LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ShannonM90
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 4
- Joined: February 15th, 2019
Q4
Can someone please explain the support for the correct answer as it compares to the wrong answers?
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q4
Hey, Shannon.
Sorry for the long delay here; we've been sidetracked with Test 88's recent release.
After reading the stem for Q4, I would go try to find applicable text in the passage.
KEYWORDS:
judging success of a model
global warming trend of previous 100 years
author (look for evaluative / attitude-y moments)
It seems like we'd be looking almost everywhere, though. The 1st paragraph lays out the details of the anomalous warming trend of the past 100 years.
The rest of the passage deals with the problems the two models had / the encouraging evidence each has had. So we'd have to go scooping up problems and corroborations.
Old Greenhouse:
problem (line 19) - the estimates of the increase in temp in recent decades were higher than observations.
So a possible answer is "the author would judge a model successful it accurately estimated the increase in temp in recent decades".
New Greenhouse:
corroboration (lines 30-35) - taking into account sulfate, we now CAN derive more accurate estimates that match observed temperatures from the recent decades.
Solar energy:
problem (lines 44-46) - this model can't account for all of the recent rise is atmosphere temp.
It looks like all three line references are built around the same concept.
OLD greenhouse predicted higher temps than what we've observed in recent decades.
Solar Energy by itself would only explain lower temps than what we've recently observed.
UPDATED greenhouse has calculated estimates that match recent observations.
A) "last few years"? I thought it was recent decades. I would keep this, but I'm hoping for something that's more like recent decades.
B) "how simple a framework it is"? No, we want "how closely it matches observations of recent decades".
C) "how much it's been revised"? No, we want "how closely it matches observations of recent decades".
D) "how closely its postulated warming mechanisms match the commonly known warming mechanisms"? No, we want "how closely it matches observations of recent decades".
E) YES, I guess. "A long-term match" can work with "recent decades". This ends up being a better match than (A), since "last few years" is way too narrow of a sample size. In discussing the solar energy model, the author is even saying "year to year, it looks decent .... but on a wider scale it can't explain this increase".
Hope this helps.
Sorry for the long delay here; we've been sidetracked with Test 88's recent release.
After reading the stem for Q4, I would go try to find applicable text in the passage.
KEYWORDS:
judging success of a model
global warming trend of previous 100 years
author (look for evaluative / attitude-y moments)
It seems like we'd be looking almost everywhere, though. The 1st paragraph lays out the details of the anomalous warming trend of the past 100 years.
The rest of the passage deals with the problems the two models had / the encouraging evidence each has had. So we'd have to go scooping up problems and corroborations.
Old Greenhouse:
problem (line 19) - the estimates of the increase in temp in recent decades were higher than observations.
So a possible answer is "the author would judge a model successful it accurately estimated the increase in temp in recent decades".
New Greenhouse:
corroboration (lines 30-35) - taking into account sulfate, we now CAN derive more accurate estimates that match observed temperatures from the recent decades.
Solar energy:
problem (lines 44-46) - this model can't account for all of the recent rise is atmosphere temp.
It looks like all three line references are built around the same concept.
OLD greenhouse predicted higher temps than what we've observed in recent decades.
Solar Energy by itself would only explain lower temps than what we've recently observed.
UPDATED greenhouse has calculated estimates that match recent observations.
A) "last few years"? I thought it was recent decades. I would keep this, but I'm hoping for something that's more like recent decades.
B) "how simple a framework it is"? No, we want "how closely it matches observations of recent decades".
C) "how much it's been revised"? No, we want "how closely it matches observations of recent decades".
D) "how closely its postulated warming mechanisms match the commonly known warming mechanisms"? No, we want "how closely it matches observations of recent decades".
E) YES, I guess. "A long-term match" can work with "recent decades". This ends up being a better match than (A), since "last few years" is way too narrow of a sample size. In discussing the solar energy model, the author is even saying "year to year, it looks decent .... but on a wider scale it can't explain this increase".
Hope this helps.
2 posts Page 1 of 1