June 2012 LSAT Section 2 Question 7

Mike: Tom did not tell me that I could use his computer, but it would not be wrong for me to use it anyway. Last week...

RC on April 7 at 02:55PM

Please assit on how to appeal an LSAT question

How do I appeal a question? How am I reasonably supposed know they (LSAC) are talking about the same Tom? I verifiy identity with biometric data. not assumptions. additionally if you're taking away logic games because blind people cannot see, how am i supposed to see that the "Tom" Mike initially mentions is the same "Tom" that used "Mary's" bike that LSAC is refering to without a visual or SPECIFIC referential language? Would it be reasonable to ask the proctor at the testing center if the LSAC is refering to the same Tom or a different Tom? would the proctor have an answer for that? ADDITIONALLY, it is NOWHERE in the rules at the start of the test indicating that if the same name is used in a passage it is to be assumed it is the same person. I appreciate clarification on this. Thank you

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on April 8 at 02:16PM

I don't think you need to worry about appealing a question like this. We are allowed to use common sense on the test, and this pretty clearly falls under that umbrella. The speakers says something about Tom in one sentence, and then says another thing about tom in the second sentence. Common sense, and general language use tells us that these are the same Tom. We certainly don't need biometric data to assume this: if I say "I'm going to bobs house later. Bob likes whiskey." A reasonable reader would take that to mean that I'm referring to the same bob.

The tricky part is that there are ways that the lsat does reward that level of nitpicking. However, this really only applies to ideas. When two ideas don't match (e.g. "it is expensive to research space travel" VS "we should not spend money on space travel", or "Early humans used tools" Vs "most advanced primates used tools") we should absolutely note that and attack it if we are dealing with a flawed argument. However here the only reasonable interpretation is that the author is expressing ideas about the same person.