Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 18
April 21, 2012
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author says advice against being judgmental is wise. This is because being judgmental is assessing someone before trying to understand. This argument identifies an exception to a claim. The context highlights claim that people should never criticize others for assessing each other negatively. The authors argument says this is not true in cases where one is being judgmental.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the principle the author thinks is wise: “there is wisdom behind the injunction against being judgmental.”
A
To be judgmental is to assess someone negatively prior to making a serious effort at understanding.
This is support for why advice against being judgmental is wise. It shows why being judgmental is wrong.
B
It is absurd to criticize anyone for being critical.
This is the claim provided in the context - to which the author identifies an exception.
C
There is some plausibility to the claim that it is absurd to criticize anyone for being critical.
This inaccurately restates the context. The author says there is “little” plausibility, not “some”.
D
Not all assessments people make of one another will be positive.
This is also part of the context. It is a concession point before the author provides an argument.
E
There is wisdom behind the injunction against being judgmental.
This restates the conclusion verbatim. This is what the author is ultimately arguing - the advice to avoid judging is wise.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 16
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 15
April 21, 2012
Summary
Zack’s has free poetry readings almost every Wednesday.
Zack’s has half-priced coffee all day on every day that there is a poetry reading.
Zack’s has half-priced coffee all day on every day that there is a poetry reading.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
Zack’s has half-priced coffee on at least most Wednesdays.
If Zack’s doesn’t have half-priced coffee on a certain day, then they also don’t have a poetry reading that day.
If Zack’s doesn’t have half-priced coffee on a certain day, then they also don’t have a poetry reading that day.
A
Wednesday is the most common day on which Zack’s offers half-priced coffee all day.
Unsupported. Most Wednesdays have half-priced coffee, but this doesn’t mean that most half-priced coffee days are Wednesdays. In other words, although Zack’s has half-priced coffee most Wednesdays, they might have half-priced coffee on other days too.
B
Most free poetry readings given at Zack’s are scheduled for Wednesdays.
Unsupported. Most Wednesdays have a free poetry reading, but this doesn’t mean that most readings happen on Wednesdays. In other words, although Zack’s has free poetry readings almost every Wednesday, they could have readings on other days too.
C
Free poetry readings are scheduled on almost every day that Zack’s offers half-priced coffee all day.
Unsupported. All poetry reading days have half-priced coffee, but this doesn’t mean that most half-priced coffee days have poetry readings. It’s possible that most half-priced coffee days happen on days without a reading.
D
Zack’s offers half-priced coffee all day on most if not all Wednesdays.
Very strongly supported. On most Wednesdays, Zack’s has free readings. On all reading days, they have half-priced coffee. So on most Wednesdays, they have half-priced coffee. “Most” can include “all.” Either way, they could have half-priced coffee on Wednesdays without readings.
E
On some Wednesdays Zack’s does not offer half-priced coffee all day.
Unsupported. Even if there’s not a reading every Wednesday, there might still be half-priced coffee every Wednesday. “Poetry reading” is merely sufficient for “half-priced coffee.” So not having a reading tells us nothing about whether there will be half-priced coffee.
Note: The usage of "almost every Wednesday" here is ambiguous. It's unclear whether it's meant to include or exclude every Wednesday. I can see a reasonable disagreement. But the point is that it doesn't matter. The LSAT does not trade on the kind of ambiguity that gives rise to reasonable disagreements. See, if you want to interpret inclusive, then that's how the video lesson does it too and you get to the right answer choice. By default, you are taught in the Core Curriculum to interpret "most" inclusively.
Now what if you want to interpret exclusive? Okay, let's do it. You'll see that this won't change anything about the right or wrong answers.
Exclusive interpretation of "almost every Wednesday is a free poetry reading day" means that it does NOT include every Wednesday. In other words, on some Wednesdays there are no free poetry readings. Okay, so let's translate this to:
W -(e)m-> free poetry reading -> 1/2$ coffee
"-(e)m->" means "exclusive most" as opposed to
our standard "-m->" which means "inclusive most"
Therefore, what's the relationship between Wednesday and 1/2$ coffee?
W -(e)m-> 1/2$ coffee or
W -m-> 1/2$ coffee
I mean, we know most Wednesdays are 1/2$ coffee days. Really the question is whether we can say for sure that there are Wednesdays on which Zack's does not offer 1/2$ coffee. You might say, well, we do have some Wednesdays where there are no free poetry readings. Okay. And on those days... what's the price of coffee?
We don't know. They could well be 1/2$ coffee for some other reason. Because it could well be that Zack's is just crazy about offering 1/2$ coffee all day every day. Because Zack is just a great guy.
Even under the exclusive most interpretation, what (D) says still Must Be True. Zack's offers 1/2$ coffee all day on most Wednesdays, possibly all Wednesdays. Indeed it must be true that it's possible. Answer (E) is still at best a Could Be True. We just don't know that there are some Wednesdays on which coffee is more than 1/2$.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 14
April 21, 2012
A
draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion
(A) describes circular reasoning. The conclusion does not restate one of the premises. The conclusion is a recommendation not to acquire expensive new tastes; none of the premises expresses this same idea.
B
takes for granted that the acquisition of expensive tastes will lead to financial irresponsibility
The author does not assume that acquiring expensive tastes will lead to irresponsibility. Rather, the tastes will act as a “drain” on one’s purse. This just means the tastes will cost a lot; the tastes do not have to lead to irresponsibility.
C
uses the inherently vague term “sensations” without providing a definition of that term
Failure to define a term is not a flaw. We can simply use the dictionary definition of “sensations” — feelings or perceptions.
D
mistakes a cause of acquisition of expensive tastes for an effect of acquisition of such tastes
The argument’s flaw isn’t related to a mistaken causal inference. The premises describe certain effects of acquiring expensive new tastes. But the author never confuses these for what causes people to acquire these tastes.
E
rejects trying to achieve a goal because of the cost of achieving it, without considering the benefits of achieving it
The author rejects trying to acquire expensive new tastes because of certain costs to doing so, without considering the benefits from acquiring those tastes. Maybe the benefits could outweigh the costs, which would suggest acquiring the tastes is something one should do.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 13
April 21, 2012
"Surprising" Phenomenon
People aged 46-55 spend the most money of any age group, but advertisements are aimed almost exclusively at the 25-under group.
Objective
Advertisers have to have some rationale behind their seemingly irrational advertising strategies. The right answer will likely be a hypothesis that explains a difference in consumer behavior between the 25-under and 46-55 age groups that suggests advertising to the 25-under group is more effective.
A
The expense of television advertising slots makes it crucial for companies to target people who are most likely to purchase their products.
If the 46-55 age group spends more money than any other group, aren’t they the most likely to purchase any given product? We would need to know that the products being advertised are intended for the 25-under group, but the stimulus doesn’t tell us that.
B
Advertising slots during news programs almost always cost far less than advertising slots during popular sitcoms whose leading characters are young adults.
Presumably the sitcom slots are more expensive because they appeal to a younger audience. But why do advertisers see an advertising slot as valuable because 25-unders are likely to see it, anyway? This answer doesn’t tell us.
C
When television executives decide which shows to renew, they do so primarily in terms of the shows’ ratings among people aged 25 and under.
The advertisers don’t care which shows are renewed. They care how old the audience who sees their advertisement is, but this answer choice doesn’t explain why that is.
D
Those who make decisions about television advertising believe that people older than 25 almost never change their buying habits.
Advertisements are only effective for audiences 25 and younger, hence why advertisers target them in ads. This perfectly explains the surprise in the stimulus.
E
When companies advertise consumer products in print media, they focus primarily on people aged 26 and over.
We don’t care about print media. We need to know why advertisers almost exclusively target a group that isn’t statistically the most likely to spend money.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 12
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 11
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 10
April 21, 2012
Summary
Fax machines are only useful with other fax machines. The proliferation of incompatible formats from manufacturer to manufacturer severely limits the usefulness of fax machines. This occurred until manufacturers standardized a common format for their fax machines.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
In some industries it is better for competitors to cooperate with each other in some circumstances.
A
Whenever machines are dependent on other machines of the same type, competition among manufacturers is damaging to the industry.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is limited to fax machines as an example. We don’t know anything about machines in any other industry.
B
In some industries it is in the interest of competitors to cooperate to some extent with one another.
This answer is strongly supported. If fax machines must work with other fax machines, then it is in the interest of different fax machine manufacturers to cooperate to some extent.
C
The more competitors there are in a high-tech industry, the more they will have to cooperate in determining the basic design of their product.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is limited to the fax industry, and we have no information in the stimulus whether this is a high-tech industry.
D
Some cooperation among manufacturers in the same industry is more beneficial than is pure competition.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what the benefits are, if any, of a scenario of pure competition to make this comparison.
E
Cooperation is beneficial only in industries whose products depend on other products of the same type.
This answer is unsupported. Saying cooperation is only beneficial in these types of industries is too strong.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 09
April 21, 2012
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that a new earthquake prediction system will help local officials decide which towns to evacuate during earthquakes. This is because electrical current changes were detected before each every earthquake in the region over the last decade.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the new earthquake protection system can accurately gauge these electrical current changes, to the extent that such information can provide local officials with enough information to know which towns to evacuate. This means the author assumes the electrical currents themselves give hints as to which specific geographic areas will be significantly affected by the earthquakes.
A
Scientists do not fully understand what brought about the changes in the electric current in the earth’s crust that preceded each of the major quakes in the region over the last ten years.
Even if scientists don’t understand the natural mechanism behind these currents, they’re still able to detect changes in the currents with the new method. That’s all that matters for the sake of the argument.
B
Most other earthquake prediction methods have been based on a weaker correlation than that found between the changes in the electric current in the earth’s crust and the subsequent earthquakes.
If those methods are weaker than the detection method in question, then that suggests this new detection method may have an advantage over those. We’re trying to weaken the claim that this method will actually help local officials.
C
The frequency of major earthquakes in the region has increased over the last ten years.
It doesn’t matter how frequent earthquakes have been. We need to weaken the claim that the new detection method will help local officials.
D
There is considerable variation in the length of time between the changes in the electric current and the subsequent earthquakes.
The current changes vary from earthquake to earthquake. If those changes occur extremely shortly before an earthquake, this detection method would be of very little use helping local officials decide which towns to evacuate. There wouldn’t be enough time to evacuate.
E
There is presently only one station in the region that is capable of detecting the electric current in the earth’s crust.
Even if there’s only one station capable of using this method, the method could still be employed. Besides, we’re not interested in how hypothetically practical this method is—we care about whether or not it would really help local officials.