Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 08

April 21, 2012

Economist: Historically, sunflower seed was one of the largest production crops in Kalotopia, and it continues to be a major source of income for several countries. The renewed growing of sunflowers would provide relief to Kalotopia’s farming industry, which is quite unstable. Further, sunflower oil can provide a variety of products, both industrial and consumer, at little cost to Kalotopia’s already fragile environment.

Summary

Sunflower seed was one of the largest production crops in Kalotopia. Sunflower seed is a major source of income for many countries. Renewing the growth of sunflower seeds in Kalotopia would help its unstable farming industry. Sunflower oil can provide a variety of industrial and consumer products at little cost to the environment. Kalotopia has a fragile environment.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

A former production crop in Kalotopia could help the farming industry if it were grown again.

A
Kalotopia’s farming industry will deteriorate if sunflowers are not grown there.

This is unsupported because we don’t know that the industry will get worse without the sunflowers. We only know that it is currently unstable.

B
Stabilizing Kalotopia’s farming industry would improve the economy without damaging the environment.

This is unsupported because while we know that the cost to the environment would be little, but not necessarily zero.

C
Kalotopia’s farming industry would be better off now if it had never ceased to grow any of the crops that historically were large production crops.

This is unsupported because we don’t know whether Kalotopia had important reasons for ceasing sunflower production in the past that made the country better off than if it had continued sunflower production.

D
A crop that was once a large production crop in Kalotopia would, if it were grown there again, benefit that country’s farmers and general economy.

This is strongly supported because the author states that growing sunflower seed, which used to be a large production crop, would benefit farmers and create new products.

E
Sunflower seed is a better crop for Kalotopia from both the environmental and the economic viewpoints than are most crops that could be grown there.

This is unsupported because the author never compares sunflower seed to other possible crops that may be able to solve the instability just as well.


13 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 07

April 21, 2012

In 1955, legislation in a certain country gave the government increased control over industrial workplace safety conditions. Among the high-risk industries in that country, the likelihood that a worker will suffer a serious injury has decreased since 1955. The legislation, therefore, has increased overall worker safety within high-risk industries.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that legislation giving the government more control over workplace safety conditions increased workplace safety in high-risk industries. Her support is that the risk of serious injuries in high-risk industries has decreased since the legislation was introduced.

Notable Assumptions
From a mere correlation, the author concludes that the new legislation caused the decrease in serious injuries. This means she assumes that there wasn’t some unaccounted for, risk-reducing third factor that occurred around the same time as the legislation. The author also assumes that overall worker safety increased as the risk of serious injury decreased. This means she doesn’t believe less serious injuries increased once the legislation was enacted, or that those injuries don’t affect overall worker safety.

A
Because of technological innovation, most workplaces in the high-risk industries do not require as much unprotected interaction between workers and heavy machinery as they did in 1955.
This suggests that the legislation didn’t cause the decrease in injuries—technological innovation did. Since workers weren’t having as many unprotected interactions with heavy machinery, they weren’t sustaining as many serious injuries as before.
B
Most of the work-related injuries that occurred before 1955 were the result of worker carelessness.
Was that also true of the work-related injuries that occurred after 1955? Perhaps governments regulated in such a way that reduced the chance of carelessness leading to injury.
C
The annual number of work-related injuries has increased since the legislation took effect.
Even if the annual number of injuries has increased, do these injuries outweigh the serious ones that have reduced? We don’t know.
D
The number of work-related injuries occurring within industries not considered high-risk has increased annually since 1955.
We don’t care about non-high-risk industries. That’s not what the author is talking about.
E
Workplace safety conditions in all industries have improved steadily since 1955.
Perhaps the government began regulating across all industries. We need to know specifically about the government’s role in high-risk industries, and weaken the idea that the legislation improved overall worker safety in those industries.

23 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 06

April 21, 2012

The passage starts by telling us that maybe it's a good idea to teach high school kids calculus. Okay, let's explore. Is it a good idea?

Well, it might "benefit them" but it didn't specify in what way. So some unspecified benefit on the one hand.

Then, the passage turns around and tells us that there's some "level of abstraction" involved in calculus. Okay, like a high level or a low level? Don't know. But, if these high school kids aren't ready for whatever that "level of abstraction" is, then they may "abandon the study of mathematics".

So, if we're going to teach them calculus, we better make sure they're ready to handle that "level of abstraction".

Why? Because if they aren't ready, they might abandon the study of math. I mean, god forbid they decide to take up acting or some such non-sense.

Okay, I'm kidding, but you see the assumption right?

The assumption is that we don't want them to abandon the study of math. In other words, teach math to students only if it won't lead the students to abandon it. In other words, if you introduce calculus to students, then make sure that they can handle the "cognitive challenges" (or "level of abstraction") "without losing motivation" (or "without abandoning it"). That's (A). (A) tightens up the space between the premises and conclusion.

(C) is problematic for two reasons. First, is calculus a "cognitive task that requires exceptional effort"? We don't know. So we have to presume that it is. Okay, that's bad enough.

But, even if we presume that it is. Then all (C) tells us is that it undermines the motivation of those who attempt them. In other words, calculus just straight up hurts your self esteem and motivation. Never mind be ready to handle the "level of abstraction". It just hurts you. So... how does this help our argument?


14 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 23

April 21, 2012

A professor of business placed a case-study assignment for her class on her university’s computer network. She later found out that instead of reading the assignment on the computer screen, 50 out of the 70 students printed it out on paper. Thus, it is not the case that books delivered via computer will make printed books obsolete.

Summarize Argument
The availability of online books won't make printed versions unnecessary. This is demonstrated by the fact that in a class, most students chose to print an assignment sheet instead of reading it online, where it was originally made available.

Notable Assumptions
The author makes a conclusion about books from premises about an assignment—in other words, the author assumes that there are enough similarities between books and assignments to draw a conclusion. A good answer choice will help bridge this gap. Additionally, the author assumes that the observed occurrence in an academic setting is generalizable.

A
Several colleagues of the professor have found that, in their non-business courses, several of their students behave similarly in relation to assignments placed on the computer network.
While this answer choice strengthens the evidence, it fails to support the relationship between the premise and conclusion (i.e., the argument). The author makes a jump from a premise about an assignment to a conclusion about books—this doesn’t fill that gap.
B
Studies consistently show that most computer users will print reading material that is more than a few pages in length rather than read it on the computer screen.
This strengthens the argument by substantiating the author’s assumption that students will print out books in addition to assignments. (B) says after a certain length people will print the reading material, strengthening the relationship between the premise and conclusion.
C
Some people get impaired vision from long periods of reading printed matter on computer screens, even if they use high quality computer screens.
This does not affect the argument. The word “some” could mean just one or two people—one person having vision issues due to computer screens doesn’t affect our argument at all.
D
Scanning technology is very poor, causing books delivered via computer to be full of errors unless editors carefully read the scanned versions.
This does not affect the argument. While it may be true that online books would be full of errors if they are not carefully read through, there is no reason for us to believe that they aren’t carefully read through every time.
E
Books on cassette tape have only a small fraction of the sales of printed versions of the same books, though sales of videos of books that have been turned into movies remain strong.
This does not affect the argument. The relative popularity between books on cassette tape and their printed version tells us nothing about the relationship between books delivered via computer and their printed versions.

23 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 24

April 21, 2012

Advertisement: Researchers studied a group of people trying to lose weight and discovered that those in the group who lost the most weight got more calories from protein than from carbohydrates and ate their biggest meal early in the day. So anyone who follows our diet, which provides more calories from protein than from anything else and which requires that breakfast be the biggest meal of the day, is sure to lose weight.

A
eating foods that derive a majority of their calories from carbohydrates tends to make one feel fuller than does eating foods that derive a majority of their calories from protein
The diet described involved a majority of calories from protein rather than from carbs. Whether a different kind of diet helps people “feel fuller” has no clear impact on whether the ad’s diet will help people lose weight.
B
a few of the people in the group studied who lost significant amounts of weight got nearly all of their calories from carbohydrates and ate their biggest meal at night
We know the group who “lost the most weight” got more calories from protein than from carbs. That doesn’t exclude the possibility that some people with a different diet also lost a lot of weight. They just didn’t lose the most weight.
C
the people in the group studied who increased their activity levels lost more weight, on average, than those who did not, regardless of whether they got more calories from protein or from carbohydrates
(C) suggests that exercise is another factor in weight loss. The author never assumed otherwise. The ad is merely arguing that following the ad’s diet will cause weight loss. Whether exercise also leads to weight loss doesn’t affect whether the diet leads to weight loss.
D
some people in the group studied lost no weight yet got more calories from protein than from carbohydrates and ate their biggest meal early in the day
If this possibility is true, that means not everyone on the high-protein + big meal early diet lost weight. This shows why we can’t conclude that “anyone” on the ad’s diet will “be sure to” lose weight.
E
people who eat their biggest meal at night tend to snack more during the day and so tend to take in more total calories than do people who eat their biggest meal earlier in the day
(E) describes people on a different kind of diet that isn’t what the ad describes. What’s true about those people has no affect on what will happen to people following the ad’s diet.

38 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 25

April 21, 2012

Some twentieth-century art is great art. All great art involves original ideas, and any art that is not influential cannot be great art.

Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:

Notable Valid Inferences
Some 20th century art involves original ideas.

Some 20th century art is influential.

Some art that involves original ideas is influential.

If art is great, then it is original and influential.

A
Some influential art involves original ideas.
This must be true. As shown in the diagram, we can infer that some influential art involves original ideas.
B
Some twentieth-century art involves original ideas.
This must be true. As shown in the diagram, we can infer that some twentieth century art involves original ideas.
C
Only art that involves original ideas is influential.
This could be false. (C) can be diagrammed to say influential→ original. This is not a conditional claim given in the stimulus.
D
Only art that is influential and involves original ideas is great art.
This must be true. As shown in the diagram, all great art is influential and original.
E
Some twentieth-century art is influential and involves original ideas.
This must be true. As shown in the diagram, there must be at least some overlap between art involving original ideas and influential art.

9 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 3 - Question 05

April 21, 2012

The star-nosed mole has a nose that ends in a pair of several-pointed stars, or tentacles that are crucial for hunting, as moles are poor-sighted. These tentacles contain receptors that detect electric fields produced by other animals, enabling the moles to detect and catch suitable prey such as worms and insects.

Summary
The star-nosed mole has a nose ending in tentacles that are crucial for hunting. The mole has poor eyesight. The tentacles have receptors detecting electrical fields produced by other animals. The tentacles help the moles detect and catch prey, such as worms and insects.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Animals that don’t produce electrical fields would be hard for the star-nosed mole to detect and catch. Worms and insects are detectable by star-nosed moles’ tentacles because they produce electric fields.

A
Both worms and insects produce electric fields.
This is strongly supported because we know that star-nosed moles rely on their tentacles to detect electric fields instead of seeing, and they are able to use these tentacles to detect worms and insects.
B
The star-nosed mole does not rely at all on its eyesight for survival.
This is unsupported because while we know the star-nosed mole has poor eyesight and uses another tool for hunting prey, it may still use its limited eyesight for other purposes.
C
The star-nosed mole does not rely at all on its sense of smell when hunting.
This is unsupported because the author provides no information about the star-nosed mole’s sense of smell. It is possible that it still uses smell in conjunction with the tentacles or to hunt other prey that are not insects or worms.
D
Only animals that hunt have noses with tentacles that detect electric fields.
This is unsupported because there could be other non-hunting animals besides the star-nosed mole that have noses with tentacles that detect electric fields.
E
The star-nosed mole does not produce an electric field.
This is unsupported because for all we know, the star-nosed mole is able to detect itself or other star-nosed moles via electric fields that they produce.

10 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 3 - Question 04

April 21, 2012

Cassie: In order to improve the quality of customer service provided by our real estate agency, we should reduce client loads—the number of clients each agent is expected to serve at one time.

Melvin: Although smaller client loads are desirable, reducing client loads at our agency is simply not feasible. We already find it very difficult to recruit enough qualified agents; recruiting even more agents, which would be necessary in order to reduce client loads, is out of the question.

Summarize Argument
Melvin concludes that reducing client loads isn’t feasible. This is because the real estate agency already has trouble recruiting qualified agents, and recruiting more agents is necessary for reducing client loads.

Notable Assumptions
Melvin assumes that reducing client loads wouldn’t help the real estate agency recruit more qualified agents. He believes that the necessary condition only works one way, which means he doesn’t believe lower client loads are necessary to help recruit more qualified agents.

A
Since reducing client loads would improve working conditions for agents, reducing client loads would help recruit additional qualified agents to the real estate agency.
While a lack of qualified agents prevent the real estate agency from lowering client loads, high client loads make it very difficult to recruit qualified agents. Thus, lowering client loads would be beneficial for the real estate agency.
B
Many of the real estate agency’s current clients have expressed strong support for efforts to reduce client loads.
We don’t care what the clients think. We care about what’s feasible and beneficial to the real estate agency.
C
Several recently conducted studies of real estate agencies have shown that small client loads are strongly correlated with high customer satisfaction ratings.
Melvin would likely agree smaller client loads are a good thing. He simply thinks they aren’t feasible at the moment.
D
Hiring extra support staff for the real estate agency’s main office would have many of the same beneficial effects as reducing client loads.
This doesn’t weaken Melvin’s stance that client loads shouldn’t be reduced. If anything, it provides another method of achieving the same result reducing client loads would amount to.
E
Over the last several years, it has become increasingly challenging for the real estate agency to recruit enough qualified agents just to maintain current client loads.
This seems to support Melvin’s stance that recruiting more qualified agents is infeasible. We need to weaken that stance.

11 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 3 - Question 03

April 21, 2012

Psychiatrist: Breaking any habit is difficult, especially when it involves an addictive substance. People who break a habit are more likely to be motivated by immediate concerns than by long-term ones. Therefore, people who succeed in breaking their addiction to smoking cigarettes are more likely to be motivated by the social pressure against smoking—which is an immediate concern—than by health concerns, since _______.

Summarize Argument
People who successfully stop smoking are more motivated by social pressure (an urgent concern) than health concerns. This is because people who break habits are more motivated by urgent concerns than distant ones.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that health concerns are not urgent concerns for most people who quit smoking.

A
a habit that involves an addictive substance is likely to pose a greater health threat than a habit that does not involve any addictive substance
This does not affect the argument. The magnitude of the threat is not relevant to the argument, which is focused on the urgency of a threat.
B
for most people who successfully quit smoking, smoking does not create an immediate health concern at the time they quit
This strengthens the argument. It provides support for the author’s assumption that health is not a pressing concern for most people when they quit smoking.
C
some courses of action that exacerbate health concerns can also relieve social pressure
This does not affect the argument. (C) says some actions that make health issues worse can make social pressure better. This is not relevant to the argument, which is about what motivates people to stop smoking cigarettes (which we can’t assume is one of the actions described).
D
most people who succeed in quitting smoking succeed only after several attempts
This does not affect the argument. The psychiatrist already notes that breaking a habit is difficult, and is more concerned with what motivates someone to try hard enough to succeed in breaking the habit.
E
everyone who succeeds in quitting smoking is motivated either by social pressure or by health concerns
This does not affect our argument, as (E) doesn’t tell us anything about how many people fall into either category. It may strengthen the argument if most people quit because of social pressure. It would weaken it if most people quit because of health concerns.

6 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 3 - Question 02

April 21, 2012

Board member: The J Foundation, a philanthropic organization, gave you this grant on the condition that your resulting work not contain any material detrimental to the J Foundation’s reputation. But your resulting work never mentions any of the laudable achievements of our foundation. Hence your work fails to meet the conditions under which the grant was made.

A
takes for granted that a work that never mentions any laudable achievements cannot be of high intellectual value
The author’s reasoning doesn’t relate to intellectual value. The argument concerns whether there is harm to the J Foundation’s reputation, not whether there is a lack of intellectual value.
B
confuses a condition necessary for the receipt of a grant with a condition sufficient for the receipt of a grant
The author doesn’t try to conclude that someone must have received a grant on the basis of having satisfied a necessary condition for a grant. The conclusion concerns whether someone who already received a grant is satisfying what’s required of them.
C
presumes, without providing justification, that a work that does not mention a foundation’s laudable achievements is harmful to that foundation’s reputation
The author assumes that failing to mention the good stuff J Foundation has done hurts the foundation’s reputation. This overlooks the possibility that there might be no reputational harm. Perhaps there’s no increase in reput., but that doens’t imply there has been a decrease.
D
fails to consider that recipients of a grant usually strive to meet a foundation’s conditions
Whether the recipient has tried to satisfy the conditions has no bearing on whether what they’ve done actually satisfies them. The argument concerns whether the recipient has actually satisfied the conditions.
E
fails to consider the possibility that the work that was produced with the aid of the grant may have met all conditions other than avoiding detriment to the J Foundation’s reputation
The argument points out a particular condition that the author believes has not been satisfied. Even if other conditions have been met, that doesn’t affect an argument based on a purported violation of one particular condition.

The question stem reads: The reasoning in the board member’s argument is vulnerable to criticism on grounds that the argument… This is a Flaw question.

The board member begins by claiming that the J Foundation issued “you” this grant on the condition that the resulting work did not contain anything detrimental to the J Foundation’s reputation. In other words, meeting the conditions of the grant requires that “your” work not contain anything harmful to J Foundation’s reputation. However, the board member notes that the resulting work does not mention anything positive about the J Foundation. The board member concludes that “you” have failed to meet the conditions of the grant.

Here we have a very common flaw in the LSAT: assuming that negation and opposition are the same. The board member assumes that no positive information must mean the existence of negative information. However, positive information could also imply that the information in the work was simply neutral: the information was neither good nor bad for the J Foundation’s reputation. If the resulting work was neutral, then “you” would not violate the conditions of the grant. Let’s move to the answer choices.

Answer Choice (A) is incorrect. Whether or not the work has Intellectual value has nothing to do with the board member’s argument.

Answer Choice (B) is incorrect. The author does not confuse the necessary condition of “no harmful information” for being sufficient to issue the grant.

Correct Answer Choice (C) is what we discussed. The board member has assumed that failing to mention the laudable achievements of J Foundation amounts to harming the reputation of J Foundation.

Answer Choice (D) is something the argument fails to consider, but that is not why the argument is flawed.

Answer Choice (E) is also something that the argument does not consider, but (E) is not a problem for the argument. If you failed to satisfy the necessary condition of “no harmful information,” it would not matter how many other conditions were met. The problem is that we do not know if the work actually contained harmful information.

 


8 comments

«‹123456789›»