Spiny Norman, people check books out of libraries; some of the library’s geology books may be out of the building (I chose A myself.)
For question #2, I’ll go with E. While answer A is tempting, you need to track volume, not cost. Beyond that, nothing beats a control group. B, C and D are, of course, throwaways.
For the second question, I have to go with E.
For the first question, I have to back up B. I think its based on a generalization made between “geology books” and “library books about geology”, which I don’t think are the same thing.
I would go with either A (with the implied “warm blooded animals”) or E.
Unless some of the mountain ranges were checked out at the time in question.
I think B is pretty crappy answer, especially if it hinges on suggesting “library books” is necessarily understood as something different than “books in the library.”
You don’t need the Hawaii exception for the OP to be faulty logic (whether actually correct or not).
BTW, I kicked ass on the LSAT when I took it many moons ago. Thank god I don’t have to do anything like that again. Maybe I’ve lost what limited ability I once had?
We’re on question #2 now Dinsdale.
Wanna pay attention and stay with the class here?
Okay, smartass, I didn’t know there was a time limit. 
For #2, A, C, or E all look like possible choices, but I don’t see where it is necessarily implied that his usage stayed constant. First thing in my mind was, okay if he is raising the same crop (which I guess might be the case with an orchard.)
I would go with A. If the rates were unchanged, the increase bill must mean his usage increased. Which is contrary to the purpose of the new system.
C is also good. Assuming he is not planting a much more irrigation intensive crop on his reduced acerage, his usage should be expected to decrease. But, water rates could have skyrocketed OR it could be a different crop.
With E, you just don’t know what else is going on at the other farms. Maybe they all bought better irrigation systems, planted crops requiring less water, planted fewer crops, etc.
So A is dependent upon the fewest unknown variables.
See, do well enough on your LSAT and you can piss away your day doing this sort of thing!
For the first question, I chose B. It just seemed right.
For the second question, I pick A. Again, it just seemed right. After reading three bunny mama’s explanation, I’m more firmly rooted w/ A.
I promise I have not read ahead in the thread.
The logical fallacy made in the statement is that set A always contains one of a subset B that always has at least one of subset C, and therefore all subsets B have at least one of subset C. However, it is possible that some subsets B have no subset C, as long as each A still has at least one of B©.
NONE OF THE ANSWERS ARE CORRECT.
Here is the logical error being made:
A includes at least one of B which includes C
Therefore
All B include C
That’s wrong. The second doesn’t follow from the first. Any A could include some B with C and some B without C.
Answer 1 is close but different; it states that birds (B) are always warm blooded © so all flying animals (of which B is a subset) are also C. In other words
B(of A)=C
therefore
A=C
That’s not the same fallacy as the question because it would be equivalent to saying “All continents are dangerous,” which is not the original fallacy.
Answer 2 is badly worded but seems to be circular, e.g. A=B so B=A. Answer 3 is exactly the same as Answer 1. Answer 4 is a logical disconnect, and Answer 5 is a combination of the 1/3 problem and it’s a logical disconnect as well, since there’s no reason to believe the channels on one set are a subset of all the channels in the city.
They’re all wrong. Sorry.
(Now reading ahead)
I can see why you thought it was A, but that’s wrong.
The error being amde is equivalent to your beautiful women aerror; All A’s contain B’s with property C, so all B’s have property C.
The error in Answer A is: Some A’s are B’s, and all B’s are C, so all C’s are A. It incorrectly makes A=C, while the original question incorrectly makes B=C.
Darn, I actually understood the reasoning behind the first question’s answer for - I think - 30 seconds.
I haven’t got much experience with multiple-choice tests - help me out here: you’re supposed to match the faulty logic in the question with an answer that contains the same logical flaw ? Damn, I hadn’t even got that. No wonder some of you 'Mericans are tough bastards to debate.
2nd question: A makes most sense to me.
But again: Jacks water bill is a function of a load of variables, and if we don’t know how important each one is, how the heck can you figure out what’s more important - acreage or price of water ?
No problem, I’ll find a corner to stand in - where’s that dunce cap ?
S. Norman
Is the LSAT done in pencil?
A is correct; the answer confirms that we are measuring volume.
Still, weather differences need to be accounted for. Using the other farms as a control would do this, assuming that the entire region did not adopt an innovation over the course of one year. This probably isn’t the case for small farms.
Here’s my reasoning for answering E for #2.
“A. The rates charged by the water company were virtually unchanged.”
This is wrong because it does not account for the amount of water used. Maybe it rained a lot last year, which is VERY much a possibility.
“B. It could demonstrate that the irrigation system was functioning as it should.”
This would be a great argument for the system manufacturer, not for Farmer Brown.
“C. The acreage under cultivation was slightly smaller this September than last.”
Still does not account for the amount of water used, or the amount received via rainfall.
“D. September a year ago was noteworthy for its heavy rains.”
Yes, that’s nice. But what if THIS September was noteworthy for being even wetter than LAST September?
“E. None of the farms nearby had any change in their water bills from one September to the other.”
Perfect. Obviously, rainclouds can’t centralize over just one farm consistently over the course of a harvest period. If all Septembers are very average in price for every farm in the area, and your one farm spikes up this year, something’s wrong with your watering system. Time to get that refund check.
The one that best fits the question is choice A, IMHO.
Obviously, the question’s a little incomplete, but the trick here is to note the difference between the amount of water used and what’s charged for it; that’s what they’re aiming at. All that really matters is whether or not the irrigation system is saving water; if the water rates went up, the system could save water but Farmer John could get screwed on the water bill anyway.
The irrigation system’s impact on the water BILL should be measured by the delta in usage multiplied by the delta in water rates. If the bill is up because of water rates, it would be possible that the irrigation system saved him money anyway because it would have gone up even higher. Only knowing the relative change in water rates would tell us this.
Choice E isn’t quite as logically compelling but it makes sense from a scientific standpoint, e.g. it’s a control group. B, C and D are all bad answers; in fact, D would HURT the farmer’s case, not help it.
Goddamnit, my head hurts:(
Dinsdale’s right; you don’t have to assume facts not in evidence in order for the first question to be faulty logic. Whether or not Hawaii has mountains is irrelevant, because all the first part of the syllogism says is that at least one mountain range on every continent has mountains that are dangerous to climb. You can’t extrapolate from this that all mountain ranges on every continent are dangerous to climb.
That being said, RickJay’s analysis is the most cogent–all of the answers are wrong. Like I said, I thought Answer 1 was the best of a bad lot (and not the same as Answer 3). I stand by that.
For the second question, my logic pretty well followed Dinsdale’s, albeit to a different result. The crux of the matter seemed to me to be determining what variables might have caused a higher bill, caused the bill to remain the same, or caused a lower bill by themselves, if the irrigation system was not part of the equation. Therefore, I thought, if there was a variable that would have given a lower bill anyway, and the bill was higher with the new system, then that was pretty good proof that the irrigation system was faulty.
So without an irrigation system (and all else being equal), here’s how the choices, in my mind, would have affected the bill:
A. The rates charged by the water company were virtually unchanged. Well, all else being equal, the bill would have remained virtually unchanged itself.
B. It could be demonstrated that the irrigation system was functioning as it should. Irrelevant to this analysis; this clearly weakens Jackson Orchards’ demand, rather than strengthening it.
C. The acreage under cultivation was slightly smaller this September than last. All else being equal, this would result in a lower bill. You’ve got less ground to water.
D. September a year ago was noteworthy for its heavy rains. If it rained heavily last year, there would have been less need for irrigation. Therefore, assuming that it hasn’t rained heavily this year, the bill this year would be higher than last–likely with or without an irrigation system.
E. None of the farms nearby had any change in their water bills from one September to the other. Offers circumstantial evidence that without an irrigation system, Jackson Orchards’ water bill would have remained the same as well.
So in my opinion, there are two choices whose conditions point toward the bill staying the same without an irrigation system, one in which the bill would be higher, and one in which the bill would be lower anyway. So I chose C, feeling that if the bill would have been lower this September even without the system, and it was instead higher, then that was a pretty good prima facie claim as to the system’s ineffectiveness.
After reading the posts by three bunny mama and Dinsdale, however, I will confess that I didn’t think about differences in water usage or in crops. (I try to keep this things as simple as possible for myself.) Given their reasoning, I’ll say that A, and E to a lesser extent, are good answers, too. Had Barron’s chosen either one of those, I suppose I’d be satisfied.
But, of course, it didn’t.
According to Barron’s, the choice that would help Jackson Orchards’ demand of a refund be more convincing was D. “September a year ago was noteworthy for its heavy rains.”
What what what what?
Let’s go to the tape, shall we? Here’s their logic:
Well…yes. I agree. *But how in the holy name of Thor the Thunder God does that strengthen the case??? If water bills were lower than normal a year ago, then you’d expect the bills to be higher this year anyway–irrigation system or no! Unless they’re somehow saying that the fact that it rained heavily a year ago would normally provide for lower bills this year. I’m no agrimacultural expert or nothin’, but somehow I don’t think that’s how it works.
Help me out here…
(Oh, and thanks for all the responses. This has been very illuminating so far. Next question coming up.)
It does strengthen the case. But only if it were to state that the rains last September were heavier than this year. They mean that the water bill would be lower LAST year.
What I think the problem here is that the person coming up with the questions has one correct answer in mind, and then tries to come up with 4 filler answers that aren’t supposed to be correct, and then it so happens that one of these filler answers is MORE correct than the one the author was planning on. Poor planning and safeguards, I’d say.
Ok, it’s obvious they need a new proofreader. If the bill is lower last year because of heavy rainfall, how in the heck is that going to help the farmer prove his case. That is going to help the irrigation manufacturer prove that they the farmer can’t prove that his system is not working properly. Or am I completely misunderstanding this?
I dunno, Connor–I don’t see how D is a good answer at all. If the water bill was lower last year because of heavy rains, then it should be expected to be higher this year. If Jackson Orchards’ is claiming that the irrigation system didn’t reduce the usage (and the cost) from last year, the heavy rains the previous September would be an extremely mitigating factor in favor of the irrigation systems company. Could you explain your logic a little more?
Talk about screwed up logic. The only was I can see D being the correct answer, is if they’re viewing it as a Hypothetical. Like they’re saying, “If September last year had been extremely high rainfall, then less water would have been used, causing an even greater disparity with this September,making his case seem even better” That is not at all what I read the question as, but it is the only interpretation I can see to make their answer even remotely fit.
What you need is a new study book. Try if you can to find a copy of “LSAT for Dummies”. I used the “GRE for Dummies” and found it much better than the other books I got. These people are going to confuse you. You need a better book on how to approach this subject. There are tricks to answering these kind of logic questions.
Ya need to do really well on this section because ya never know when someone will ask ya about mountains and books and water in
“real” life. 
Just last month I was debating installing an irrigation system at my mountaintop orchard, but the crews were having difficulty climbing up to it due to the unusually heavy rains…
No way it is D.
But so what? You said in the OP that you were getting good scores and just couldn’t understand a few questions. Everyone else will be screwed up by those questions as well. It is a little unsettling in that, since the answers they say are correct are obviously wrong, a thinking person will be at a disadvantage compared to someone who is simply guessing. But there’s nothing you can do about it. Play to your strengths. And when you see a question that seems to be poorly worded, just figure, that’s one of the ones you might get wrong. You weren’t planning on a perfect score, were ya?
Good luck!
Oh yeah, I’m planning on a perfect score. I’m gonna try, anyway. And actually, I just wanted to make sure that I wasn’t crazy, and that the Barron’s people really have been smoking some serious banana peels. Like Drain said, though, I’m not anticipating having these kinds of troubles on the test itself; from what I’ve heard, it’s much more straightforward. Plus, they’ve got safeguards for this kind of thing–if too many people miss a question, they’ll often throw it out and credit everyone.
It cheeses me off that Barron’s can get away with it, though. I’ve e-mailed them about it with no response–and there are a couple of questions in the reading comprehension and analytical section whose answers aren’t just illogical, they’re plain wrong. I wasn’t planning on posting those, because they require too much context, but maybe I’ll give y’all one of the analytical ones (which, as far as I can see, is absolutely impossible).
Next post, question three.