Jane: According to an article in this newsmagazine, children’s hand-eye coordination suffers when they spend a great amount of time watching television. Therefore, we must restrict the amount of time Jacqueline and Mildred are allowed to watch television.
Alan: Rubbish! The article says that only children under three are affected in that way. Jacqueline is ten and Mildred is eight. Therefore, we need not restrict their television viewing.
Alan’s argument against Jane’s conclusion makes which one of the following errors in
reasoning?
(A) It relies on the same source that Jane cited in support of her conclusion.
(B) It confuses undermining an argument in support of a given conclusion with showing that the conclusion itself is false.
(C) It does not address the main point of Jane’s argument and focuses instead on a side issue.
(D) It makes an irrelevant appeals to an authority.
(E) It fails to distinguish the consequences of a certain practice from the causes of the practice.
想了半天，还是觉得Alan的反驳没错，请大侠指教
I didn't go over every messages here yet. But I happened to have a book of the second booklet of LSAT and started here. So I guess my questions should not be old.
Test 22 Section III (2nd CR part)
Unless the residents of Glen Hills band together, the proposal to rezone that city wll be approved. If it is, the city will be able to build the water and sewer systems that developers need in order to construct apartment houses there. These buildings would attract new residents, and the increased population would probably result in over crowded schools and would certainly result in roads so congested that new roads would be built. Neither new roads nor additional schools could be built without substantial tax increases for the residents of Glen Hills. Ultimately, this growth might even destroy the rural atmosphere that makes Glen Hills so attractive.
Which one of the following can be properly concluded from the passage?
A) If the citizens of Glen Hills band togeter, developers will not build apartment houses.
B) If developers build apartment houses in Glen Hills, there will be substantial tax increases for the residents of Glen Hills.
C) If the rezoning proposal does not pass, the rural atmosphere in Glen Hills will not be lost.
D) If developers do not build apartment houses in Glen Hills, the taxes of the residents of Glen Hills will not increase substantially.
E) If developers do not build apartment houses in Glen Hills, the schools of Glen Hills will not be overcrowded and roads will not be congested.
My choice was C but the answer is A. Cannot get it even after thought it over and over. Hope anyone can help. Thanks.
6. The Rienzi, a passenger ship, sank as a result of a hole in its hull, possibly caused by sabotage. Normally, when a holed ship sinks as rapidly as the Rienzi did, water does not enter the ship quickly enough for the ship to be fully flooded when it reaches the ocean floor. Full flooding can be achieved, however, by sabotage. Any ship that sinks deep into the ocean when not fully flooded will implode. Deep-sea photographs, taken of the sunken Rienzi where it rests on the ocean floor, reveal that the Rienzi did not implode.
Which one of the following must be true on the basis of the information above?
(A) The Rienzi was so constructed as to reduce the risk of sinking by impact.
(B) If the Rienzi became fully flooded, it did so only after it reached the ocean floor.
(C) If the Rienzi was not sunk by sabotage, water flooded into it unusually fast.
(D) If the Rienzi had sunk more slowly, it would have imploded.
(E) The Rienzi was so strongly constructed as to resist imploding under deep-sea pressure.
绕得我脑筋都抽筋了。做不对也是TMD活该。
Answer: C
问题：这里sabotage的作用是不是很厉害，既可以让船慢慢沉也可以让船一下子沉下去？因为前面sabotage or somethingàa holeàsinks rapidlyàno fully flooded; 可以推出在正常情况下sabotage可以让R船沉的rapidly所以不会被fully flooded, 后面sabotageàfull flood. 并且no fully floodedàimplode. 即no implodeàfully flooded，所以可能sabotage是凶手。可是第一条主线的逆否命题可以推出fully floodedàsinks not rapidlyànot sabotage or something else. 那不是前后矛盾吗？我现在脑中逻辑一片混乱，请各位帮忙指点。
请教LSAT 28 section II Q12:
12. The higher the average fat intake among the residents of a country, the higher the incidence of cancer in that country; the lower the average fat intake, the lower the incidence of cancer. So individuals who want to reduce their risk of cancer should reduce their fat intake.
Which one of the following, if true, most weaken the argument?
(A) The differences in average fat intake between countries are often due to the varying makeup of traditional diets.
(B) The countries with a high average fat intake tend to be among the wealthiest in the world.
(C) Cancer is a prominent cause of death in countries with a low average fat intake.
(D) The countries with high average fat intake are also the countries with highest levels of environmental pollution.
(E) An individual resident of a country whose population has a high average fat intake may have a diet with a low fat intake.
answer is D,我选的是C, 我觉得C,D都能够weaken,C类似断桥，D是一个他因削弱，是不是ETS在这种题上有什末倾向性，更倾向于某某答案之类的？
