PT159.S1.Q1

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

This would be relevant if the columnist's conclusion were "alcohol isn't bad in any way," but our author's specific conclusion is much more narrowly about alcohol's health risks.* On this test (and in Flaw questions in particular), maintaining a laser focus on the narrow scope of the author's exact conclusion is paramount.

(B) perhaps sounds good if you're squinting at it and read "fails to consider factors other than alcohol consumption that could have extended grandpa's life."

Or perhaps if you think the core focus is on the idea of lives being shortened, which would mean the conclusion is something like "my grandpa's life wasn't shortened."

Either way, the columnist's conclusion is about the dangers of drinking. It doesn't matter what the effects of things that aren't drinking are.

This answer choice exemplifies what does and doesn't matter on the LSAT. In my early days I think I would have liked (C) because it presents a reasonable retort to the columnist's general stance: "okay even if alcohol doesn't shorten one's life, it definitely worsens that life."

Put differently, (C) says "maybe what you're saying is true, but what about this other point?"

Our job isn't to serve up a relevant reply to the author's argument, though. It's to criticize the internal structure of that argument. To show why the author's specific conclusion doesn't follow from their premises.

The columnist's conclusion is about the length of a life – the argument is flawed because it fails to support that specific conclusion, not because it should have addressed a different (although on-topic!) point.

For (D) to be right, we need to be able to identify 1) a cause and 2) an effect in the stimulus, and then we need to show how the columnist thinks 1) the cause is actually 2) the effect.

So what's the cause and what's the effect? 1) Drinking and 2) health risks? Does the columnist think health risks cause drinking?

Is it 1) grandpa's drinking and 2) grandpa's long life? Does the author think grandpa drank a lot because of his long life?