Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 3 - Question 26

January 19, 2014

As advances in medical research and technology have improved the ability of the medical profession to diagnose and treat a wide variety of illnesses and injuries, life spans have increased and overall health has improved. Yet, over the past few decades there has been a steady and significant increase in the rate of serious infections.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why has there been a steady, significant increase in the rate of serious infections, even though advances in medical research and technology have improved the ability to diagnose and treat a wide variety of illnesses, which has increase life spans and overall health?

Objective
The correct answer should tell us about something has changed over time in a way that could lead to a higher rate of infections today compared to the past.

A
It remains true that doctors sometimes prescribe ineffective medications due to misdiagnosis.
This doesn’t suggest anything has changed over time. Even if ineffective medications somehow lead to infections, we have no reason to think this tendency to prescribe ineffective medications has increased over time.
B
Life spans have increased precisely because overall health has improved.
But why might people have a higher rate of serious infections today despite better health? This answer doesn’t help answer that question.
C
The vast majority of serious infections are now curable, although many require hospitalization.
If most serious infections are now curable, why is the rate of serious infection going up? This answer makes the discrepancy more difficult to explain.
D
As a population increases in size, there is a directly proportional increase in the number of serious infections.
A proportional increase in the number of infections doesn’t change the rate of infection in the population. Rate of infection involves a measure of number of infections divided by the population. The stimulus says the rate of serious infection has increased.
E
Modern treatments for many otherwise fatal illnesses increase the patient’s susceptibility to infection.
This is a reason the rate of serious infection might be higher today despite the increase in life span and overall health. Modern treatments, as they are used in a higher proportion of people over time, increases susceptibility to infection, leading to a higher rate of infection.

27 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 3 - Question 25

January 19, 2014

New evidence indicates that recent property development bordering a national park has not adversely affected the park’s wildlife. On the contrary, a comparison of the most recent survey of the park’s wildlife with one conducted just prior to the development shows that the amount of wildlife has in fact increased over the intervening decade. Moreover, the park’s resources can support its current wildlife populations without strain.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that recent property development next to a national park has not harmed the park’s wildlife. This is based on the fact that a comparison of a survey conducted right before the development began and a recent survey shows that the amount of wildlife has increased over the past decade. In addition, the park’s resources can support the current wildlife population without any strain.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the amount of wildlife would not have increased more without the property development. The author also assumes that the amount of wildlife is a reliable indicator of whether the park’s wildlife has been harmed.

A
While both surveys found the same species of animals in the park, the more recent survey found greater numbers of animals belonging to each species.
This strengthens by helping to eliminate the possibility that the property development decreased the amount of certain species. Without (A), it’s possible the overall wildlife amount increased, but some species were wiped out.
B
The more recent survey was taken in the summer, when the diversity of wildlife in the park is at its greatest.
If anything, this might weaken the argument by providing an alternate explanation for why the recent survey showed an increase in wildlife amount. This suggests the development might have hurt wildlife, but this effect was masked by the timing of the recent survey.
C
Migration of wildlife into the park from the adjacent developing areas has increased animal populations to levels beyond those that the resources of the park could have supported a decade ago.
Whether the resources 10 years ago could have supported the current wildlife amount has no impact, because we know the park currently has enough resources. We don’t have any additional reason to believe wildlife haven’t been harmed.
D
The most recent techniques for surveying wildlife are better at locating difficult-to-find animals than were older techniques.
If anything, this might weaken the argument by providing an alternate explanation for why the recent survey showed an increase in wildlife amount. This suggests the development might have hurt wildlife, but the effect was masked by improvements in locating and counting wildlife.
E
The more recent survey not only involved counting the animals found in the park but, unlike the earlier survey, also provided an inventory of the plant life found within the park.
If anything, this might weaken the argument by providing an alternate explanation for why the recent survey showed an increase in wildlife amount. This suggests the development might have hurt wildlife, but this effect was masked by how the recent survey was conducted.

37 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 3 - Question 24

January 19, 2014

8 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 3 - Question 23

January 19, 2014

Medical school professor: Most malpractice suits arise out of patients’ perceptions that their doctors are acting negligently or carelessly. Many doctors now regard medicine as a science rather than an art, and are less compassionate as a result. Harried doctors sometimes treat patients rudely, discourage them from asking questions, or patronize them. Lawsuits could be avoided if doctors learned to listen better to patients. Unfortunately, certain economic incentives encourage doctors to treat patients rudely.

Summary

A Medical School Professor explains that most malpractice suits arise because patients believe their doctor is acting negligently or carelessly. Many doctors are less compassionate now because they view medicine as a science. If doctors learned to listen to their patients better, lawsuits could be avoided. However, economic incentives encourage doctors to be rude.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Some economic incentives result in lawsuits against doctors

Doctors could reduce the amount of lawsuits they face by being better listeners

A
Economic incentives to treat patients rudely are the main cause of doctors being sued for malpractice.

This is too strong to support. The stimulus says that economic incentives are *a* factor, but nothing says it is the *sole* factor

B
The economic incentives in the health care system encourage doctors to regard medicine as a science rather than as an art.

The stimulus only says that economic incentives encourage doctors to treat their patients rudely. The fact that doctors view medicine as a science is an independent factor (they do not impact each other)

C
Malpractice suits brought against doctors are, for the most part, unjustified.

This is too strong to support. The stimulus does not say anything about whether or not malpractice suits are justified.

D
The scientific outlook in medicine should be replaced by an entirely different approach to medicine.

This is far too strong to support. You need to make a bunch of unwarranted assumptions about the author’s POV to make this work.

E
Doctors foster, by their actions, the perception that they do not really care about their patients.

The stimulus says that many doctors view medicine as a science rather than an art, which makes them less compassionate. Thus, this statement is easily supported.


31 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 3 - Question 22

January 19, 2014

48 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 3 - Question 21

January 19, 2014

Prolonged exposure to sulfur fumes permanently damages one’s sense of smell. In one important study, 100 workers from sulfur-emitting factories and a control group of 100 workers from other occupations were asked to identify a variety of chemically reproduced scents, including those of foods, spices, and flowers. On average, the factory workers successfully identified 10 percent of the scents compared to 50 percent for the control group.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that prolonged exposure to sulfur fumes permanently damages a person’s sense of smell. This is based on a study comparing 100 workers from sulfur-emitting factories and 100 workers who didn’t work in sulfur-emitting factories. On average, the sulfur-emitting factory workers identified fewer chemically-reproduced scents than the other group did.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the only explanation for why the sulfur-emitting factory workers identified fewer scents than the other group did is damage to sense of smell due to sulfur fumes. The author also assumes that the sulfur-emitting factory workers experienced “prolonged” exposure to sulfuar and that any potential damage to sense of smell they suffered is permanent.

A
The chemicals used in the study closely but not perfectly reproduced the corresponding natural scents.
(A) should affect the both groups equally, so it’s not an alternate hypothesis. Also, a close resemblance to the natural scent could strengthen by defending from an objection that the scents were too different to reliably test sense of smell.
B
The subjects in the study were tested in the environments where they usually work.
This shows that the test wasn’t investigating permanent damage. If the sulfur group was tested in the sulfur-emitting factory, whatever effect sulfur had on the group could have been due to the contemporaneous effects of sulfur. We’d want the test to be done outside the factory.
C
Most members of the control group had participated in several earlier studies that involved the identification of scents.
This could provide an alternate explanation for why the control group was able to identify more scents than the sulfur group. Prior experience with studies identifying scents could have improved their ability to identify scents in such tests.
D
Every sulfur-emitting factory with workers participating in the study also emits other noxious fumes.
This could provide an alternate explanation for why the sulfur-emitting factory group identified fewer scents. Maybe any damage to sense of smell was due to a different fume besides sulfur.
E
Because of the factories’ locations, the factory workers were less likely than those in the control group to have been exposed to many of the scents used in the study.
This could provide an alternate explanation for why the sulfur-emitting factory group identified fewer scents. Less familiarity with the natural scents they were supposed to identify could have accounted for their worse performance on the test.

32 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 3 - Question 20

January 19, 2014

Taylor: From observing close friends and relatives, it is clear to me that telepathy is indeed possible between people with close psychic ties. The amazing frequency with which a good friend or family member knows what one is thinking or feeling cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

Taylor concludes that telepathy is possible between people with close psychic ties. He supports this by saying that the frequent ability of a close friend or family member to know what you're thinking or feeling can't be a coincidence.

Identify and Describe Flaw

Taylor concludes that telepathy is possible because it explains how people can sense their close friends’ and family members’ thoughts and feelings. However, he overlooks other possible— and far more probable— explanations. For example, maybe friends and relatives can sense each other’s thoughts because they spend a lot of time together and know each other very well, not because they’re telepathic.

A
is based on too small a sample to yield a reliable conclusion

We don’t know how many friends and relatives Taylor observed. But even if he only observed a few, his conclusion is that telepathy is possible, not that most or all friends and relatives are telepathic. To show that something is possible, Taylor only needs to observe it once.

B
fails to address a highly plausible alternative explanation for all instances of the observed phenomenon

A highly plausible alternative explanation for why friends and relatives can sense each other’s thoughts and feelings is simply that they spend time together and know each other well. Taylor fails to rule out this explanation, concluding instead that these people are telepathic.

C
relies crucially on an illegitimate appeal to emotion

Taylor talks about people’s thoughts and feelings, but his argument doesn’t rely on an appeal to emotion. He just notes that friends and relatives can sometimes sense each other’s emotions.

D
presumes, without providing justification, that one can never know what a stranger is thinking or feeling

Taylor’s argument only addresses friends’ and relatives’ ability to sense each other’s thoughts and feelings. He doesn’t make any assumptions about strangers. Whether strangers can sometimes sense people’s thoughts and feelings has no impact on Taylor’s argument.

E
appeals to a premise one would accept only if one already accepted the truth of the conclusion

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning. Taylor doesn't make this mistake. One can accept his premise— that friends and relatives can often sense each other’s thoughts and feelings— without first accepting his conclusion— that telepathy is possible.


21 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 3 - Question 19

January 19, 2014

43 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 3 - Question 18

January 19, 2014

A recent magazine article argued that most companies that do not already own videoconferencing equipment would be wasting their money if they purchased it. However, this is clearly not true. In a recent survey of businesses that have purchased such equipment, most of the respondents stated that the videoconferencing equipment was well worth its cost.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that the article is wrong. As support, she cites a recent survey of businesses that bought videoconferencing equipment; most respondents said it was worth the cost.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of using an unrepresentative sample, where a conclusion about a group is based on a sample that is likely meaningfully different from the group.

There are two reasons that the sample could be meaningfully different from “most companies.”

(1) The survey only includes companies who have purchased the equipment. Presumably these companies needed the equipment. This doesn’t mean “most companies” wouldn’t be wasting their money; maybe most companies don’t need it.

(2) It’s possible that only companies that were happy with the equipment responded to the survey, so the “respondents” are even less reflective of the whole group.

A
concludes that something is worth its cost merely on the grounds that many businesses have purchased it
Her conclusion isn’t just based on the fact that many businesses have purchased the equipment, but on the fact that many of those businesses said the equipment was worth the cost.
B
takes a condition sufficient to justify purchasing costly equipment to be necessary in order for the cost of the purchase to be justified
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The author doesn’t make this mistake; she never presents a condition that is sufficient to justify purchasing the equipment. Instead, she uses an unrepresentative sample to support her conclusion.
C
rejects a position merely on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been given for it
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that a conclusion is false simply because the support for that conclusion is weak. The author doesn’t make this mistake. She rejects the article’s position, but she does provide evidence to support her claim.
D
relies on a sample that it is reasonable to suppose is unrepresentative of the group about which it draws its conclusion
The author relies on the survey’s respondents, which are probably not representative of “most companies.” Companies that bought the equipment likely needed it, while those that haven’t bought equipment may not.
E
confuses the cost of an item with its value to the purchaser
By arguing that most businesses would not be wasting their money by purchasing the equipment, the author is actually distinguishing between value and cost, not confusing them. She’s suggesting that, even though it’s expensive, the equipment will still have value to the companies.

An additional note to (D)

The reasoning Quick Silver gave below is correct. The bigger flaw in the argument is that they were surveying people who already bought video conferencing equipment. If they already bought video conferencing equipment, then presumably they needed video conferencing equipment. That's like saying most people could use a nice new set of golf clubs because we survey people who already owned golf clubs and they said it was a great purchase.


15 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 3 - Question 14

January 19, 2014

Some theorists argue that literary critics should strive to be value-neutral in their literary criticism. These theorists maintain that by exposing the meaning of literary works without evaluating them, critics will enable readers to make their own judgments about the works’ merits. But literary criticism cannot be completely value-neutral. Thus, some theorists are mistaken about what is an appropriate goal for literary criticism.

Summary
The author concludes that literary critics should NOT try (strive) to be value-neutral in their literary criticism. This is based on the fact that literary criticism cannot be completely value-neutral.
If you didn’t understand the conclusion in the way described above, then you probably didn’t translate what it means for the theorists to be “mistaken about what is an appropriate goal for literary criticism.” The first sentence said the theorists argue that striving to be value-neutral was an appropriate goal. If those theorists are mistaken, that means striving to be value-neutral is NOT an appropriate goal.

Missing Connection
Does the fact that literary critics can’t be value-neutral prove that they shouldn’t TRY to be value-neutral? No. Why shouldn’t we strive for the impossible? To make the argument valid, we want to establish that if something can’t be done, then literary critics shouldn’t try to do it.

A
Any critic who is able to help readers make their own judgments about literary works’ merits should strive to produce value-neutral criticism.
(A) supports a conclusion that certain critics SHOULD try to produce value-neutral criticism. But we want to establish that critics should NOT try to produce value-neutral criticism.
B
If it is impossible to produce completely value-neutral literary criticism, then critics should not even try to be value-neutral.
(B) gets us from the premise to the conclusion. If, as the premise establishes, it’s impossible to produce completely value-neutral criticism, then the conclusion must be true — critics shouldn’t try to be value-neutral.
C
Critics are more likely to provide criticisms of the works they like than to provide criticisms of the works they dislike.
(C) doesn’t establish that critics shouldn’t try to do something. Learning about what critics are more likely to do doesn’t establish what they should not do.
D
The less readers understand the meaning of a literary work, the less capable they will be of evaluating that work’s merits.
(D) doesn’t establish that critics shouldn’t try to do something. What readers understand or are capable of might relate to the theorists’ support for their own view. But it doesn’t connect the author’s premise to the conclusion.
E
Critics who try to avoid rendering value judgments about the works they consider tend to influence readers’ judgments less than other critics do.
(E) doesn’t establish that critics shouldn’t try to do something. Whether and how critics influence readers’ judgments might have some relationship to the theorists’ support for their view. But it doesn’t connect the author’s premise to the conclusion.

15 comments

123456789›»