'em up:

D E F G H I J

[Kenm]

The correct answer is:

F. Patronizing

[Thudlow_Boink]

@MaxTheVool

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.

“P only if Q” means that, if Q is false, P must also be false.

That means that, if she does not vote against the environmental bill (i.e. she votes for it), she does not vote for the gun control bill (she votes against it).

[Grestarian]

@Rand_Rover

Odd. This seems much more like a vocabulary question than a logic/reasoning question (i.e., it basically hinges on the test-taker’s knowledge of the definition of “inscrutable” and “perspicacity”).

Not only that, but I think the test-writer has mistaken…

perspicacity == shrewdness in business
with
perspicuity == easiness to see through (understand/interpret)

…but maybe he didn’t, in which case the Japanese official gave an insulting response --* we may be hard to read, but at least we’re smart in business* – to the ambassador’s insulting question and C) Angry would seem to be the correct answer to the question.

And somebody needs to replace that ambassador with a person who understands the culture BEFORE traveling there; another Reischauer, if one can be found.

—G!

You may think you know
what you thought I said
But what you don’t understand is that
what I said is not what I mean

[handsomeharry]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

The comment the guy makes is so insulting–in simpler words, he’s saying, “I’d rather be hard to read than be an idiot like you Americans are”–that the only sensible reading, IMO, is that his calm and gentle demeanor are being offered as examples of Japanese inscrutability. That is, he’s not at all inscrutable: he’s just couching his cut in velvet terms, as is customary in some cultures. Fearful, compassionate, and indifferent are all incorrect answers, IMO: the only correct answers would be “emotional” or, better, “angry,” since he’s giving such an insult within his official capacity.

Word. I can’t see how calling Americans ‘wanting in perspicacity’ can be anything other than insulting, which is hardly compassionate. It just leaped off of the page as I was reading it for the first time.