In modern “brushless” car washes, cloth strips called mitters have replaced brushes. Mitters are easier on most cars’ finishes than brushes are. This is especially important with the new clear-coat finishes found on many cars today, which are more easily scratched than older finishes are.

Summary
Modern car washes use mitters rather than brushers. Mitters are easier on most cars’ finishes than brushes are. This is important today, because many cars have clear-coat finishes that are more easily scratched than older finishes.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
If brushes were used on cars today instead of mitters, more cars would have scratched finishes today than is currently the case.

A
When car washes all used brushes rather than mitters, there were more cars on the road with scratched finishes than there are today.
Unsupported. This doesn’t account for potential increases in population and car use. In the past, although there may have been a higher rate of scratches on cars, there may have been fewer cars overall. So, the overall number of scratched cars might have been lower in the past.
B
Modern “brushless” car washes were introduced as a direct response to the use of clear-coat finishes on cars.
Unsupported. We’re not told the reason modern car washes were introduced. The fact modern car washes are better for clear-coat finishes does not imply the clear-coat finishes caused modern washes to come about.
C
Modern “brushless” car washes usually do not produce visible scratches on cars with older finishes.
Strongly supported. Mitters are easier on most cars’ finishes than brushes. This is important because clear-coat finishes are more easily scratched. This suggests that when used on older finishes, mitters aren’t likely to produce scratches, at least not any we can see.
D
Brushes are more effective than mitters and are preferred for cleaning cars with older finishes.
Unsupported. We’re not told whether brushes or mitters are more effective for cleaning. We’re only told which one is easier on cars’ finishes.
E
More cars in use today have clear-coat finishes rather than older finishes.
Unsupported. We know that many cars today have clear-coat finishes. But we don’t know whether most (over half) cars today have such finishes.

39 comments

Food labeling regulation: Food of a type that does not ordinarily contain fat cannot be labeled “nonfat” unless most people mistakenly believe the food ordinarily contains fat. If most people mistakenly believe that a food ordinarily contains fat, the food may be labeled “nonfat” if the label also states that the food ordinarily contains no fat.

Summary

The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:

Notable Valid Inferences

If most people are aware that a food does not ordinarily contain fat, that food cannot be labeled “nonfat.”

A
Although most people know that bran flakes do not normally contain fat, Lester’s Bran Flakes are not labeled “nonfat.”

Does not violate. The regulation states that, if most people know that bran flakes do not normally contain fat, Lester’s Bran Flakes cannot label their product “nonfat.” Lester’s does not do so and thus is in compliance with this regulation.

B
Although most people are aware that lasagna ordinarily contains fat, Lester’s Lasagna, which contains no fat, is not labeled “nonfat.”

Does not violate. The regulation doesn’t describe situations in which a company must label a product “nonfat,” so Lester’s isn’t in violation by choosing not to do so. Note that “labeled ‘nonfat’” is a sufficient condition, so negating it (as (B) does) cannot yield a violation.

C
Although most garlic baguettes contain fat, Lester’s Garlic Baguettes are labeled “nonfat.”

Does not violate. The entire stimulus and the conditional logic it presents take place in the domain of “food that does not ordinarily contain fat.” This answer choice takes us out of the domain—if garlic baguettes normally contain fat, the regulation has no bearing on them.

D
Although most people are aware that applesauce does not ordinarily contain fat, Lester’s Applesauce is labeled “nonfat.”

Violates the regulation. As shown below, “most people mistakenly believe the food to be fatty” is a necessary condition of “labeled ‘nonfat’”. Since Lester’s Applesauce fails the necessary, it would have to also fail the sufficient in order to comply with the regulation.

E
Although most people mistakenly believe that salsa ordinarily contains fat, the label on Lester’s Zesty Salsa says “This product, like all salsas, is nonfat.”

Does not violate. As long as most people mistakenly believe that a food ordinarily contains fat, a company is allowed to label it “nonfat.” So Lester’s is in compliance with the regulation!


44 comments

Critic: As modern methods of communication and transportation have continued to improve, the pace of life today has become faster than ever before. This speed has created feelings of impermanence and instability, making us feel as if we never have enough time to achieve what we want—or at least what we think we want.

Summary

As modern ways of communication and transportation improve, the faster the pace of life has become. The faster the pace of life has become, the more we feel as if we never have enough time to achieve what we want or what we think we want.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Technological changes can result in changing the way people feel about life.

A
The fast pace of modern life has made it difficult for people to achieve their goals.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know whether or not it is difficult for people to achieve their goals in modern life.

B
The disadvantages of technological progress often outweigh the advantages.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what the advantages are from technological progress. It could be that they vastly outweigh the disadvantages.

C
Changes in people’s feelings about life can result from technological changes.

This answer is strongly supported. This answer correctly states the causal relationship between improved technology and the way people feel.

D
The perception of impermanence in contemporary life makes it more difficult for people to know what they want.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether any of the technological improvements are impermanent.

E
Changes in people’s feelings fuel the need for technological advancement.

This answer is unsupported. This answer gets the causal relationship reversed. Rather, it’s technological advancement that fuels the changes in people’s feelings.


16 comments

A study found that patients referred by their doctors to psychotherapists practicing a new experimental form of therapy made more progress with respect to their problems than those referred to psychotherapists practicing traditional forms of therapy. Therapists practicing the new form of therapy, therefore, are more effective than therapists practicing traditional forms.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that therapists using the new form of therapy are more effective than therapists using traditional forms. As support, he cites a study that found that patients referred to therapists practicing the new form made more progress than those referred to therapists practicing traditional forms.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of using unrepresentative samples, where the author draws a conclusion based on a sample that doesn't accurately reflect the whole group. In this case, the author concludes something about two types of therapists based on a study of patients referred to those therapists by doctors. But if the patients referred to therapists using the new form had problems that were easier to treat, the author can't conclude that these therapists are overall more effective.

A
It ignores the possibility that therapists trained in traditional forms of therapy use the same techniques in treating their patients as therapists trained in the new form of therapy do.

Whether the two kinds of therapists use the same techniques is irrelevant. The conclusion is about which therapists are more effective, not which forms of therapy are more effective, and (A) doesn't change the fact that patients referred to the new therapists made more progress.

B
It ignores the possibility that the patients referred to therapists practicing the new form of therapy had problems more amenable to treatment than did those referred to therapists practicing traditional forms.

The author draws a conclusion based on samples that probably aren't representative. He ignores the possibility that patients referred to therapists using the new therapy are just easier to treat, and their improvement could be due to that rather than to the therapists themselves.

C
It presumes, without providing justification, that any psychotherapist trained in traditional forms of therapy is untrained in the new form of therapy.

The author doesn’t assume that this. Instead, his conclusion is about therapists who practice traditional forms rather than the new form. Those therapists may still be trained in the new form and simply choose not to practice it.

D
It ignores the possibility that therapists practicing the new form of therapy systematically differ from therapists practicing traditional forms of therapy with regard to some personality attribute relevant to effective treatment.

Even if therapists practicing the new form of therapy are significantly different from those practicing traditional forms, this doesn’t change the fact that their patients made more progress. It also doesn’t weaken the conclusion that these therapists are more effective.

E
It presumes, without providing justification, that the personal rapport between therapist and patient has no influence on the effectiveness of the treatment the patient receives.

The author never assumes that rapport doesn’t influence therapists’ effectiveness. Even if he did assume this, it wouldn’t impact the conclusion that the therapists practicing the new form are more effective because their patients made more progress.

Cookie Cutters
55.3.09
39.2.05
25.4.24


18 comments

Sociologist: The more technologically advanced a society is, the more marked its members’ resistance to technological innovations. This is not surprising, because the more technologically advanced a society is, the more aware its members are of technology’s drawbacks. Specifically, people realize that sophisticated technologies deeply affect the quality of human relations.

Summarize Argument
A sociologist contends that it is not surprising that the more technologically advanced a society is, the more resistant it becomes to further innovations. This resistance is because people in advanced societies are more aware of the drawbacks of technology, particularly how it affects the quality of human relationships.

Identify Argument Part
This is an explanation (premise) that supports the sociologist’s main conclusion that his findings are unsurprising.

A
It is a conclusion supported by the claim that people realize that sophisticated technologies deeply affect the quality of human relations.
This is not a conclusion. It is an explanation that supports the conclusion about why the sociologist’s findings are unsurprising. Technology affecting the quality of human relations *also* supports the main conclusion, but not this part of the argument.
B
It is offered as an explanation of why people’s resistance to technological innovations is more marked the more technologically advanced the society in which they live is.
This statement explains *why* resistance to technological innovations is unsurprising in advanced societies. The author argues that members of these societies are more aware of the drawbacks of technology, which leads to resistance. This awareness is the reason for resistance.
C
It is a premise in support of the claim that the quality of human relations in technologically advanced societies is extremely poor.
The sociologist never claims that human relations in technologically advanced societies is “extremely poor.” The argument only says that technology affects the quality of human relationships.
D
It is a generalization based on the claim that the more people resist technological innovations, the more difficult it is for them to adjust to those innovations.
The argument does not discuss how people “adjust” to innovations. It is focused on people's awareness of technological drawbacks and the resistance that results from this increasing awareness.
E
It is an example presented to illustrate the claim that resistance to technological innovations deeply affects the quality of human relations.
This answer choice has the content of the argument somewhat jumbled. Furthermore, this statement is not an example, it is an explanation of why a phenomenon exists.

19 comments

To win democratic elections that are not fully subsidized by the government, nonwealthy candidates must be supported by wealthy patrons. This makes plausible the belief that these candidates will compromise their views to win that support. But since the wealthy are dispersed among the various political parties in roughly equal proportion to their percentage in the overall population, this belief is false.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author believes that nonwealthy candidates in democratic elections that aren’t fully subsidized by the government will not compromise their views in order to win the support of wealthy patrons. This is based on the fact that wealthy people are distributed among different political parties in equal proportion to their proportion among the overall population.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that winning the support of wealthy people might require changing one’s own views, even if one can find wealthy people in one’s own political party. For example, a Democratic billionaire’s views might be different from a Democratic candidate. That candidate may then need to change her views to win the billionaire’s support.

A
the primary function of political parties in democracies whose governments do not subsidize elections might not be to provide a means of negating the influence of wealth on elections
The purpose of parties irrelevant. We’re concerned with whether having the wealthy in various parties shows that the nonwealthy don’t need to change their views to get a wealthy person’s support. Why parties exist doesn’t affect whether a candidate might have to change her views.
B
in democracies in which elections are not fully subsidized by the government, positions endorsed by political parties might be much less varied than the positions taken by candidates
This possibility shows why a nonwealthy person might need to change their views to win a wealthy person’s support. Even if a wealthy person is part of the candidate’s party, that doesn’t mean the views of the party or the wealthy person in the party are shared by the candidate.
C
in democracies, government-subsidized elections ensure that the views expressed by the people who run for office might not be overly influenced by the opinions of the wealthiest people in those countries
The argument concerns democratic elections that are NOT fully subsidized by the government. Even if countries with subsidized elections ensure against being “overly influenced” by the wealthiest, that doesn’t suggest anything about countries without subsidized elections.
D
in democracies in which elections are not fully subsidized by the government, it might be no easier for a wealthy person to win an election than it is for a nonwealthy person to win an election
The argument concerns whether a nonwealthy candidate needs to change her views to win support of a wealthy person. Whether an election is easier to win for a wealthy person than for a nonwealthy person has no impact on whether a nonwealthy person needs to change her views.
E
a democracy in which candidates do not compromise their views in order to be elected to office might have other flaws
The argument concerns whether a nonwealthy candidate needs to change her views to win support of a wealthy person. Whether there are other flaws in a democracy has no bearing on whether a nonwealthy candidate must change her views.

Kudos to the LSAT writers. They've out done themselves with this question. I hope you didn't spend too much time getting this one wrong.

The passage is tough to understand. The writers make us think that a problem was solved when really, the problem still exists, just pushed one layer down. Crafty, crafty!

Let's pretend you're a painter name van Gogh. You're fucking awesome and you know it. Problem is, no one else knows it. But, alas, despite your god like skills with a brush, your body still needs mortal nourishment, clothing, and shelter. That means you need money. That means (because this is the stupid 1800's), you need to find a wealthy patron... who wants you to paint his ugly children. You'd like to not compromise your artistic genius, to not sell out, so to speak. But of course, that's a highly probably occurrence since no wealthy patron recognizes or agrees with your godly aesthetics.

Here's where the LSAT writers come to "the rescue". They say, "wait, the wealthy are dispersed among the various schools of art in roughly equal proportion to their percentage in the overall population". So no worries van Gogh. Just join up with one of those schools of art and you're all set. You know, maybe that one over there, on the corner with the flashing neon sign.

You see how this doesn't solve your problem? Previously, it's the patrons that you'd have to pander to. Now, it's the schools of art you'd have to pander to. What's the difference? You have to pander either way. The problem was not solved, just pushed one layer down.

But, of course, it certainly felt like it was solved when you were reading the original passage didn't it? Good job, LSAT writers.


46 comments