Subscription pricing
j
PT Questions
justmekonen283
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
justmekonen283
Saturday, Aug 20 2022
Interested!
justmekonen283
Wednesday, Oct 19 2022
Premise(s):
1. Withholding information from someone who would find that information painful → Justified sometimes,
2. If the person would benefit from having the information, (even if finding out that information is painful) → Not justified in withholding information from that person.
3. It would be painful for Jason to learn that his supervisor is displeased with his work.
4. Knowing that his supervisor was displeased would enable Jason to improve his supervisor’s opinion of his work.
Conclusion: Jason’s colleague, Jane, should inform Jason that his supervisor is displeased with his work.
Analysis:
We need to connect how enabling his work to improve his supervisor’s opinion of his work will benefit him.
Answer choices:
A. Incorrect- This answer choice is incorrect because it doesn’t tell us if he had the information if it would benefit him. We know that this information will enable him to improve his work, but we have yet to establish that the information will benefit him. We still need to make this link.
B. Incorrect- If negated, this wouldn’t necessarily destroy the argument. If he did find out, we would have reason to assume that he wouldn’t need Jane to inform him. If he never found out, it still leaves a pretty wide assumption gap as to if the information told by Jane would benefit him.
C. Incorrect- Who cares if he will be grateful, we can’t assume that this qualifies as a benefit. Sure, emotionally he’s happy, but it may this gratitude may not benefit him in the practical sense. Moreover, this answer choice completely skips the logical gap between “enable Jason to improve his supervisor’s opinion of his work” with benefitting Jason.
D. Incorrect- This would destroy the argument because we then have reason to reject the argument’s conclusion. If he is going to achieve this end goal any way, the information may just be painful without adding any benefit.
E. Correct- Bingo! This matches our pre-phrase well. If negated, this answer choice would completely destroy the argument. We need to assume this in order to appropriately reach the conclusion that Jane should in fact tell Jason.
justmekonen283
Wednesday, Oct 19 2022
Premise(s):
1. The revolutionary party has been accused of having many overambitious goals.
2. The revolutionary party has been accused of having caused great suffering.
3. Most of the party’s goals were quickly achieved.
4. The party did not have enough power to cause the suffering the critics claim it caused.
Conclusion: The party was not overambitious and caused no suffering.
Analysis:
The historian rejects two criticisms of the revolutionary party: that they were overly ambitious and that they caused great suffering. In support of the historian’s argument, the historian puts forth two premises. One, most of the party’s goals were quickly achieved. Though we cannot definitively conclude from this that their goals were not overly ambitious, this premise seems reasonable enough to weaken the criticism. Second, the author says that the party did not have enough power to cause great suffering. This, however, is not great support for the conclusion that they caused no suffering at all. Perhaps the party had enough influence to cause small amounts of suffering to at least one person.
Answer choices:
A. Incorrect- The historian did not present two contradictory responses to the criticisms of overambitious goals and their influence as a party being too small to cause great suffering. A small organization can still have ambitious goals and achieve them, while maintaining limited influence over the culture. These are not related concepts at all.
B. Correct- Having small amounts of power is not enough to claim definitely that they cause no suffering at all. Perhaps it would behoove the historian to define great suffering and present evidence that shows how the revolutionary party’s actions do not fall under such a definition.
C. Incorrect- The historian does establish this through the premise that the revolutionary party achieved most of its goals quickly.
D. Incorrect- If they achieved most of their goals in a timely fashion the author has established a premise that those goals are not accurately classified as “overambitious”
E. Incorrect- The argument never states that all criticisms are false. The historian simply presents two criticisms and challenges those specifically. Thus, the historian does not need to consider other criticisms, as those would be out of scope.
justmekonen283
Wednesday, Oct 19 2022
Premise(s):
1. Councilor Miller → Oppose all proposals to raise taxes.
2. Councilor Philopoulos → Support increased funding for schools
3. In this area, increased funding for schools is funded entirely by property taxes.
Conclusion: Miller will oppose and Philopoulos will support Councilor Callari’s proposal to increase school funding by raising property taxes.
Analysis:
The author failed to establish that Councilor Philopoulos was aware that this area is funded entirely by property taxes. If this is not the case, then we would have reason to doubt whether Councilor Philopoulos would support such a proposal.
Answer choices:
A. Incorrect-
i. Tara finds Ms. Burke’s English class easier than Mr. Kent’s English class.
ii. Ms. Burke’s class: paper assignments, but no exams
iii. Mr. Kent’s class: no paper assignments, but has exams
_
Conclusion: Tara finds it easier to write a paper than to take an exam.
This argument is flawed in multiple ways. The major flaw would be that the author assumes that because Tara finds one class easier than the other (and the preferred class has a feature that the other lacks) that Tara in general finds such a feature easier in general than the other. It could be that Tara just finds Mr. Kent’s exams particularly difficult, but that in general, Tara finds it easier to take exams than to write a paper. Additionally, this doesn’t mirror our argument because the conclusion should show two different people choosing opposite positions on an issue, even though there is enough support to determine they disagree about the same thing (e.g., perhaps Con. Philopoulos does not know the funding would come from property taxes, in which case, he might choose to oppose the proposal.)
B. Correct-
i. Jane refuses to live downtown.
ii. Denise wants to rent a penthouse apartment.
Conclusion: Jane will not rent one of the penthouse apartments in the Joliet Towers complex downtown, but Denise will rent one of those apartments.
Similarly to the stimulus, this answer choice fallaciously assumes that both positions are addressing the same issue, even though it has not been established. Similarly to the stimulus, this answer choices conclusion is correct to assume that Jane will refuse the apartment located downtown. However, we cannot conclude that Denise will rent one of those penthouse apartments (just like we cannot conclude that Councilor Philopoulos will support the bill). Perhaps there are other reasons Denise will reject this particular apartment, even though she wants to rent one.
C. Incorrect-
i. Mayor Watson promised never to support an increase in public transportation fares in Johnsonville.
_
Conclusion: It follows that Mayor Watson will oppose the new proposal to improve public transportation in Johnsonville by doubling public transportation fares.
This argument is somewhat reasonable. Although we cannot conclude that something will certainly happen based on a promise. Does not mirror the two people, opposing, what is fallaciously assumed to be, the same issue.
D. Incorrect-
i. Ed dislikes any food that is extremely sweet.
ii. Bill likes most extremely sweet food.
_
Conclusion: Ed will dislike these extremely sweet brownies, but Bill will probably like them
Valid argument; not a match.
E. Incorrect-
i. In the past, the citizens of Lake County have voted down every proposal to increase property taxes.
Conclusion: Citizens of Lake County will probably vote down the new proposed increase in property taxes.
Valid argument; not a match.
justmekonen283
Tuesday, Oct 18 2022
Premise(s):
1. Historians purport to discover the patterns inherent in the course of events.
2. Critic’s POV: Historians don’t find patterns inherent in the course of events.
3. Historian’s actually impose such patterns by choosing what to include in and ex-clude from their historical narratives.
Conclusion: Properly understood, histories reveal more about the presuppositions underlying different historians’ attempts to understand what happened than about what actually happened.
Analysis:
The critic argues that histories reveal more about the preconceptions of the historians'’ attempts to understand historical events, than what actually happened in a historical event. The critic fails to establish that a history cannot reflect an accurate retelling of events if they are told in such a way that is rooted in a historians' presuppositions. Perhaps those preconceptions are that we don’t understand different historical or cultural nuances thoroughly, and so we have to approach such events in as most an objective way as possible.
Answer choices:
A. Incorrect- Whether the historians have different preconceptions, or the same ones do not harm or help the argument in any way. In both cases, the author could argue that such preconceptions skew the historical accuracy of historical narratives.
B. Incorrect- Even if we negated this answer choice to mean: “There is a way to determine with certainty whether a pattern described by a historian is actually present in and not merely imposed upon the events,” the critic’s argument would not fall apart. Because whether we can distinguish the historians’ preconceptions from fact, or not, does not take away from the point that a historical narrative could reveal more about the historian’s preconceptions, as opposed to an accurate re-telling of the historical events themselves. Perhaps a book features two lines of facts and then hundreds of pages of opinions. Just because we have the ability to discern between the facts from the opinions, does not mean that the book does not reveal more about the historical preconceptions of the historian.
C. Incorrect- Even if we negated this to mean: “Historians do not presuppose that certain his-torical patterns accurately describe many different eras,” the critics argument would not suffer greatly. The historians may have different presuppositions for different eras, and the critic may still be correct or incorrect in claiming that those historical narratives will reveal more about those presuppositions than the pattern of the historical events themselves.
D. Incorrect- Irrelevant. Who cares if they’re aware or unaware of their presuppositions. It may be that historians can become aware or are already aware of their bias. Even so, such historians may choose or may necessarily include those preconceived notions into their narratives, and therefore, keep the critics argument intact.
E. Correct- If this were not true, then the argument would fall apart. If the pattern a historian imposes upon events is not affected by that historian’s presuppositions, then we would have reason to dispute the critics conclusion that such narratives reveal more about the historians presuppositions than the historical events themselves. If this answer choice were false, the critic would have no support for his claim
justmekonen283
Tuesday, Oct 18 2022
Premise(s):
1. Ludwig van Beethoven began losing his hearing when he was 30.
2. His loss of hearing continued gradually.
3. His loss of hearing was not complete until late in his life.
4. It may seem that complete hearing loss would be a severe liability for a composer
5. However, in Beethoven’s case, his complete hearing loss gave his later music a wonderfully introspective quality that his earlier music lacked.
Conclusion: NONE
Analysis: Look for answer choices that can be reasonably be inferred based on the information from the stimulus. Try to solve as a MUST BE TRUE question type.
Answer choices:
A. Incorrect- We don’t know the difficulty or ease Beethoven experienced while composing his works. All we know is that the musicologist identifies a quality to his later music that they claim is not identifiable in the earlier works.
B. Incorrect- The musicologist never claims that the earlier music is of lesser quality, nor that the later music demonstrates better quality. What the musicologist posits, is that the later music features an introspective quality that is distinct from Beethoven’s earlier works. That is, his later works reflect a different quality not featured in his earlier works, not necessarily better or worse.
C. Incorrect- We don’t know how introspective Beethoven, himself, was. What we do know is that his later music features an introspective quality that his earlier works did not have. There is a clear distinction between the artist and the art. Perhaps the hearing loss illuminated a way for Beethoven to express his introspective quality in a way he didn’t know how to before. We cannot gather based on the evidence presented that Beethoven, himself, did not possess this quality beforehand.
D. Incorrect- We know that the musicologist claims that his complete hearing loss gave his later music a wonderfully introspective quality. However, we are not given any information as to what his music sounded before his complete hearing loss, other than it did not feature this wonderfully introspective quality. Therefore, we can-not claim that the music became gradually more introspective as he grew older. We don’t know if it was a gradual process or a stark contrast from the moment before his complete hearing loss to after.
E. Correct- Yes! We know that the musicologist believes that the complete hearing loss gave his later music a wonderfully introspective quality that his earlier music lacked. Therefore, we can reasonably assume that without this event, his music would have sounded differently.
justmekonen283
Tuesday, Oct 18 2022
Premise(s):
1. Education Critics’ Contention: The use of calculators in mathematics classes will undermine students’ knowledge of the rationale underlying calculational procedures.
2. Every new information-handling technology has produced virtually the same accusation.
3. For example, some Greek philosophers believed that the advent of written language would erode people’s capacity to remember information and speak extemporaneously.
Conclusion: The Education Critics’ Contention is clearly false.
Analysis:
The argument claims that the education critics’ contention (on the negative influence calculators will have on a students’ knowledge on the actual rationale in calculational procedures) is false, by establishing an “analogous case”. The analogous example used, establishes that historically, some Greek philosophers made a similar prediction on the negative influence the invention of writing would have on speech and memory recall.
There is an obvious discrepancy between knowledge of the rationale underlying a calculational procedure versus remembering information and speaking extemporaneously. The former refers to the ability to solve something, whereas the latter refers to the ability to recall information and the ability to speak without preparation. Does the information provided by the stimulus state that the Greek critics claimed that the advent of writing would undermine the speaker’s underlying rationale for the spoken word? NO. Therefore, we have reason to suspect that such an example is not analogous to our argument.
Answer choices:
A. Correct- Matches our analysis to a T. The argument never established how the critiques on the advent on writing are analogous to the critiques made by educational critics. The consequences both parties claim will happen in their respective cases are different enough to suspect that they’re not analogous to each other.
B. Incorrect- The conclusion is not based on an ambiguous definition of knowledge. For that to have been the case, the author of the argument would have had to use the term knowledge more than one time and would have had to use the term with multiple meanings. If you chose this answer, it is possible that you resolved a clear link that the author of the stimulus failed to establish. That being, that the knowledge of the rationale underlying calculational procedures is similar enough, or the same as, a person’s capacity to remember information and speak without preparation. There’s a subtle, but clear difference between the two.
C. Incorrect- The author never ignores the possibility that the advantages offered by new information-handling technologies outweigh the disadvantages. In fact, the author’s argument is attacking the critics of those who oppose new-information handling technologies. This may have been used to support his argument, but alas, was never made.
D. Incorrect- The argument never mistakenly reverses any conditional statements in this argu-ment. What the author fails to do is establish the relevancy of his analogy.
E. Incorrect- The author never suggests that the critics are false because it contradicts other beliefs that such critics hold. What the author does is show that these critiques have been made throughout the years, and they have been wrong in the past.
justmekonen283
Tuesday, Oct 18 2022
Premise(s):
1. Widely Accepted: politics cannot exist without debate about political issues
2. Widely Accepted: AND because self-governance flourishes when citizens are allowed to express their feelings verbally.
3. Because of these two reasons, it is widely accepted that a democratically gov-erned society should refrain from interfering in individual citizens’ speech.
4. Clothing and grooming of citizens are clearly a venue of self-expression.
5. Clothing and grooming of citizens can also serve to make a variety of political statements without using words.
Conclusion: A democratically governed society should also refrain from exercising strict control over the clothing and grooming of its citizens.
Analysis:
Democratic politics exist → Debate about political issues
Citizens are allowed to express their feelings verbally → Self-governance flourishes
(Widely Accepted Conclusion Based on Two Widely Accepted Premises): A democratically governed society should refrain from interfering in individual citizens'’ speech.
The politician’s conclusion applies this widely accepted principle to what it considers a related issue: clothing and grooming of citizens. The politician claims that this principle applies to clothing and grooming of citizens because it falls under the necessary condition for the existence of democratic politics and the sufficient condition for a flourishing self-governing political system.
Answer choices:
A. Incorrect- The politician never argued that if democratically governed societies did not refrain from exercising strict control over the clothing and grooming of its citizens that it would consequently lead to something outrageous. The politician only agued that they should also apply the widely accepted principle to these cases, for such cases fall under other widely accepted principles.
B. Incorrect- The politician’s argument never rested on empirical evidence. The argument rested on widely accepted principles.
C. Incorrect- The politician never claims that the conclusion is widely accepted. The politician uses widely accepted principles and argues that this conclusion falls under such principles.
D. Correct- Bingo! The conclusion is reached by using premises and a sub-conclusion that is widely accepted.
E. Incorrect- The main conclusion does not argue for what democratically governed societies actually do. The main conclusion puts forth a recommendation on what democratically governed societies should do. The argument never states how democratically governed societies actually work.
justmekonen283
Monday, Oct 17 2022
Premise(s):
1. Contemporary psychological novels have been failures.
2. Contemporary action novels lack any social significance.
3. Contemporary romance novels are stale and formulaic.
Conclusion: The contemporary novel is incapable of making important new contributions.
Analysis:
The critic fallaciously assumes that because something has failed to happen in the past that it will never be capable of achieving such an aim. Moreover, the critic only presented three genres of contemporary novels, such a limited number of examples leaves open the possibility that there are other genres of contemporary novels who successfully do make important contributions.
Answer choices:
A. Incorrect- This answer choice is concluding that it will always be impossible for any government to improve its nation’s economy based on the historical precedent that no government has been able to regulate either employment or inflation very closely.
B. Incorrect- This answer choice does not mirror our stimulus as it makes a future prediction based on the recent past and present. Second, the conclusion is written in the affirmative: “it is only a matter of time before we invent…”. Whereas the stimulus’ conclusion predicts that something will never be capable of making important new contributions.
C. Incorrect- This answer choice states that something was the case in the past: “The essayist Macaulay was as widely read in his time as Dickens,” but then goes on to explain that since that time his writings have been neglected by readers. This does not mirror the stimulus’ premise which is based on something that was never the case. The answer choice concludes based on this historical example that popular writers of the present will “likely be forgotten in the future.” This does not mirror the stimulus, for it makes a probabilistic conclusion, while the stimulus’ conclusion is certain.
D. Incorrect- This answer choice states that because “the politician has not made any proposals for dealing with the problem of unemployment” the politician must not think the problem is important. This does not mirror the stimulus because its conclusion makes an erroneous jump to what the politician must believe, instead of making a prediction that such proposals will never be made.
E. Correct- This answer choice is completely unrelated to the stimulus. The conclusion makes an erroneous assessment that small corporations cannot compete at the international level, even though the concept of small corporations was not mentioned in the stimulus. Furthermore, there is no “never happened in the past so it will never happen in the future” connection that we need in our answer choice.
justmekonen283
Monday, Oct 17 2022
Premise(s):
1. H.G Well’s great dramatic novel The Time Machine is classified as science fiction simply because it takes place in the future.
2. Well’s book possesses something that great dramatic novels have, compelling characters that enable the reader to become absorbed in their plight and not just in the author’s representation of the future of technology.
3. Science fiction generally lacks compelling characters that enable the reader to be-come absorbed in their plight and not just in the author’s representation of the future of technology.
Conclusion: The classification of The Time Machine as a science fiction novel is inappropriate.
Analysis:
1. The author is arguing that the book must fall under the great dramatic novel category because the novel contains features usually found in the great dramatic novel category and generally not found in the science fiction category.
2. The author of the stimulus is assuming that a book cannot fall under both categories. We need an answer choice that blocks the possibility of the book falling under both categories.
Answer Choices
A. Incorrect - A novel that contains compelling characters→ You’re a great dramatic novel.
This answer choice fails to preclude this novel from also falling under the science fiction classification.
B. Incorrect- Novel → Always possible to clearly classify it into distinct genres
This answer choice simply states that novels can be classified under distinct genres, it does not, however, preclude novels from falling under several genres. This does not help us logically deduce that this novel must be classified as a great dramatic novel and not a science fiction novel.
C. Incorrect- A work of art can achieve greatness → Contains compelling characters.
First, this answer choice is terrible because it discusses works of art in general. We are exclusively concerned with the distinct classification of novels. Second, this answer choice is terrible because the stimulus already states that Wells’ novel is great and that it contains compelling characters. We want an answer choice that suggests having these features:
i. Make the novel a great dramatic novel
ii. And that these features preclude it from being a science fiction novel.
D. Incorrect- This answer choice is terrible because it proves nothing at all. It states that the most important determining factor of a novel’s quality is the strength of its characters. This is useless because we already know that the novel is great from the stimulus. Moreover, we are trying to logically prove that because the novel neatly falls under the great dramatic novels genre, that it cannot also fall under the science fiction novel. There is no way to logically deduce that with this answer choice.
E. Correct- If you’re a dramatic novel → You cannot both be great & belong to the gen-re of science fiction
This is a perfect answer choice to logically prove the author’s argument. The stimulus states as fact that the novel is a great dramatic novel. With this conditional statement, one can logically deduce that since it is a great dramatic novel, it cannot also be a science fiction novel.
justmekonen283
Monday, Oct 17 2022
Analysis: Shawn recommends a standard for regulatory limits on pollution emissions from power plants based on their long-term average level. Levin rebuttals by stating that
1. The peak levels of emissions are important data to consider as they pose a danger to the environment
2. By presenting an analogy which shows such a measurement might skew data or not be useful for the measurement as it would include data that does not include any pollution output (e.g., “time spent in traffic or stoplights, rather than their peak speed).
Vehicle’s Speed = Power Plants’ Pollution Emissions
Stoplights/Traffic = Stopped Power Plant
(Not Moving/No Speed) = (No Pollution Emissions)
Answer choices:
A. Incorrect-There was no mention of monitoring in either argument.
B. Incorrect- The author’s analogy refers to the speed of a vehicle. When a vehicle is at stoplight it is not moving. Therefore, this analogy is NOT referring to operation at peak efficiency.
“Efficiency refers to the peak level of performance that uses the least amount of inputs to achieve the highest amount of output. Efficiency requires re-ducing the number of unnecessary resources used to produce a given output, in-cluding personal time and energy.”( -- https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/efficiency.asp)
Efficiency is NOT to be confused with peak emission levels.
C. Incorrect- The analogy referred to the car’s speed being stopped, not slowed down.
D. Correct- If Levin is comparing Shawn’s recommendation for the regulatory limits on a power plant’s pollution emission levels to the highway speed limit based on a vehicle's average speed, then it would stand to follow that the traffic and stoplight examples were references to the car’s speed at a halt. Thus, the analogy is being compared to time that a power plant emits no pollutants at all.
E. Incorrect- This is the opposite of what the analogy is trying to demonstrate. Levin does state that the peak emissions levels data are important because they pose dangers. How-ever, the analogy itself is employed to attack Shawn’s recommendation for setting the regulatory limits based on the long-term average, because that average will potentially include data of the emissions levels when the power plant is not emitting any pollution. This could markedly skew the data.
justmekonen283
Tuesday, Oct 11 2022
Question 26:
Another reason we can reasonably assume answer choice D to be supported by the passage is in the first paragraph.
"While most legal commentators agree that copyright has generally proven to be an effective means of preventing this exploitation, some contend that patent protection IS ALSO NEEDED to combat copycatting."
justmekonen283
Tuesday, May 10 2022
Interested!
justmekonen283
Sunday, Dec 06 2020
I would be interested. I plan on taking the April LSAT as well.
justmekonen283
Sunday, May 01 2022
Interested
Hi, I would be interested in having an accountability buddy. I would like to strive for 170s as I want to attend a T14 school. I plan on taking the April LSAT as well as a summer exam July/August as well. I will be focusing primarily on taking practice tests and doing blind reviews starting the week of February 28th.