Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 3 - Question 07

January 19, 2014

More pedestrian injuries occur at crosswalks marked by both striping on the roadway and flashing lights than occur at crosswalks not so marked. Obviously these so-called safety features are a waste of taxpayer money.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The author concludes that the crosswalk safety features are a waste of money because more pedestrian injuries occur at crosswalks with these features than at crosswalks without them.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author compares the number of injuries at crosswalks with safety features and crosswalks without them. He assumes that these crosswalks are similar to one another in all relevant ways, but there could be some important differences between them. For example, maybe far more people cross at the crosswalks with safety features. Or maybe these crosswalks are more dangerous in the first place and the safety features make them much safer, even though more injuries still occur at them.

A
fails to consider that crosswalks marked by both striping and flashing lights are marked in this way precisely because they are the most dangerous ones

If the crosswalks got safety features because they were the most dangerous, there would likely be even more injuries without the features. Even though the safety features haven’t completely eliminated injuries, the author can’t conclude that they’re a waste of money.

B
takes for granted that safety features that fail to reduce the number of injuries are a waste of taxpayer money

The author never claims that the safety features “fail to reduce the number of injuries,” just that more injuries occur at crosswalks with the safety features.

C
presumes that there are less expensive features that will reduce the number of pedestrian injuries just as effectively as striping and flashing lights

The author doesn’t propose any alternative measures for reducing injuries. He never assumes that less expensive features will be as effective, he just suggests that the current features aren’t effective enough.

D
takes for granted that crosswalks with both striping and flashing lights have no other safety features

The author only addresses striping and flashing lights, but he never assumes that these are the only safety features at crosswalks.

E
fails to consider that, in accidents involving pedestrians and cars, the injuries to pedestrians are nearly always more serious than the injuries to occupants of cars

The author only addresses pedestrian injuries. How these injuries compare to drivers’ injuries is irrelevant.


20 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 3 - Question 06

January 19, 2014

4 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 3 - Question 05

January 19, 2014

Some people believe that advertising is socially pernicious—it changes consumers’ preferences, thereby manipulating people into wanting things they would not otherwise want. However, classes in music and art appreciation change people’s preferences for various forms of art and music, and there is nothing wrong with these classes. Therefore, _______.

Summary
Some people argue that because advertising changes people’s preferences, advertising is socially harmful. The author shows this argument is flawed by pointing out that classes in music and art change people’s preferences, too, but there’s nothing wrong with these classes. The author’s implicit point is that advertising is not necessarily bad simply because it changes people’s preferences.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Advertising is not necessarily bad simply because it changes people’s preferences.
The fact that something changes people’s preferences does not make the thing wrong.

A
consumers would still want most of the things they want even if they were not advertised
Unsupported. The author acknowledges that it’s possible advertising does change people’s preferences. The point is that it’s not bad simply because it changes people’s preferences.
B
the social perniciousness of advertising is not limited to its effect on people’s preferences
Antisupported. The author’s point is that advertising isn’t necessarily bad simply because it changes people’s preferences. So the author isn’t suggesting that advertising is socially pernicious.
C
the fact that advertising changes consumers’ preferences does not establish that it is bad
Strongly supported. Using an analogy, the author points out that the fact something changes preferences does not automatically make it bad.
D
if advertising changes consumers’ preferences, it generally does so in a positive way
Unsupported. Although the author believes changing consumers’ preferences isn’t necessarily bad, that doesn’t suggest the changes are positive. They may simply be neutral.
E
it is not completely accurate to say that advertising changes people’s preferences
Unsupported. The author drew an analogy to something that does change people’s preferences, but isn’t bad. The author isn’t denying that advertising change’s people’s preferences. He’s saying even if it changes people’s preferences, it’s not necessarily bad.

2 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 3 - Question 04

January 19, 2014

The Magno-Blanket is probably able to relieve arthritic pain in older dogs. A hospital study of people suffering from severe joint pain found that 76 percent of those who were treated with magnets reported reduced pain after just 3 weeks. Dogs and humans have similar physiologies and the Magno-Blanket brings magnets into the same proximity to the dog’s joints as they were to patients’ joints in the hospital study.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that the Magno-Blanket can probably relieve arthritic pain in older dogs. This is based on a study of people suffering from severe joint pain. 76 percent of the people treated with magnets reported reduced pain after 3 weeks. In addition, dogs and humans have similar physiologies, and the Magno-Blanket has magnets that would be as close to dog’s joints as the magnets in the study were to the people’s joints.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the magnets caused a reduction in joint pain among people in the study. This overlooks the possibility that there could be other explanations for the reduced pain — for example, maybe most joint pain reduces on its own over time.

A
The Magno-Blanket is likely to be effective on cats and other pets as well if it is effective at reducing joint pain in arthritic dogs.
We don’t know whether the blanket is effective on dogs. Learning that if it’s effective on dogs, it’ll be effective on other animals doesn’t help establish that it’s effective on dogs.
B
Magnets have been shown to be capable of intensifying the transmission of messages from people’s nerve cells to their brains.
If magnets can intensify messages from nerves to the brain, that suggests pain might be intensified. Alternatively, there’s no clear relationship between pain reduction and transmission of messages from nerves to the brain.
C
There are currently fewer means of safely alleviating arthritic pain in dogs than in humans.
The argument concerns whether magnets are a way to alleviate arthritic pain in dogs. The number of other ways available to do this has no effect on whether magnets can alleviate arthritic pain in dogs.
D
The patients in the hospital study suffering from severe joint pain who, after being treated with magnets, did not report reduced pain tended not to be those suffering from the most severe pain.
This suggests potential limitations on the effectiveness of magnets to treat humans.
E
Most of the patients in the hospital study suffering from severe joint pain who received a placebo rather than treatment with magnets did not report reduced pain.
This shows that a control group didn’t experience pain reduction in the same proportion as the group that got the magnets. This helps to eliminate the possibility that the pain reduction in the magnet group was due to something everyone had in common.

11 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 3 - Question 03

January 19, 2014

When chimpanzees become angry at other chimpanzees, they often engage in what primatologists call “threat gestures”: grunting, spitting, or making abrupt, upsweeping arm movements. Chimpanzees also sometimes attack other chimpanzees out of anger. However, when they do attack, they almost never take time to make threat gestures first. And, conversely, threat gestures are rarely followed by physical attacks.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do chimps usually fail to follow up threat gestures with physical attacks?

Objective
The correct answer should help show why threat gestures usually aren’t followed by physical attacks. Note that the question stem does not require us to explain why physical attacks aren’t preceded by threat gestures.

A
Chimpanzees engage in threat gestures when they are angry in order to preserve or enhance social status.
This explains why threat gestures are performed, but doesn’t explain why they aren’t followed by physical attacks. Wouldn’t chimps still want to attack others they’re angry at, even if they’ve demonstrated their status?
B
Making threat gestures helps chimpanzees vent aggressive feelings and thereby avoid physical aggression.
If threat gestures can help chimps vent and thereby avoid physical aggression, this explain why the gestures usually don’t result in physical attacks. The gestures help reduce the chimp’s aggressive feelings, which reduces the likelihood of physical attacks.
C
Threat gestures and physical attacks are not the only means by which chimpanzees display aggression.
This doesn’t change our expectations about threat gestures. If they’re means of displaying aggression, wouldn’t we expect physical attacks to follow?
D
Chimpanzees often respond to other chimpanzees’ threat gestures with threat gestures of their own.
But why don’t chimps usually attack each other after making threat gestures? We still don’t know.
E
The chimpanzees that most often make threat gestures are the ones that least often initiate physical attacks.
This deepens our confusion. Why are threat gestures rarely followed by physical attacks? This answer merely points out an extreme example of threats not being followed by attacks. We still don’t know why the attacks fail to occur.

8 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 3 - Question 02

January 19, 2014

Klein: The fact that the amount of matter that we have found in our galaxy is only one-tenth of what Einstein’s theory predicts gives us good reason for abandoning his view.

Brown: Given the great successes of Einstein’s theory, it would be better to conclude that most of the matter in our galaxy has not yet been found.

Speaker 1 Summary
Klein argues toward the implied conclusion that we should abandon Einstein’s theory. This is the conclusion indicated by Klein’s premise: that the fact that we’ve found much less matter in the galaxy than Einstein predicted justifies abandoning Einstein’s theory.

Speaker 2 Summary
Brown argues that instead of abandoning Einstein’s theory based on this inconsistency, we should instead believe that most of the matter in our galaxy hasn’t been found yet. In support, Brown points out that Einstein’s theory has had great successes (suggesting that one inconsistency isn’t enough to justify abandoning it).

Objective
We need to find something that Klein and Brown disagree about. Their disagreement is over whether we should abandon Einstein’s theory.

A
Scientists have found only one-tenth of the matter that Einstein’s theory predicts.
Both speakers agree that this is true. Klein directly makes this claim. Brown doesn’t refer to this inconsistency explicitly, but talks about what we should believe based on this fact, indicating an agreement that it’s true.
B
Einstein’s theory has achieved many successes.
Brown agrees with this, but Klein doesn’t state an opinion. Brown directly makes this claim. Klein just doesn’t say anything about the successes of Einstein’s theory, so we can’t know what Klein thinks.
C
It is possible to determine the amount of matter in our galaxy without relying on Einstein’s theory.
Neither speaker makes this claim. The discussion isn’t about how to determine the amount of matter in the galaxy, it’s about whether the observed amount of matter justifies abandoning Einstein’s theory.
D
The failure to find all of the matter predicted by Einstein’s theory should lead us to abandon it.
Klein agrees with this, but Brown disagrees, making this the point of disagreement. Klein thinks that because of the inconsistency between the theory’s prediction and our observations, we should abandon the theory. Brown thinks we should look for more matter instead.
E
Scientists are able to accurately judge the amount of matter that has been found in our galaxy.
Both speakers most likely agree with this. Neither speaker disputes that scientists know how much matter we’ve found. Also, this would have to be the case to accurately compare our findings with Einstein’s theory’s predictions.

3 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 1 - Question 25

January 19, 2014

2 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 1 - Question 24

January 19, 2014

Pediatrician: Swollen tonsils give rise to breathing problems during sleep, and the surgical removal of children’s swollen tonsils has been shown to alleviate sleep disturbances. So removing children’s tonsils before swelling even occurs will ensure that the children do not experience any breathing problems during sleep.

Summarize Argument

The pediatrician concludes that removing children’s tonsils before they swell will prevent all breathing problems during sleep. She supports this by saying that swollen tonsils cause breathing problems during sleep, and removing them alleviates sleep disturbances.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The pediatrician assumes that swollen tonsils are the only cause of breathing problems during sleep, ignoring other possible causes like asthma or allergies. If these other issues are involved, removing tonsils might not ensure that children don’t experience any breathing problems during sleep.

A
relies on an inappropriate appeal to authority

The pediatrician doesn’t rely on an appeal to authority at all. She notes that removing tonsils “has been shown” to alleviate sleep issues, but we don’t know that this is an appeal to authority and we certainly can’t assume that it’s an inappropriate one.

B
relies on an assumption that is tantamount to assuming that the conclusion is true

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, where the argument assumes what it sets out to prove. The pediatrician doesn't make this mistake. She provides distinct premises to support her conclusion.

C
infers from the fact that an action has a certain effect that the action is intended to produce that effect

The pediatrician states that tonsil removal alleviates breathing issues during sleep, but she doesn't conclude that tonsil removal is intended to alleviate these issues. Instead, she concludes that it will alleviate all breathing problems during sleep.

D
fails to consider the possibility that there may be other medical reasons for surgically removing a child’s tonsils

The pediatrician doesn’t assume that alleviating breathing issues during sleep is the only reason to remove children’s tonsils. Instead, she assumes that swollen tonsils are the only cause of these breathing issues.

E
fails to consider the possibility that some breathing problems during sleep may be caused by something other than swollen tonsils

The pediatrician assumes that swollen tonsils are the only cause of the breathing problems, without considering other potential causes like allergies or asthma. If there are other causes, tonsil removal might not ensure that children don’t experience any breathing problems.


9 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 1 - Question 23

January 19, 2014

6 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 1 - Question 22

January 19, 2014

From time to time there is a public outcry against predatory pricing—where a company deliberately sells its products at prices low enough to drive its competitors out of business. But this practice clearly should be acceptable, because even after its competitors go out of business, the mere threat of renewed competition will prevent the company from raising its prices to unreasonable levels.

Summary
The author concludes that predatory pricing should be acceptable.
Why?
Because even after the competitors of a company that practices predatory pricing go out of business, the threat of renewed competition will prevent the company from raising prices to unreasonable levels.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that if predatory pricing doesn’t lead a company to raise prices to unreasonable levels, then it should be acceptable.
The author assumes that there are no negative effects from predatory pricing that would justify not allowing it to occur.

A
Any company that is successful will inevitably induce competitors to enter the market.
The concept of a “successful” company has no place in this argument. Also, the premise refers to the “threat” of renewed competition preventing prices from rising to unreasonable levels. This doesn’t require that competition actually resume.
B
It is unlikely that several competing companies will engage in predatory pricing simultaneously.
Not necessary, because even if several companies engage in predatory pricing at the same time, it could still be that one of the companies ends up prevailing. That company won’t raise prices to unreasonable levels.
C
Only the largest and wealthiest companies can engage in predatory pricing for a sustained period of time.
The concept of “largest and wealthiest companies” has no place in the reasoning of this argument.
D
It is only competition or the threat of competition that keeps companies from raising prices.
Not necessary, because if there were other things that kept companies from raising prices besides just competition or the threat of competition, that wouldn’t undermine the argument. In fact, that would just be another reason prices won’t rise to unreasonable levels.
E
Any pricing practice that does not result in unreasonable prices should be acceptable.
Necessary, because if it were not true — if there were some pricing practices that don’t result in unreasonable prices that still should NOT be acceptable — then the fact predatory pricing does not lead to unreasonable prices would not be enough to call predatory pricing acceptable. (E) is the author’s assumed connection from the premise to the conclusion.

71 comments

«‹123456789›»