LSAT 127 - Section 1 - Question 24

March 5, 2014

Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements, including required use of seat belts and annual safety inspections, have on average higher rates of accidents per kilometer driven than do provinces and states with less stringent requirements. Nevertheless, most highway safety experts agree that more stringent requirements do reduce accident rates.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Jurisdictions with more stringent car safety regulations have relatively more accidents than jurisdictions without such regulations. Yet experts still agree these regulations reduce accidents.

Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains how stringent regulations reduce accidents, despite jurisdictions with stringent regulations having higher average accident rates. We’re likely looking for an answer that tells us jurisdictions with stringent regulations would have even more accidents without such regulations, hence why experts agree those regulations are effective.

A
Annual safety inspections ensure that car tires are replaced before they grow old.
This doesn’t explain why jurisdictions with stringent regulations have higher accident rates, or why experts think these regulations are nevertheless effective. We don’t even know who these safety inspections apply to.
B
Drivers often become overconfident after their cars have passed a thorough safety inspection.
This would partially explain why jurisdictions with stringent regulations have higher accident rates, but not why experts believe these regulations are still effective.
C
The roads in provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements are far more congested and therefore dangerous than in other provinces and states.
Stringent regulations are a result of already dangerous conditions. Of course these jurisdictions have higher accident rates—the roads are a disaster. The regulations, however, are effectively mitigating some of that danger.
D
Psychological studies show that drivers who regularly wear seat belts often come to think of themselves as serious drivers, which for a few people discourages reckless driving.
Much like (B), this only partially explains why jurisdictions with more stringent safety regulations have higher accident rates. We need to know why experts believe these regulations are still effective.
E
Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements have, on average, many more kilometers of roads than do other provinces and states.
We’re talking about accidents per kilometer. We don’t care about the net total.

5 comments

LSAT 127 - Section 1 - Question 23

March 5, 2014

Columnist: Even if the primary purpose of university education is to make students employable, such education should emphasize the liberal arts rather than the more narrow kind of technical training that prepares one for a particular sort of job. This is because the reasoning skills one acquires from a liberal arts education allow one to adapt to new intellectual challenges and thus to perform jobs for which one has received no specialized training.

Summarize Argument
The columnist concludes that a university education should emphasize the liberal arts over job-specific technical training. This is because the liberal arts teach reasoning skills that allow one to be more intellectually flexible and thus do a wider variety of jobs.

Notable Assumptions
The columnist assumes that technical training doesn’t also teach reasoning skills that help one be a more adaptable worker. If this were the case, then a liberal arts education would offer no clear benefit over job-specific technical training. The columnist also assumes that universities should strive to make adaptable workers rather than to equip students with job-specific skills. This means the columnist either believes such skills aren’t important or are less important than developing reasoning.

A
It is better for people to have good educations than good jobs.
The columnist never claims technical educations aren’t good educations.
B
Many people with narrow technical training manage to find jobs.
The columnist likely agrees. However, this doesn’t remotely strengthen her claim that universities should emphasize a liberal arts education.
C
Having a series of different jobs is more interesting than having only one job.
The columnist never claims people should or will have many different jobs. Reasoning skills simply allow people to adapt to a variety of jobs.
D
Having a general understanding of life is more important than possessing practical skills.
We have no idea if a liberal arts education leads to a “general understanding of life.”
E
Technical training does not help students acquire reasoning skills.
When students receive a technical training, they don’t learn the reasoning skills that come with a liberal arts education. This defends against a potential weakener: that technical training also teaches reasoning skills.

4 comments

LSAT 127 - Section 1 - Question 21

March 5, 2014

Scientist: Isaac Newton’s Principia, the seventeenth-century work that served as the cornerstone of physics for over two centuries, could at first be understood by only a handful of people, but a basic understanding of Newton’s ideas eventually spread throughout the world. This shows that the barriers to communication between scientists and the public are not impermeable. Thus recent scientific research, most of which also can be described only in language that seems esoteric to most contemporary readers, may also become part of everyone’s intellectual heritage.

Summarize Argument

Even though only a few people can understand recent scientific research now, it might eventually become common knowledge. Only a few people initially understood Isaac Newton's Principia, but a basic understanding of his ideas spread worldwide over time. The same thing could happen with recent scientific research.

Identify Argument Part

The stimulus text explains why Newton’s Principia supports the scientist’s main conclusion. It shows that Principia is a good example of what might happen with recent scientific research. Just as only a few people initially understood Principia, only a few people understand today’s scientific research. By highlighting the parallels between today’s research and Principia, the stimulus text explains why Principia is relevant to the author’s argument: If Principia became common knowledge over time, recent research might do the same.

A
It is raised as a potential objection to the argument’s main conclusion, but its truth is called into doubt by the preceding statements.

The stimulus text supports the scientist’s main conclusion by highlighting the similarities between recent scientific research and Newton’s Principia. It does not discuss objections to the conclusion, nor does the scientist call the stimulus text into doubt.

B
It is a premise that supports the argument’s main conclusion by suggesting that the results of recent scientific research are only superficially different from claims made in Newton’s Principia.

The stimulus text is a premise that supports the main conclusion by noting a similarity between Newton’s Principia and recent scientific research—not a difference. Additionally, it notes how people reacted similarly to both, not how similar the recent findings were to Newton’s.

C
It is cited as further evidence for the conclusion that the barriers to communication between scientists and the public are not impermeable.

The stimulus text directly supports the scientist’s main conclusion by highlighting the similarities between recent scientific research and Newton’s Principia. It doesn’t support the claim that the “barriers to communication between scientists and the public are not impermeable.”

D
It is a claim that serves mainly to help establish the relevance of the preceding statements to the argument’s final conclusion.

The stimulus text explains why Newton’s Principia is relevant to the main conclusion. Just as few people initially understood Principia, few understand today’s scientific research, making Principia a good example of what could happen with recent research.

E
It serves to cast doubt on an alleged similarity between Newton’s Principia and recent scientific research.

The stimulus text serves to highlight the similarities between recent scientific research and Newton’s Principia—not to call their similarity into question. The text explains that the two are similar because only a few people initially understood each.


7 comments

LSAT 127 - Section 1 - Question 20

March 5, 2014

21 comments

LSAT 127 - Section 1 - Question 18

March 5, 2014

Nutritionist: Because humans have evolved very little since the development of agriculture, it is clear that humans are still biologically adapted to a diet of wild foods, consisting mainly of raw fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, lean meat, and seafood. Straying from this diet has often resulted in chronic illness and other physical problems. Thus, the more our diet consists of wild foods, the healthier we will be.

Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
The more humans eat wild foods, the healthier we will be because humans have not evolved much since agriculture began, so we are still adapted to a wild food diet. In fact, moving away from eating wild foods has often caused chronic illness and other health problems.

Identify Argument Part
The claim in the stimulus text is a subsidiary conclusion, which is sometimes referred to as a “sub-conclusion” or an “intermediary conclusion” because it is supported by at least one claim and, in turn, supports the main conclusion. It is also referred to as a “major premise” because it directly supports the main conclusion. Here, the stimulus is supported by the claim that “humans have evolved very little since the development of agriculture,” and supports the argument’s main conclusion that “the more our diet consists of wild foods, the healthier we will be.”

A
It is a conclusion for which the only support offered is the claim that straying from a diet of wild foods has often resulted in chronic illness and other physical problems.
This incorrectly states which premise supports the stimulus text. The stimulus text is a sub-conclusion supported by the claim that “humans have evolved very little since the development of agriculture,” not by the claim about the consequences of straying from a wild diet.
B
It is a premise for which no justification is provided, but which is used to support the argument’s main conclusion.
This incorrectly states that no justification supports the stimulus text. The stimulus text is a sub-conclusion supported by the claim that “humans have evolved very little since the development of agriculture.”
C
It is a phenomenon for which the main conclusion of the nutritionist’s argument is cited as an explanation.
This incorrectly labels the stimulus text as context for the nutritionist’s argument. The stimulus text is a sub-conclusion that supports the main conclusion; the main conclusion does not explain it.
D
It is an intermediate conclusion for which one claim is offered as support, and which is used in turn to support the argument’s main conclusion.
The stimulus text is a subsidiary or “intermediate” conclusion. The claim that humans have evolved little since agriculture developed supports this sub-conclusion, and the sub-conclusion supports the main conclusion that the more humans eat wild foods, the healthier we will be.
E
It is a premise offered in support of the claim that humans have evolved very little since the development of agriculture.
This incorrectly states which claim the stimulus text supports. The stimulus text is a sub-conclusion supported by the claim that “humans have evolved very little since the development of agriculture,” and it supports the main conclusion in the last sentence.

10 comments

LSAT 127 - Section 1 - Question 17

March 5, 2014

Curator: Our museum displays only twentieth-century works, which are either on loan from private collectors or in the museum’s permanent collection. Prints of all of the latter works are available in the museum store. The museum store also sells prints of some works that are not part of the museum’s permanent collection, such as Hopper’s Nighthawks.

Summary

If it’s on display, it’s a 20th century work.

If it’s a 20th century work on display, it’s on loan OR in the permanent collection.

If it’s in the permanent collection, prints of it are available in the store.

Some works that aren’t part of the permanent collection are in the store, such as Nighthawks.

Notable Valid Inferences

No particular inference stands out, aside from recognizing the connections between conditionals. If something’s on display, then it must be on loan OR permanent. If it’s permanent, prints of it are available in the store.

A
Every print in the museum store is of a work that is either on loan to the museum from a private collector or part of the museum’s permanent collection.

Could be false. We don’t know about everything available in the store. We know that anything in permanent collection is available in the store. That doesn’t tell us that everything available in the store is on loan or in the permanent collection.

B
Every print that is sold in the museum store is a copy of a twentieth-century work.

Could be false. We don’t know about everything available in the store. There could be many things in the store that are not on display.

C
There are prints in the museum store of every work that is displayed in the museum and not on loan from a private collector.

Must be true. If it’s on display, but not on loan, it must be in permanent. And if it’s in permanent, there are prints available of it in the store.

D
Hopper’s Nighthawks is both a twentieth-century work and a work on loan to the museum from a private collector.

Could be false. We know Nighthawks is not part of the permanent collection. That doesn’t tell us anything else about Nighthawks. It might be on loan, or it might not. It might be 20th century, or it might not.

E
Hopper’s Nighthawks is not displayed in the museum.

Could be false. We know Nighthawks is not part of the permanent collection. That doesn’t tell us whether it is on display. It might be, or it might not.


26 comments

LSAT 127 - Section 1 - Question 16

March 5, 2014

Psychologist: The obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously. However much society may have changed over the centuries, human psychology is still driven primarily by personal interaction. Thus, the important social function of positively reinforcing those behaviors that have beneficial consequences for others can be served only if the benefactor knows the source of the gratitude.

Summarize Argument
You can't fulfill the obligation to express gratitude anonymously. Human psychology is still primarily influenced by personal interaction, so to positively reinforce generous behavior, the person being thanked needs to know who is expressing the thanks.

Identify Argument Part
The stimulus text refers to the main conclusion of the argument: the obligation to express gratitude can’t be fulfilled anonymously because a person’s generous behavior will only be positively reinforced if the person knows who is expressing the thanks.

A
It is an illustration of a premise that is used to support the argument’s conclusion.
The claim is the overall conclusion. It does not support any other statement in the stimulus, so it cannot be an illustration of a premise in the argument.
B
It is used to counter a consideration that might be taken to undermine the argument’s conclusion.
The claim is the overall conclusion. This answer describes a premise, which would support the conclusion by anticipating and refuting an attack on it. Since the stimulus text is the conclusion, it cannot be a premise of the argument.
C
It is used to support indirectly a claim that the argument in turn uses to support directly the conclusion.
The stimulus text is the overall conclusion. It does not support any other statement in the stimulus, so it cannot be either direct or indirect support for another claim.
D
It is used to identify the social benefit with which the argument is concerned.
The stimulus text is the overall conclusion. The argument focuses on reinforcing generous behavior, which benefits society. However, this benefit is mentioned in a premise as a reason why the obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously.
E
It is the conclusion that the argument is intended to support.
This describes the role of the first sentence in the overall argument. The psychologist begins with her conclusion and spends the rest of the stimulus explaining how she reached that conclusion.

21 comments

LSAT 127 - Section 1 - Question 15

March 5, 2014

11 comments

LSAT 127 - Section 1 - Question 14

March 5, 2014

Over 90 percent of the human brain currently serves no purpose, as is evident from the fact that many people with significant brain damage show no discernible adverse effects. So once humans begin to tap into this tremendous source of creativity and innovation, many problems that today seem insurmountable will be within our ability to solve.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that, when humans begin to tap into the tremendous source of creativity and innovation, that many problems that seem insurmountable today will be within our ability to solve. To support this, the author notes that over 90% of the brain remains unused (a sub-conclusion that is supported by the observation that many people with significant brain damage experience no noticeable negative effects).

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the large portion of the brain that currently serves no purpose could be a source of creativity and innovation. From the information given, we have no reason to believe that these parts of the brain are a potential source of creativity and innovation––they could, for example, be purely structural with no potential to impact one’s creativity.

A
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that the effects of brain damage are always easily detectable.
The argument does not make this assumption––there is no indication that brain damage is ever (or always) “easily” detectable.
B
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that the only reason that any problem remains unsolved is a lack of creativity and innovation.
A lack of creativity and innovation is presumed to be a reason that some problems haven’t been solved, but the argument does not presume that a lack of creativity and innovation is the only reason for any unsolved problem.
C
The argument infers that certain parts of the brain do nothing merely on the basis of the assertion that we do not know what they do.
The argument does not make this inference merely based on the fact that we don’t know what these parts of the brain do. Instead, the inference is based on the observation that significant brain damage does not have discernible adverse effects in many people.
D
The argument infers that problems will be solved merely on the basis of the claim that they will be within our ability to solve.
The argument does not make this inference. The argument does not claim that these problems will be solved; the argument only says that the problems will be in our ability to solve.
E
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that the currently unused parts of the brain are a potential source of tremendous creativity and innovation.
The author says that 90% of the human brain is unused, then in the conclusion jumps to the claim about “this tremendous source of creativity and innovation.” We have no reason to believe that the unused parts of the brain are a potential source of creativity and innovation.

12 comments

LSAT 127 - Section 1 - Question 11

March 5, 2014

Studies have shown that the more high-stress points a bridge has, the more likely it is to fracture eventually. This might lead one to expect fractures to develop at high-stress points. Surprisingly, however, fractures develop not at high-stress points but elsewhere on the bridge.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
High-stress points make a bridge likely to fracture, but aren’t the sites of fractures themselves.

Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that explains why stress points don’t themselves fracture, despite stress points contributing to fractures. The explanation must also explain why stress points are especially unlikely places for fractures, given that the stimulus tells us fractures generally don’t occur on those points.

A
In many structures other than bridges, such as ship hulls and airplane bodies, fractures do not develop at high-stress points.
This backs up the stimulus, but it doesn’t explain why high-stress points don’t fracture despite making fractures more likely.
B
Fractures do not develop at high-stress points, because bridges are reinforced at those points; however, stress is transferred to other points on the bridge where it causes fractures.
This explains the mechanism behind fractures. High-stress points are reinforced against fractures, but transfer stress to weaker points where fractures occur. We now know why high-stress points contribute to fractures without themselves fracturing.
C
In many structures, the process of fracturing often causes high-stress points to develop.
High-stress points make fractures more likely. We don’t care what happens after a fracture.
D
Structures with no high-stress points can nonetheless have a high probability of fracturing.
This doesn’t matter. We’re concerned with bridges that do have high-stress points.
E
Improper bridge construction, e.g., low-quality welding or the use of inferior steel, often leads both to the development of high-stress points and to an increased probability of fracturing.
This doesn’t explain why high-stress points themselves aren’t the site of fractures, despite high-stress points making fracturing more likely. It doesn’t explain the surprise in the stimulus.

Comment on this

123456789›»