LSAT 111 - Section 3 - Question 05

October 24, 2015

Parent: I had tried without success to get my young child to brush her teeth. I had hoped that she would imitate me, or that she would be persuaded by reason to brush her teeth. Then, I made a point of brushing her teeth for her immediately before reading her a story before her naps and at night. After several weeks, when I would pick up a storybook at these times, she began automatically to retrieve her toothbrush and brush her teeth herself.

Summary

A parent has tried to get a young child to brush their teeth. The parent hoped that the child would imitate them or that the child could be persuaded to do so, but both of these attempts failed to get the child to brush their teeth. Then, the parent started brushing the child’s teeth immediately before reading the child a nighttime story. After several weeks, whenever the parent picked up a storybook the child began to automatically brush their teeth on their own.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Young children adopt a behavior through habit and repetition.

A
Children are most effectively taught to do something by someone’s setting an example.

We don’t know whether children are most effectively taught through example. In the stimulus, the parent attempted to set an example for the child and the example was ineffective in teaching the child to brush their teeth.

B
Children more readily adopt a behavior through habit and repetition than through other means.

In the stimulus, the child learned to brush their teeth through habit and repetition as opposed to persuasion and an example set by their parent.

C
Children are too young to understand rational arguments for adopting a behavior.

We don’t know whether children do not understand arguments for rationale behavior. In the stimulus the parent states that persuasion did not work, but this could be for reasons other than the child’s lack of understanding.

D
Children often imitate the behavior of others rather than listening to reason.

We don’t know whether children often imitate the behavior of others. In the stimulus, the parent attempted to teach a child to brush their teeth by setting an example and the child failed to adopt the behavior.

E
Children ordinarily act contrary to their parents’ expectations in order to get more attention.

We don’t know whether children act a certain way in order to get more attention. In the stimulus the child did act contrary to the parent’s expectations, but this could be for reasons other than the child seeking more attention.


17 comments

LSAT 111 - Section 3 - Question 02

October 24, 2015

Raymond Burr played the role of lawyer Perry Mason on television. Burr’s death in 1993 prompted a prominent lawyer to say “Although not a lawyer, Mr. Burr strove for such authenticity that we feel as if we lost one of our own.” This comment from a prestigious attorney provides appalling evidence that, in the face of television, even some legal professionals are losing their ability to distinguish fiction from reality.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that even some legal professionals cannot tell fiction from reality because of television. As evidence, she provides a quote from an attorney following the death of an actor who played a lawyer on TV: “Although not a lawyer, Mr. Burr strove for such authenticity that we feel as if we lost one of our own.”

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author’s reasoning is flawed because her evidence contradicts her conclusion. She concludes that some lawyers can’t tell reality from fiction, but her example shows a lawyer who can. The lawyer she quotes says that the actor felt like “one of our own,” even though the actor was not a lawyer. This shows that the lawyer could in fact tell reality from fiction.

A
takes the views of one lawyer to represent the views of all lawyers

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “hasty generalization.” But the author concludes that some legal professionals can’t distinguish fiction from reality, not that all legal professionals can’t.

B
criticizes the lawyer rather than the lawyer’s statement

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “attacking the source,” but the author doesn’t make this mistake. She simply draws a conclusion about the lawyer based on the lawyer’s statement. She isn’t making an unwarranted attack on the lawyer.

C
presumes that the lawyer is qualified to evaluate the performance of an actor

The author never addresses whether the lawyer is qualified to evaluate the actor’s performance. She just argues that the lawyer thinks that the actor was a real lawyer. Whether or not he was a good actor is irrelevant.

D
focuses on a famous actor’s portrayal of a lawyer rather than on the usual way in which lawyers are portrayed on television

“The usual way in which lawyers are portrayed” on TV is irrelevant to the author’s argument. She’s just claiming that one lawyer’s comment about one actor’s portrayal shows that some legal professionals can’t distinguish reality from fiction.

E
ignores the part of the lawyer’s remark that indicates an awareness of the difference between reality and fiction

In his comment about the actor, the lawyer explicitly says, “Although not a lawyer...,” showing that the lawyer can distinguish reality from fiction. The author ignores this when she concludes that, based on this quote, some lawyers cannot distinguish reality from fiction.


23 comments

LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 25

July 15, 2015

Zachary: The term “fresco” refers to paint that has been applied to wet plaster. Once dried, a fresco indelibly preserves the paint that a painter has applied in this way. Unfortunately, additions known to have been made by later painters have obscured the original fresco work done by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel. Therefore, in order to restore Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel paintings to the appearance that Michelangelo intended them to have, everything except the original fresco work must be stripped away.

Stephen: But it was extremely common for painters of Michelangelo’s era to add painted details to their own fresco work after the frescos had dried.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to Zachary’s claim that everything except the original fresco work must be stripped away in order to restore the Sistine Chapel to the appearance Michelangelo intended, Stephen points out that it is common for painters of that era to add painted details to their own fresco work after the frescos dried.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Stephen counters the position held by Zachary. He does this by pointing out an assumption that underlies Zachary’s argument. If it was common for painters of Michelangelo’s era to add details to fresco works after they have dried, then it may be that Michelangelo himself made the additions to the fresco work in the Sistine Chapel. If this is true, then it may not be necessary to strip away everything but the original fresco work as Zachary claims.

A
calling into question an assumption on which Zachary’s conclusion depends
The assumption Zachary’s conclusion depends on is the assumption that the additions made to the fresco work were not done by Michelangelo himself.
B
challenging the definition of a key term in Zachary’s argument
Stephen does not challenge the definition of any key terms. He does not dispute what counts as fresco work, etc.
C
drawing a conclusion other than the one that Zachary reaches
Stephen does not draw any conclusion. He provides additional information meant to counter an assumption that Zachary’s argument relies on.
D
denying the truth of one of the stated premises of Zachary’s argument
Stephen does not deny whether any later painters may have obscured Michelangelo’s original fresco work. Instead, he suggests that it is possible some of this later work was done by Michelangelo himself.
E
demonstrating that Zachary’s conclusion is not consistent with the premises he uses to support it
Zachary’s argument is not self-contradictory. We cannot say that an argument is self-contradictory because the argument relies on an assumption.

50 comments

LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 24

July 15, 2015

A recent study of 6,403 people showed that those treated with the drug pravastatin, one of the effects of which is to reduce cholesterol, had about one-third fewer nonfatal heart attacks and one-third fewer deaths from coronary disease than did those not taking the drug. This result is consistent with other studies, which show that those who have heart disease often have higher than average cholesterol levels. This shows that lowering cholesterol levels reduces the risk of heart disease.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that lowering cholesterol reduces heart disease risk. She supports this with a study showing that people treated with pravastatin, which lowers cholesterol, had fewer heart attacks and heart disease deaths than people not taking the drug. She also notes that people with heart disease often have higher cholesterol levels.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking correlation for causation. The author shows that high cholesterol and heart disease are correlated and assumes that high cholesterol causes heart disease risk.

Also, she thinks that pravastatin further proves this causation, assuming that it reduces the risk of heart disease by lowering cholesterol. But the drug could reduce heart disease risk in another way, and simply lower cholesterol as a side effect.

A
neglects the possibility that pravastatin may have severe side effects
Pravastatin may have severe side effects, but this wouldn’t affect whether it reduces the risk of heart disease by lowering cholesterol.
B
fails to consider that pravastatin may reduce the risk of heart disease but not as a consequence of its lowering cholesterol levels
The author assumes that pravastatin reduces the risk of heart disease by lowering cholesterol. She uses this as evidence that lowering cholesterol reduces heart disease risk. But the drug could reduce the risk in another way, with cholesterol reduction just being a side effect.
C
relies on past findings, rather than drawing its principal conclusion from the data found in the specific study cited
The author does use past findings about the link between high cholesterol and heart disease. But she also uses the data found in the specific study on pravastatin.
D
draws a conclusion regarding the effects of lowering cholesterol levels on heart disease, when in fact the conclusion should focus on the relation between pravastatin and cholesterol levels
The author does draw a conclusion regarding the effects of lowering cholesterol on heart disease, but this isn’t a flaw in her argument. Just because the study on pravastatin was used as evidence doesn’t mean that her conclusion has to be about pravastatin.
E
fails to consider what percentage of the general population might be taking pravastatin
It doesn’t matter what percentage of the general population take pravastatin. We know that enough people take it to make up a sizable study on its effects, which is all that matters here.

32 comments

LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 23

July 15, 2015

148 comments

LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 20

July 15, 2015

Archaeologist: A skeleton of a North American mastodon that became extinct at the peak of the Ice Age was recently discovered. It contains a human-made projectile dissimilar to any found in that part of Eurasia closest to North America. Thus, since Eurasians did not settle in North America until shortly before the peak of the Ice Age, the first Eurasian settlers in North America probably came from a more distant part of Eurasia.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The archaeologist concludes the first Eurasian settlers in North America were not the closest. Why? Because a projectile found in a mastodon is dissimilar from any in the closest part of Eurasia, and the first Eurasians in North America settled shortly before the North American mastodon went extinct.

Notable Assumptions
The archaeologist assumes the projectile could not have been made by people from the closest part of Eurasia, either because it resembles a projectile from elsewhere in Eurasia or because people from the closest part of Eurasia were less likely to develop a new projectile for some other reason. She also assumes that only the first settlers to North America from Eurasia could have made the projectile, and that it penetrated the mastodon while it was alive.

A
The projectile found in the mastodon does not resemble any that were used in Eurasia before or during the Ice Age.
This eliminates the distinction between the closest part of Eurasia and the rest of Eurasia. If the projectile doesn’t resemble any from Eurasia, there’s no reason to assume its makers came from farther in Eurasia.
B
The people who occupied the Eurasian area closest to North America remained nomadic throughout the Ice Age.
This doesn’t mean those people left the area closest to North America. It’s possible people in Eurasia maintained well-defined geographic boundaries despite living nomadic lifestyles.
C
The skeleton of a bear from the same place and time as the mastodon skeleton contains a similar projectile.
The species of prey is not relevant to the argument. The subsequent extinction of the mastodon implies the settlers who killed it were some of the early settlers, and the existence of a bear with the same projectile doesn’t change that fact.
D
Other North American artifacts from the peak of the Ice Age are similar to ones from the same time found in more distant parts of Eurasia.
This provides another reason to believe the archaeologist’s conclusion, but does not address her argument. The presence of these other artifacts does not challenge any assumption made by the archaeologist to draw her conclusion.
E
Climatic conditions in North America just before the Ice Age were more conducive to human habitation than were those in the part of Eurasia closest to North America at that time.
This draws no distinction between the parts of Eurasia closer to and farther from North America that calls into question the archaeologist’s conclusion. It’s possible the parts of Eurasia farther from North America were equally inhospitable.

114 comments

LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 18

July 15, 2015

Philosopher: Scientists talk about the pursuit of truth, but, like most people, they are self-interested. Accordingly, the professional activities of most scientists are directed toward personal career enhancement, and only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth. Hence, the activities of the scientific community are largely directed toward enhancing the status of that community as a whole, and only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth.

Summarize Argument

The philosopher concludes that the scientific community’s activities are mainly about enhancing the community’s status, and only incidentally about pursuing truth. She supports this by saying that scientists are self-interested and most scientists’ professional activities are mainly about enhancing their personal careers, and only incidentally about pursuing truth.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is a cookie-cutter “part to whole” flaw, where the author takes a characteristic of one part or parts of a group and assumes it to be true of the group as a whole.

The philosopher takes a premise about most scientists— that they’re motivated by career-enhancement rather than truth— and uses it to draw a conclusion about the scientific community as a whole— that it too is motivated by status-enhancement rather than truth.

A
improperly infers that each and every scientist has a certain characteristic from the premise that most scientists have that characteristic

The philosopher does draw an improper inference from the premise that most scientists have a certain characteristic. But that inference is about the scientific community as a whole, not about “each and every scientist.”

B
improperly draws an inference about the scientific community as a whole from a premise about individual scientists

The philosopher improperly infers that the scientific community as a whole is motivated by status-enhancement rather than truth from a premise stating that most individual scientists are motivated by these things.

C
presumes, without giving justification, that the aim of personal career enhancement never advances the pursuit of truth

The author never assumes this. In fact, she allows for the possibility that the aim of career enhancement can advance the pursuit of truth by saying that scientific activities are directed “only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth.” She just claims that truth isn’t the goal.

D
illicitly takes advantage of an ambiguity in the meaning of “self-interested”

The author simply doesn’t make this mistake because she uses the term “self-interested” clearly in her premise about most scientists.

E
improperly draws an inference about a cause from premises about its effects

The philosopher doesn’t use causal reasoning in her argument; she never argues that one thing causes another. So (E) can’t describe her flaw.


37 comments

LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 17

July 15, 2015

Politician: All nations that place a high tax on income produce thereby a negative incentive for technological innovation, and all nations in which technological innovation is hampered inevitably fall behind in the international arms race. Those nations that, through historical accident or the foolishness of their political leadership, wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position are destined to lose their voice in world affairs. So if a nation wants to maintain its value system and way of life, it must not allow its highest tax bracket to exceed 30 percent of income.

Summarize Argument
The politician concludes that nations should tax income only at rates lower than 30 percent in order to maintain their value system and way of life. For support, he cites a general rule: a high income tax produces a negative incentive for innovation, which causes a country to fall behind in the arms race. This causes those nations to lose international power, a circumstance threatening their values and way of life.

Notable Assumptions
The politician makes many assumptions. He assumes an income tax bracket exceeding 30 percent is high enough to produce a negative incentive for innovation, that such an incentive always hampers innovation, that falling behind in the arms race means suffering a “strategically disadvantageous position,” and that a nation that loses power internationally is at risk of compromising its way of life and values.

A
The top level of taxation must reach 45 percent before taxation begins to deter inventors and industrialists from introducing new technologies and industries.
This disputes the assumption that any income tax bracket exceeding 30 percent is high enough to create a negative incentive for technological innovation.
B
Making a great deal of money is an insignificant factor in driving technological innovation.
This calls into question the general rule, critical to the politician’s argument, that a high income tax produces a negative incentive for innovation.
C
Falling behind in the international arms race does not necessarily lead to a strategically less advantageous position.
This refutes the assumption that nations who lag in the arms race must be strategically disadvantaged, and thus breaks a link in the politician’s chain of reasoning.
D
Those nations that lose influence in the world community do not necessarily suffer from a threat to their value system or way of life.
This disputes the assumption that nations that lose international power risk compromising their values or way of life, breaking a link in the politician’s chain of reasoning.
E
Allowing one’s country to lose its technological edge, especially as concerns weaponry, would be foolish rather than merely a historical accident.
This is consistent with the politician’s statements because he says that falling behind in the arms race will cause a country to lose its international power, even if it’s due to foolishness.

64 comments

LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 15

July 15, 2015

Geneticist: Ethicists have fears, many of them reasonable, about the prospect of cloning human beings, that is, producing exact genetic duplicates. But the horror-movie image of a wealthy person creating an army of exact duplicates is completely unrealistic. Clones must be raised and educated, a long-term process that could never produce adults identical to the original in terms of outlook, personality, or goals. More realistic is the possibility that wealthy individuals might use clones as living “organ banks.”

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The geneticist concludes that the “horror-movie image” of human cloning producing an army of duplicates for wealthy people is an unrealistic fear. To support this, she says that the long-term process of raising and educating clones would mean that adults produced by cloning would not have identical goals, outlook, or personality, so an “army of exact duplicates” could not be produced. Then, the geneticist raises another, more realistic, outcome: using clones as living “organ banks.”

Identify Argument Part
The claim in the question stem gives a reason that the fear of cloning producing an army of duplicates is an unrealistic fear.

A
It is a reason for dismissing the various fears raised by ethicists regarding the cloning of human beings.
The claim in the question stem is targeted specifically toward the fear of using cloning to create an army of duplicates, not the “various fears” of ethicists. Further, the argument does not dismiss “various fears,” just one specific fear.
B
It is evidence that genetic clones will never be produced successfully.
The argument does not claim that genetic duplicates will never be produced successfully; it just says that an army of exact duplicates is an unrealistic fear due to differences in outlook, personality, or goals.
C
It illustrates the claim that only wealthy people would be able to have genetic duplicates made of themselves.
The argument does not claim that only wealthy people would have this ability; rather, the argument just raises the possibility that wealthy people would do so.
D
It is evidence for the claim that wealthy people might use genetic duplicates of themselves as sources of compatible organs for transplantation.
The claim in the question stem is used to reject one possible fear, not as evidence to support another potential risk of human cloning.
E
It is a reason for discounting one possible fear concerning the cloning of human beings.
The claim in the question stem is a premise that supports the conclusion, which is that one possible fear of human cloning is unrealistic. The referenced text gives a reason to discount one possible fear, so this is the correct answer.

31 comments

LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 13

July 15, 2015

Mayor: The law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing against red lights serves no useful purpose. After all, in order to serve a useful purpose, a law must deter the kind of behavior it prohibits. But pedestrians who invariably violate this law are clearly not dissuaded by it; and those who comply with the law do not need it, since they would never cross against red lights even if there were no law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing against red lights.

Summarize Argument
The mayor concludes that the law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing against red lights is useless. He supports this with three premises:

(1) To be useful, a law must prevent the behavior that it bans.

(2) Pedestrians who always break this law are not dissuaded by it.

(3) Pedestrians who always follow the law don’t need it, because they wouldn’t cross on red even without the law.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “false dichotomy,” where the author falsely divides the world into two binary halves. In this case, the mayor divides the world into pedestrians who always break this law and pedestrians who never break it. He doesn’t consider that there might be other people who only sometimes break this law; how might the law affect them?

A
takes for granted that most automobile drivers will obey the law that prohibits them from driving through red lights
The mayor only addresses pedestrians and the law that prohibits them from crossing against red lights. Whether drivers obey the law that prohibits them from driving through red lights is irrelevant.
B
uses the word “law” in one sense in the premises and in another sense in the conclusion
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “equivocation.” The mayor doesn’t make this mistake because he uses the word “law” consistently throughout his argument.
C
ignores the possibility that a law might not serve a useful purpose even if it does deter the kind of behavior it prohibits
This may be true, but it isn’t a flaw in the mayor’s argument. He just claims that a law is only useful if it does deter the kind of behavior it prohibits.
D
fails to consider whether the law ever dissuades people who sometimes but not always cross against red lights
The mayor falsely divides the world into people who always cross against red lights and people who never cross against red lights. He doesn’t consider people who sometimes cross against red lights or how the law might affect them.
E
provides no evidence that crossing against red lights is more dangerous than crossing on green lights
It’s true that the major never provides evidence about the danger of crossing on red or green lights, but this isn’t a flaw because his argument is only about crossing against red lights. So (E) is irrelevant.

42 comments

123456789›»