LSAT 119 – Section 4 – Question 25

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 25

June 2005

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

Target time: 0:49

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
PT119 S4 Q25
+LR
+Exp
Argument part +AP
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
2%
153
B
80%
163
C
7%
156
D
9%
159
E
2%
153
139
149
159
 +Medium 145.1 +SubsectionEasier

Unquestionably, inventors of useful devices deserve credit for their ingenuity, but the engineers who help develop an invention get too little recognition. Although inventors sometimes serve as their own engineers, more often, engineers must translate an inventor’s insight into something workable and useful. Therefore, engineers also deserve credit for their contribution.

Summarize Argument
In addition to inventors, engineers deserve credit for their contribution to inventions. They don’t usually get enough recognition, even though engineers are tasked with turning an inventor’s insight into something tangible and useful.

Identify Argument Part
This part of the argument is a small concession. The argument does not apply in every case because sometimes inventors act as their own engineers, so they do get the credit they deserve. It qualifies the scope of the claim, showing that it applies in most, but not all, cases.

A
It separates the practical and theoretical aspects of the argument.
This statement does not separate the practical and theoretical, it just explains some cases where the argument does not apply. The argument does not really have practical/theoretical aspects to separate.
B
It indicates that the problem identified in the argument does not arise in every instance.
This accurately describes how this statement functions. It explains the situations in which the problem of recognition does not apply: when inventors serve as their own engineers.
C
It supports an earlier statement regarding what is at issue in the argument.
It doesn’t support what is at issue - or support anything. Instead, it shows exceptions to the issue.
D
It concedes that a distinction on which the argument relies is unclear.
While there is a concession occurring, it is not saying that the distinction between inventor and engineer is unclear. The distinction is clear, there are just cases where one individual acts as both.
E
It introduces an alternative solution to the problem the argument is addressing.
The author is not suggesting that inventors be their own engineers, they are suggesting that they should get the credit that is due to them.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 119 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply