LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 25

February 21, 2014

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.

6 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 24

February 21, 2014

Biologist: We know the following things about plant X. Specimens with fuzzy seeds always have long stems but never have white flowers. Specimens with curled leaves always have white flowers, and specimens with thorny seedpods always have curled leaves. A specimen of plant X in my garden has a long stem and curled leaves.

Summary

Specimens with fuzzy seeds have long stems.

Specimens with fuzzy seeds lack white flowers.

Specimens with curled leaves have white flowers.

Specimens with thorny seedpods have curled leaves.

The biologist’s plant has a long stem and curled leaves.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions

The biologist’s specimen has white flowers.

The biologist’s specimen lacks fuzzy seeds.

A
It has white flowers and thorny seedpods.

Unsupported. We know the specimen has white flowers, but we don’t know if it has thorny seedpods. Careful with negations—“no curled leaves” is a sufficient condition for “no thorny seedpods”, but that doesn’t mean “curled leaves” is a sufficient condition for “thorny seedpods”!

B
It has white flowers but lacks thorny seedpods.

Unsupported. We know the specimen has white flowers, but we don’t know if it has thorny seedpods. Careful with negations—“no curled leaves” is a sufficient condition for “no thorny seedpods”, but “curled leaves” tells us nothing about whether a specimen has thorny seedpods!

C
It has white flowers but lacks fuzzy seeds.

Very strongly supported. As shown below, by chaining the conditional claims, we see that “no curled leaves” is a necessary condition of both “fuzzy seeds” and “no white flowers”. Having curled leaves, then, is a sufficient condition for “white flowers” and “no fuzzy seeds”!

D
It has fuzzy seeds and thorny seedpods.

Anti-supported. Because the specimen has curled leaves, we know that it doesn’t have fuzzy seeds. We can’t determine whether it has thorny seedpods—“no curled leaves” is a sufficient condition for “no thorny seedpods”, but “curled leaves” tells us nothing about thorny seedpods!

E
It lacks both white flowers and fuzzy seeds.

Anti-supported. Because the specimen has curled leaves, we know that it has white flowers. It is true that it doesn’t have fuzzy seeds.


17 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 22

February 21, 2014

All highly successful salespersons are both well organized and self-motivated, characteristics absent from many salespersons who are not highly successful. Further, although only those who are highly successful are well known among their peers, no salespersons who are self-motivated regret their career choices.

Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:

Notable Valid Inferences
Well known people don’t regret their career choices.

If someone is not well organized, then they are not well known.

If someone is not self motivated, then they are not well known.

A
No self-motivated salespersons who are not highly successful are well organized.
This could be false. We don’t know anything about the subset of salespersons who are both self motivated and not highly successful. We can’t say whether or not they are well organized.
B
All salespersons who are well organized but not highly successful are self-motivated.
This could be false. We don’t know anything about the group of salespersons who are both well organized and not highly successful.
C
No salespersons who are well known among their peers regret their career choices.
This must be true. This answer can be rewritten as “Well Known→ /Regret.” As shown in the diagram, by chaining the conditional claims, we see that not regretting career choices is a necessary condition of being well known.
D
All salespersons who are not well organized regret their career choices.
This could be false. “/WO→R” is not a valid inference that shows up on the diagram. It could be the case that some salesperson is not well organized and also does not regret their career choice.
E
All salespersons who do not regret their career choices are highly successful.
This could be false. (E) is an incorrect reversal of the conditional relationship. We know that all people who are highly successful do not regret their career choices. (HS→/R). (E) says “/R→HS.” This incorrectly flips the sufficient and necessary conditions.

22 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 21

February 21, 2014

35 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 20

February 21, 2014

33 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 18

February 21, 2014

9 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 13

February 21, 2014

James: Many people claim that the voting public is unable to evaluate complex campaign issues. The television commercials for Reade in the national campaign, however, discuss complex campaign issues, and Reade is, at present, more popular than any other candidate.

Maria: Yes, Reade is the most popular. However, you are incorrect in claiming that this is because of Reade’s discussion of complex campaign issues. Reade simply strikes the voters as the most competent and trustworthy candidate.

Summarize Argument
Maria concludes that Reade isn’t ahead in the polls because of her discussion of complex campaign issues. Instead, Reade is ahead because voters think she’s the most competent and trustworthy candidate.

Notable Assumptions
Since Maria believes Reade is ahead because voters view her as the most competent and trustworthy candidate, Maria assumes competence and trustworthiness outweigh discussions of complex campaign issues for voters.

A
Reade’s opponents are discussing some of the same issues as Reade.
Even if they’re discussing these issues, voters may evaluate their stances to be inferior to Reade’s. We need something that tells us voters care less about such discussions than they care about competence and trustworthiness.
B
Reade’s opponents charge that Reade oversimplifies complex campaign issues.
We don’t care what Reade’s opponents think.
C
Polling data show that Reade’s present popularity will probably diminish over time.
We don’t care what will happen to Reade’s popularity later on. Maria is arguing about why she’s ahead right now.
D
Polling data show that most voters cannot identify Reade’s positions on campaign issues.
Since voters can’t identify Reade’s positions on campaign issues, they evidently haven’t been paying too much attention to her discussion of such issues. This means Reade must be ahead in the polls for some other reason, such as the one Maria gives.
E
Polling data show that some voters consider Reade competent and trustworthy.
“Some” could be mean 5%. This certainly wouldn’t put Reade ahead in the polls.

43 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 14

February 21, 2014

Some critics claim that the power of the media to impose opinions upon people concerning the important issues of the day is too great. But this is not true. It would be true if on major issues the media purveyed a range of opinion narrower than that found among consumers of media. The fact that this assumption is untrue shows the critics’ claim to be false.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that the media does not have excessive power to impose opinions, contrary to the view of some critics. His support is that, if the media purveyed an overly narrow range of opinion, that would be sufficient for it to impose opinions. But it doesn’t purvey an overly narrow range of opinion.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing sufficiency and necessity. The author argues that, because a sufficient condition (overly restricted opinion) isn’t true, its necessary condition (imposing opinions) couldn’t be true. This is flawed reasoning, because only the absence of a necessary condition (not a sufficient condition) can tell you that something can’t be true.
Consider the analogous argument: “If this food was an orange, it would be a fruit. It’s not an orange, so it can’t be a fruit.” This is fallacious, because even though being an orange is enough to make something a fruit, not all fruits are oranges.

A
The argument launches a personal attack against the critics rather than addressing the reasons they present in support of their claim.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of ad hominem. It isn’t applicable here, because there is no personal attack; the author provides a substantive argument.
B
The argument takes for granted that the media give at least as much exposure as they should to a wide range of opinion on the important issues of the day.
The author would be taking this for granted if he were to assume it was true without actually stating it. He explicitly says that it is true, so he isn’t taking it for granted.
C
The argument takes for granted that if the truth of one claim implies the truth of a second claim, then the falsity of the first claim proves the falsity of the second claim.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions (see diagram above). The author argues that a sufficient condition doesn’t apply, so its necessary condition doesn’t apply either. But that doesn’t follow logically.
D
The argument, instead of providing adequate reasons in support of its conclusion, makes an appeal to popular opinion.
The author’s conclusion is about people’s opinions, but he doesn’t appeal to popular opinion. That would be if he’d said that many people believe this conclusion is true, so therefore it must be true.
E
The argument takes for granted that it is desirable for a wide range of opinion on the important issues of the day to receive media exposure.
The author never says that it is desirable to have a wide range of opinion—he only says that there is in fact a wide range of opinion.

21 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 15

February 21, 2014

26 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 16

February 21, 2014

20 comments

123456789›»