LR Question 11 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Lydia: Red squirrels are known to make holes in the…
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
CONCLUSION: Galina concludes that the squirrels aren’t after sugar.
REASONING: The concentration of sugar in maple sap is very low and squirrels would have to drink a lot to get much sugar.
ANALYSIS: Galina doesn’t make a very good argument. If the squirrels aren’t after sugar, why are they going for the sap? It’s only sugar and water.
___________
- This is irrelevant, since maple sap doesn’t have a high concentration of sugar.
- This just tells us that other squirrels are copycats. It doesn’t explain why they want the maple sap.
- This sort of supports Lydia. But it’s pretty weak. Less frequently could mean 49% of the time rather than 50% of the time.
- CORRECT. This ruins Galina’s argument. The squirrels raise the concentration of sugar by letting the water evaporate. Smart squirrels.
- This just shows it would be pointless to go after sap. Galina and Lydia are presumably only talking about those seasons where squirrels can get sap.
More Resources for Weaken Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Weaken questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers weaken questions.
I understand why D is correct, if it is interpreted the way that you have interpreted it, which is: Red squirrels leave the sugar maple sap that slowly oozes out of the holes in the tree’s trunk, until much of the water in the sap has evaporated.
i.e. once the water evaporates, they eat the concentrated sap.
But without commas, I feel very strongly that it should not be interpreted that way.
I interpreted the sentence as Red squirrels leave (the sugar maple sap that slowly evaporates out of the holes in the tree’s trunk until much of the water in the sap has evaporated).
i.e. there is concentrated sap available, but the squirrels leave it behind. Which would strengthen Galina’s argument.
What suggestions do you have for parsing awkward or run-on sentences like this, so that you read them in the most valuable way?
Leave….until means they leave it until the moment in question.
Ie if you say I will not apply for law school until I take the lsat you are saying you will apply. After you take it.
Hope that helps!
Thank you! I mostly see your point. But that was a normal sentence.
If you say I will not apply for law school with the LSAT that has logic games until August…
that could mean:
1) I will not apply for law school with the LSAT (that has logic games) until August.
i.e. I won’t be applying for law school, using the LSAT with logic games, until august. Meaning I may have taken the LSAT with logic games, but I won’t be applying right away. Or I may not have taken the LSATs but will before August, at which point I will apply to law school.
or
2) I will not apply for law school with the LSAT (that has logic games until August).
i.e. I won’t be applying for law school using the LSAT that has logic games until August- Maybe I will apply for law school using the LSAT that no longer has logic games. Maybe I won’t apply at all.
Ah but you have produced an ambiguous sentence (I would argue poorly constructed) whereas the sentence in PT 37 only has one valid interpretation. I modelled my example after that one.
Notice for example that your sentence has a future tense, “I will not”. To parallel, consider this
“The student left the lsat alone until lsac got rid of logic games”
This means the student doesn’t do anything with the lsat, then lsac removed logic games, then the student comes back to the lsat.