LSAT 102 – Section 2 – Question 04

LSAT 102 - Section 2 - Question 04

June 1998

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 2:01

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT102 S2 Q04	+LR	Strengthen +Streng Net Effect +NetEff Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 83% 167 B 4% 159 C 4% 159 D 1% 161 E 8% 158	142 151 159	+Medium	148.204 +SubsectionMedium

Advances in photocopying technology allow criminals with no printing expertise to counterfeit paper currency. One standard anticounterfeiting technique, microprinting, prints paper currency with tiny designs that cannot be photocopied distinctly. Although counterfeits of microprinted currency can be detected easily by experts, such counterfeits often circulate widely before being detected. An alternative, though more costly, printing technique would print currency with a special ink. Currency printed with the ink would change color depending on how ordinary light strikes it, whereas photocopied counterfeits of such currency would not. Because this technique would allow anyone to detect photocopied counterfeit currency easily, it should be adopted instead of microprinting, despite the expense.

When an anticounterfeiting technique depends on the detection of counterfeits by experts, the cost of inspection by experts adds significantly to the cost to society of that technique.

While the microprinting technique is cheaper when creating bills, it requires expert inspection. Expert inspection is costly, so microprinting might not in fact be cheaper overall. This strengthens the case for the special ink technique.

For any anticounterfeiting technique to be effective, the existence of anticounterfeiting techniques should be widely broadcast, but the method by which counterfeits are detected should be kept secret.

This applies to both techniques in question. We need to strengthen the case for special ink.

The process of microprinting paper currency involves fewer steps than does the printing of paper currency with the special ink.

This probably reinforces the notion that microprinting is cheaper. We’re looking to strengthen the case for special ink.

Before photocopying technology existed, most counterfeits of paper currency were accomplished by master engravers.

We don’t care about what happened before photocopying. We’re interested in microprinting and special ink.

Many criminals do not have access to the advanced photocopiers that are needed to produce counterfeits of microprinted paper currency that cashiers will accept as real.

This strengthens the case for microprinting. We’re trying to strengthen the case for special ink.

LSAT 102 – Section 2 – Question 04

LSAT 102 - Section 2 - Question 04

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 102 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel