LSAT 102 – Section 2 – Question 05

LSAT 102 - Section 2 - Question 05

June 1998

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:46

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 Q05
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Net Effect +NetEff
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
1%
152
B
93%
166
C
3%
156
D
2%
159
E
1%
156
135
143
151
 +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.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the “special ink” printing practice should be adopted to fight counterfeit, despite its expense. This is because the standard microprinting practice has serious problems, whereas the “special ink” practice would be more effective.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the practice that reduces counterfeit the most should be adopted, without consideration for the cost associated with that practice. The author also assumes that further technological advances won’t soon allow counterfeiters to evade the “special ink” practice, or even that counterfeiters don’t currently have the ability to do so.

A
The longer the interval between the time a counterfeit bill passes into circulation and the time the counterfeit is detected, the more difficult it is for law enforcement officials to apprehend the counterfeiter.
This seems to support the author’s argument. If current practices don’t identify counterfeit bills quickly enough, those bills proliferate. Hence why we need a practice that catches those bills immediately.
B
Sophisticated counterfeiters could produce currency printed with the special ink but cannot duplicate microprinted currency exactly.
Counterfeiters can perfectly replicate the “special ink” practice, which defeats the purpose of adopting it in the first place.
C
Further advances in photocopying technology will dramatically increase the level of detail that photocopies can reproduce.
If anything, this gives even more reason to switch from the microprinting practice. Photocopying technology will soon render microprinting useless as a defence against counterfeiters.
D
The largest quantities of counterfeit currency now entering circulation are produced by ordinary criminals who engage in counterfeiting only briefly.
Generally, people who create counterfeit bills aren’t committed specialists. This suggests that the “special ink” practice, given its expense, may be effective against counterfeit-makers.
E
It is very difficult to make accurate estimates of what the costs to society would be if large amounts of counterfeit currency circulated widely.
We don’t care about how counterfeit harms society. We need to weaken the idea that the “special ink” practice should be adopted as a defence against counterfeit.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 102 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply