User avatar
 
noah
Thanks Received: 1068
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1546
Joined: February 11th, 2009
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Q11 - Unless the residents of Glen Hills band

by noah Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:14 pm

This is a wordy inference question!

We learn the following:

NOT band --> proposal approved --> able to build water sewer

(note that able to build is different than definitely building)

build apts. --> able to build water sewer
build apts. --> new residents --> (PROBABLY crowded schools) + congested roads --> new roads --> more taxes

new residents --> MAYBE destroy rural

A lot of conditional statements, and a couple of wishy-washy connections, which we should remember are NOT definitive.

No point in predicting, let's see what the answers give us:

(A) band --> no apts. this is a negation of a chain that isn't even necessarily intact (we don't know that NOT band --> apartments, just that NOT band --> able to build apartments)

(B) build apts. --> new taxes. Yes! We have this here: build apts. --> new residents --> congested roads --> new roads --> more taxes

(C) NOT proposal approved --> NOT rural destroyed. Nope. We don't know if proposal approve --> rural destroyed. But, more importantly, there could be other ways the rural atmosphere gets destroyed, like cell phone towers.

(D) NOT build apts. --> NOT more taxes. Illegal negation of build apts. --> more taxes.

(E) NOT build apts. --> NOT crowded schools + NOT roads. Negation of what we know will (and probably will) flow from build apartments. All of those consequences could happen for other reasons. Maybe refugees arrive.
 
james.h.meyers
Thanks Received: 2
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 19
Joined: June 07th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Unless the residents of Glen Hills band

by james.h.meyers Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:46 pm

Here's my question:

I went through and eliminated all of the answers. I then went back and chose (B) because it was the best, but it doesn't seem technically accurate.

(B) says that "if developers build apartment houses in Glen Hills there will be substantial tax increases for the residents of Glen Hills."

But the chain of inferences in the stimulus is only probabilistic, not absolute. So I initially eliminated it for being too strong.

Just wondering what I should do or learn from this. I know I've read in some responses that newer tests are more careful in some areas - is this one of them? Or is the best advice still to just read all of the answers and pick the least bad answer?
 
sumukh09
Thanks Received: 117
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 327
Joined: June 03rd, 2012
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q11 - Unless the residents of Glen Hills band

by sumukh09 Thu Jul 25, 2013 6:20 pm

james.h.meyers wrote:Here's my question:

I went through and eliminated all of the answers. I then went back and chose (B) because it was the best, but it doesn't seem technically accurate.

(B) says that "if developers build apartment houses in Glen Hills there will be substantial tax increases for the residents of Glen Hills."

But the chain of inferences in the stimulus is only probabilistic, not absolute. So I initially eliminated it for being too strong.

Just wondering what I should do or learn from this. I know I've read in some responses that newer tests are more careful in some areas - is this one of them? Or is the best advice still to just read all of the answers and pick the least bad answer?


B is actually inferable, it has to be - this is an inference question.

(1)Residents did not band ---> approved
(2)If approved ---> houses constructed
(3) houses constructed --> attract new residents + new roads built
(4) new roads ---> substantial tax increases

B says: if apartment houses built ---> substantial tax increases

This follows with the chain of inferences above: approved --> houses constructed ---> attract new residents + new roads ---> substantial tax increases
User avatar
 
noah
Thanks Received: 1068
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1546
Joined: February 11th, 2009
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Unless the residents of Glen Hills band

by noah Thu Jul 25, 2013 6:41 pm

Sumukh is right, (B) is inferable. While the population probably would result in overcrowded schools, it "certainly" would result in congested roads leading to new roads, which require substantial tax increases.
 
aescano209
Thanks Received: 2
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 18
Joined: June 13th, 2015
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Unless the residents of Glen Hills band

by aescano209 Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:35 pm

Hey, sorry to revive kind of an old thread, but I was just curious with one thing. With lengthy inference stimuli such as this one, with extensive conditional statements, would it be beneficial to draw it out? I essentially didn't when I did this under timed conditions and did get it right for the right reasons, but I was kind of iffy on the idea of not having it drawn out and eliminating the other answer choices. Did any one else draw it out under timed conditions?
 
roflcoptersoisoi
Thanks Received: 0
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 165
Joined: April 30th, 2015
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Unless the residents of Glen Hills band

by roflcoptersoisoi Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:21 pm

This question is replete with conditional statements, and I do not think I could have correctly answered it without diagramming them.

I diagrammed like this:

~Band together --> approved --> build w/s

construct apt --> build w/s

construct apt --(probably)--> overcrowded schools

construct apt ---> congestion ----> new roads build ---> tax increase

(A) This just negates the sufficient condition in the first sentence (~Banding together) . No logical inference can be made by negating a sufficient condition, eliminate
(B) Bingo, here is our answer choice. This is the contraction of one of the logical chains we built : apt ---> congestion ----> new roads build ---> tax increase.
(C) All we can conclude from the approval of the rezone is that water and sewer systems will be built.
(D) This is just negating the sufficient condition of some of our conditional statements. We know what occurs if apartments are constructed but not when they are not, because no valid inference can be made from negation a sufficient condition
(E) Same as (D)

I came across this question when I was drilling MBT. This looks like a time trap question given how early it appears in the test. If I came across this question when writing a timed PT I would most likely skip it and come back.
 
kkate
Thanks Received: 0
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 31
Joined: October 29th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Unless the residents of Glen Hills band

by kkate Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:21 pm

Quick question that came to mind while working on this question - in LSAT terms, is "would" considered as a "will" (ie. 100% certainty) or more as a "could" in that it may or may not?

Thank you in advance!
Kate