65 LR Two Question 6
- « 65 LR Two Question 5
- 2215 of 3815
- 65 LR Two Question 7 »
Comments
Why don't you note qualifiers (like sometimes) in your conditional line of reasoning? When do you decide if it is needed and when it is not?
You are absolutely correct in your assessment that sometimes, I act as though some non-conditional relationship were conditional.
And you're also correct in saying that those phrases are different. And you're also right to say that that difference is important.
So let me explain myself:
My use of conditional symbols for statements that aren't actually conditional is a kind of approximation.
Like this:
Imagine a multiple-choice math question that asked you for the product of pi and 13.
I know that pi is basically 3, so I can estimate the answer before I have to use my calculator to do any actual math. So, here, I would begin my assessment of answer choices by seeking an option that says 40 (give or take).
Now, pi is not 3. It's similar to 3, but it is absolutely different in a real and important way. Nevertheless, I may find great utility in beginning my approach with some approximation.
To continue the metaphor, imagine that the answers are:
(A) 22
(B) 27.5
(C) 31.45
(D) 40.84
(E) 49
I've got the right answer, even though I did so using a value that's inherently, really different from pi - and I did it fast.
Of course, what if the answers look like this?
(A) 39.85
(B) 40.15
(C) 40.45
(D) 40.84
(E) 41.84
In this instance, obviously, my approximation does me no good at all, and I'm going to have to be more precise in my calculations.
Questions in the LR are just like this.
I think it's appropriate and useful to begin our approach to a particular question by making use of estimation and approximation when we can (because estimates are often faster, simpler, and easier to perform than actual calculations), but that we must be prepared for the possibility that our estimation may prove insufficient for answers.
When that happens, we tighten up our calculations.
Hey Dave!
Thanks for this reply, it was super helpful! I got this one correct, mostly because the other answers were so so wrong - but hesitated because of the "MOST" in answer choice E.
If we were being more precise in this question - that "MOST" can't really be inferred, correct? Because Algae "sometimes" provide a rich food source that are toxic to fish. And we can't infer from a Sometimes/Most situation. Is that right?
O--causes---> ALGAE ---sometimes--> FOOD TOXIC TO FISH ---most ---> FISH KILLED
I feel like I committed to memory that a Some/Most relationship can't be inferenced, and now we are given an answer that makes that inference! UGH. Is there something I'm misunderstanding here?
Thanks for the help!
Well, the passage says that overnutrifying sometimes kills most of the fish in the estuary, and (E) says it's possible for overnutrifying to kill most of the fish in the estuary. It's a repeat of the evidence from the passage. Did you perhaps not read the entirety of the last sentence?
I did. This is how I diagrammed it:
O-->A--(s)-->T--(m)-->Dead
I think where I got confused was with the 'sometimes'. I now understand E as saying "(In cases when the algae ARE toxic to fish) it is possible that over-nutrifying can result in death to most of those fish"