3 more LSAT Questions

jupiter_li

3 more LSAT Questions
题真郁闷，先谢了

Saunders: Everyone at last week’s neighborhood association meeting agreed that the row of abandoned and vandalized houses on Cariton Street posed a threat to the safety of our neighborhood. Moreover, no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat. Some people tried to argue that it was unnecessary to demolish what they claimed were basically sound buildings, since the city had established a fund to help people
in need of housing buy and rehabilitate such buildings. The overwhelming success of the demolition strategy, however, proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right and that those who claimed that the problem could and should be solved by rehabilitating the houses were wrong.
20. Which one of the following principles, if established would determine that demolishing the houses was the right decision or instead would determine that the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition should have been adopted?
(A) When what to do about an abandoned neighborhood building is in dispute, the course of action [that would result in the most housing for people who need it] should be the one adopted unless the building is believed to pose a threat to neighborhood safety.
(B) When there are two proposals for solving a neighborhood problem, and only one of them would preclude the possibility of trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory, then the approach that does not foreclose the other possibility should be the one adopted.
(C) If one of two proposals for renovating vacant neighborhood buildings requires government funding whereas the second does not, the second proposal should be the one adopted unless the necessary government funds have already been secured.
(D) No pain for eliminating a neighborhood problem that requires demolishing
basically sound houses should be carried out until all other possible
alternatives have been thoroughly investigated.
(E) No proposal for dealing with a threat to a neighborhood’s safety should
be adopted merely because a majority of the residents of that neighborhood
prefer that proposal to a particular counterproposal.

答案是B，有些不太理解，到底谁preclude the possibility of trying the other approach ， 拆房的还是不拆的？

Marcus: For most ethical dilemmas the journalist is likely to face, traditional journalistic ethics is clear, adequate, and essentially correct. For example, when journalists have uncovered newsworthy information, they should go to press with it as soon as possible. No delay motivated by the journalists’ personal or professional interests is permissible.
Anita: Well, Marcus, of course interesting and important information should be brought before the public-that is a journalist’s job. But in the typical case, where a journalist has some information but is in a quandary about whether it is yet important or “newsworthy,” this guidance is inadequate.
18. The point made by Anita’s statements is most accurately expressed by which one of the following?
(A) Marcus’s claim that traditional journalistic ethics is clear for most ethical dilemmas in journalism is incorrect.
(B) The ethical principle that Marcus cites does not help the journalist in a typical kind of situation in which a decision needs to be made.
(C) The ethical principle that Marcus cites does not help the journalist in a typical hind of situation in which a decision needs to be made.
(D) There are common situations in which a journalist must make a decision and in which no principle of journalistic ethics can be of help.
(E) Traditional journalistic ethics amounts to no more than an unnecessarily convoluted description of the journalist’s job.

Agree C, but why not D or A?? esp D

19. In order to conclude properly from Anita’s statements that Marcus’ general claim about traditional journalistic ethics is incorrect, if would have to be assumed that
(A) whether a piece of information is or is not newsworthy can raise ethical dilemmas for journalists. Why A?? why not E??
(B) there are circumstances in which it would be ethically wrong for a journalist to go to press with legitimately acquired, newsworthy information.
(C) the most serious professional dilemmas that a journalist is likely to face are not ethical dilemmas
(D) there are no ethical dilemmas that a journalist is likely to face that would not be conclusively resolved by an adequate system of journalistic ethics
(E) For a system of journalistic ethics to be adequate it must be able to provide guidance in every case in which a journalist must make a professional decision

Why A?? why not E??

raonx

我来试一试:

1. 首先题目只是问以下哪个principle 可以用来决定到底部是拆还是不拆.
    B 给了明确回答. 两个principles, 如果采用一个失败后不影响采用后一个,则应先试前者.
   其实这个答案与到底是拆房的preclude the possibility of trying the other approach 还是不拆的preclude the possibility of trying the other approach 没有多大关系只要有这个principle就可以了, 实际上当然是拆房的preclude the possibility of trying the other approach

2.Anita’只是说Marcus的ethical principle 不适用, 并没有说no principle can be of help. 所以D不对.
3. Marcus认为: traditional journalistic ethics is clear, adequate, and essentially correct因为它能解决most ethical dilemmas .Anita’ challenge him by raising a problem whether the jounalist can judge whether the information is newsworthy 既判断information is or is not newsworthy 会引起问题.所以A是
假设.Anita’并没有说it must be able to provide guidance in every case 所以E 不是假设.

tongxun

2、A的错误是：原文只是说在某些情况下，M的是错误的，并没有全盘否定。
   D见raonx的解释。
3、raonx解释得漂亮。

jupiter_li

太感谢了！ 茅塞顿开。
多问一句： 第一题（saunder)的 A 为什么不对呢？

raonx

题目问的是哪个principle可以决定到底是拆房的对还是不拆的对,
而A 只是说如果房子没有pose a threat to neighborhood safety 则应才用使更多人有房住的方法.但题目中并为指出是拆房还是不拆能提供更多的住房.所以无法决定是拆还是不拆,也就不是要问的principle

gansen

我来补充几句，第一题的答案意思可以理解为：一种方法失败，导致另一种方法也不能用”，也就是说一旦选择拆房子，如果该方法失败了，那么另一种方法也不能用了，明显是说不应该拆房子。

jupiter_li

raonx, gansen, tongxun 斑竹，我先谢了。

可是我当时想选A,是因为原文不是说 如果不拆的话,政府资助些钱,可以让别人把房子修修接着住,这样就提供了更多住房......

哦，是不是A说提供多住房的行动应该被接受，除非会不安全。这样等于还是不知道该拆还是不该拆，对不对？

tongxun

我觉得是你说的这样。