Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 2 - Question 26
November 17, 2013
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that exact replication is not the only quality viewers value in a painting. He supports this by contending that, if this wasn’t the case, photography would have replaced painting as an art form by now.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author is supporting a conclusion about people’s preferences in visual art by citing a relevant fact. Note that this is an “is” conclusion, not an “ought” conclusion: the author is talking about what people do like, not what they should like.
A
using a claim about what most people appreciate to support an aesthetic principle
The author’s claim about what people appreciate (i.e. paintings that aren’t exact replicas) is his conclusion; it doesn’t support anything else. Also, it’s not clear that his claims are necessarily about “most” people.
B
appealing to an aesthetic principle to defend the tastes that people have
The author doesn’t defend people’s tastes: he simply describes them.
C
explaining a historical fact in terms of the artistic preferences of people
This gets it backwards: the historical fact (that photography didn’t displace painting) is used to make a conclusion about people’s artistic preferences (more than just replication).
D
appealing to a historical fact to support a claim about people’s artistic preferences
The author cites a historical fact (that photography didn’t displace painting) to justify his claim that people desire more than pure replication in paintings.
E
considering historical context to defend the artistic preferences of people
The author doesn’t defend people’s tastes: he simply describes them. The historical context is used to show what the preferences are, not to defend them.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 2 - Question 23
November 17, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 2 - Question 24
November 17, 2013
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that life may be able to arise under difficult conditions throughout the universe. This is based on the finding of fossilized bacteria in 3.5 billion-year-old rocks. Since these bacteria were already complex, the author draws a subsidiary conclusion that the bacteria had a long evolutionary history by the time they were fossilized. Since Earth is only 4.6 billion years old, the author believes the bacteria must have appeared shortly after the Earth was formed, when conditions were difficult. This is why the author believes live might be able to arise under difficult conditions.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is a subsidiary conclusion.
A
It is a claim for which no support is provided in the argument, and that is used to illustrate the conclusion of the argument as a whole.
The referenced text has support from the claim that the bacteria were quite complex.
B
It is a claim for which no support is provided in the argument, and that is used to support a claim that in turn lends support to the conclusion of the argument as a whole.
The referenced text has support from the claim that the bacteria were quite complex.
C
It is a claim for which some support is provided in the argument, and that itself is used to support another claim that in turn lends support to the conclusion of the argument as a whole.
This accurately describes the role of the referenced text. It’s a subsidiary conclusion.
D
It is a claim for which some support is provided in the argument, and that itself is not used to support any other claim in the argument.
The referenced text is used to support the claim that the first life on Earth must have appeared soon after the planet’s formation.
E
It is a claim for which some support is provided in the argument, and that itself is used to support two distinct conclusions, neither of which is intended to provide support for the other.
The referenced text does not support two distinct, unrelated conclusions. It supports the claim that the first life on Earth must have appeared soon after the planet’s formation. This claim in turn supports the last sentence. But these conclusion are not unrelated.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 2 - Question 17
November 17, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 2 - Question 18
November 17, 2013
Summary
Psychologists have discovered that allowing flexible work schedules does not cause managers’ job satisfaction or efficiency to increase. These flexible schedules do cause job satisfaction, productivity, and attendance to increase among nonmanagerial employees. However, these benefits decrease over time and are reduced even further if schedules are too flexible.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The benefits of flexible work schedule policies are better observed among nonmanagerial employees than among managers.
A
Implementing flexible schedules would be an effective means of increasing the job satisfaction and efficiency of managers who do not already have scheduling autonomy.
We don’t know if flexible schedules would in fact increase satisfaction and efficiency among managers. We can’t assume that the explanation given for why managers don’t reflect these benefits is true, it is only suggested as one possible explanation.
B
Flexible-schedule policies should be expected to improve the morale of some individual employees but not the overall morale of a company’s workforce.
We don’t know if flexible schedule policies would not improve the overall morale of a company. We could reasonable assume that overall morale would improve if the morale of the nonmanagerial workforce improves.
C
Flexible schedules should be expected to substantially improve a company’s productivity and employee satisfaction in the long run.
We don’t know if flexible schedule policies improve satisfaction in the long run. We are told that the benefits of these policies decrease over time.
D
There is little correlation between managers’ job satisfaction and their ability to set their own work schedules.
We don’t know if there is in fact little correlation between these two ideas. The explanation offered for why managers don’t experience increased job satisfaction or efficiency is only one possible explanation.
E
The typical benefits of flexible-schedule policies cannot be reliably inferred from observations of the effects of such policies on managers.
The effects of flexible schedule policies cannot be observed among managers because these managers did not experience an increase in job satisfaction or efficiency. On the other hand, nonmanagerial employees did see increases in these areas.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 2 - Question 19
November 17, 2013
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that the viewers responded that Lopez gave better arguments during a televised political debate may have been biased in favor of Lopez. This is based on the fact that Lopez eventually won the election.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the fact Lopez eventually won the election suggests that the people thought Lopez’s arguments were better in the debate were biased. This overlooks the possibility that Lopez’s arguments were in fact better and convinced people to vote for him.
A
Most people who voted in the election that Lopez won did not watch the debate.
The author never assumed that most people who voted in the election watched the debate. There could have been a tiny number of people who watched the debate; the author simply thinks those people may have been biased toward Lopez.
B
Most people in the live audience watching the debate who were surveyed immediately afterward said that they thought that Tanner was more persuasive in the debate than was Lopez.
It’s not clear what live viewer reactions have to do with a survey of people who saw the debate on television. In any case, (B) is consistent with the author’s theory, since the survey respondents’ opinion about who won the debate still can be due to bias.
C
The people who watched the televised debate were more likely to vote for Tanner than were the people who did not watch the debate.
This compares the likelihood of voting for Tanner among viewers and nonviewers. But what matters is whether the viewers were more likely to vote for Tanner or Lopez. (C) could just mean 1% of viewers were likely to vote for Tanner (as long as that is greater than for nonviewers).
D
Most of the viewers surveyed immediately prior to the debate said that they would probably vote for Tanner.
This is strong evidence most viewers were not biased in favor of Lopez before the debate, which suggests bias was not the reason viewers of the debate said Lopez had better arguments.
E
Lopez won the election over Tanner by a very narrow margin.
The narrow nature of the victory doesn’t change the fact Lopez won. The author never suggested that the victory was dominant or that the specific magnitude of the win affects the likelihood that viewers of the debate were biased.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 2 - Question 20
November 17, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 2 - Question 21
November 17, 2013Editor: Most of the books of fiction we have published were submitted by literary agents for writers they represented; the rest were received directly from fiction writers from whom we requested submissions. No nonfiction manuscript has been given serious attention, let alone been published, unless it was from a renowned figure or we had requested the manuscript after careful review of the writer’s book proposal.
Summary
If a fiction book was published → submitted by a literary agent OR received directly by request.
If a nonfiction book has been given serious attention (or published) → from a renowned figure OR requested after review of book proposal.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
There’s no obvious conclusion to draw from the stimulus. Just keep in mind that we have one rule for what must be true if a fiction book was published, and we have another rule for what must be true if a nonfiction book was given serious attention or published.
A
Most unrequested manuscripts that the publishing house receives are not given serious attention.
Not supported, because most unrequested manuscripts might be from a renowned figure. Or, they might also be fiction manuscripts submitted by literary agents. This is why most unrequested manuscripts still might be given serious attention.
B
Most of the books that the publishing house publishes that are not by renowned authors are books of fiction.
We don’t know the proportion of books that are fiction among non-renowned authors. It’s possible that every book by a non-renowned author is a nonfiction one (that was published after review of the book proposal).
C
If a manuscript has received careful attention at the publishing house, then it is either a work of fiction or the work of a renowned figure.
Not supported, because a manuscript that gets careful attention could be a nonfiction one that was requested after careful review of the book proposal.
D
The publishing house is less likely to give careful consideration to a manuscript that was submitted directly by a writer than one that was submitted by a writer’s literary agent.
We don’t know anything about the comparative likelihood of giving careful consideration. Notice that the rule about fiction books doesn’t say anything about careful consideration.
E
Any unrequested manuscripts not submitted by literary agents that the publishing house has published were written by renowned figures.
Supported. If a manuscript is unrequested, and not submitted by a literary agent, then it can’t be a book of fiction. So, it must be a nonfiction book. And if it’s a nonfiction book that’s published, if it’s not requested, then it must be from a renowned figure.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 2 - Question 22
November 17, 2013
Summary
The author concludes that most of the district’s drinking water is likely to become polluted. This is based on the fact taht the new district budget doesn’t allow for hiring of more dairy inspectors, and if that’s the case, then most large dairies in the central valley will not meet federal standards.
Missing Connection
The premises allow us to conclude that most large dairies in the central valley won’t meet federal standards. But how do we get from this inference to the conclusion that most of the district’s drinking water is likely to be polluted? We want to supply the following relationship:
If most large daries in the central valley don’t meet federal standards, then most of the district’s drinking water is likely to be polluted.
If most large daries in the central valley don’t meet federal standards, then most of the district’s drinking water is likely to be polluted.
A
If most of the dairies in the central valley meet federal standards for the disposal of natural wastes, it is unlikely that most of the district’s drinking water will become polluted.
We’re looking for the claim that if most of the dairies in the central valley DON’T meet federal standards, it’s likely that the water WILL be polluted. (A), however, tells us what happens if most of the dairies DO meet federal standards. This doesn’t establish what happens if most of the dairies DON’T meet federal standards.
B
To keep all the drinking water in the district clean requires more dairy inspectors to monitor the dairies’ disposal of natural wastes.
Even if (B) could establish that we can’t keep “all” of the drinking water clean, this doesn’t guarantee that “most” of the drinking water is likely to be polluted. For example, perhaps only 1% of the water is unclean. This wouldn’t be a situation in which most (over half) of the drinking water is polluted.
C
All of the district’s drinking water is likely to become polluted only if all of the large dairies in the central valley do not meet federal standards for the disposal of natural wastes.
(C) reverses something that would be correct. “Only if” introduces a necessary condition. But we want to know that failure to meet federal standards is sufficient to make most of the drinking water likely to be polluted.
D
Most of the district’s drinking water is likely to become polluted if most of the large dairies in the central valley do not meet federal standards for the disposal of natural wastes.
We know from the premises that most large dairies in the central valley don’t meet federal standards. (D) tells us that if that is the case, most drinking water is likely to be polluted. 
E
If none of the large dairies in the central valley meets federal standards for the disposal of natural wastes, most of the district’s drinking water is likely to become polluted.
We do not know from the premises that “none” of the large dairies in the central valley meet federal standards. So the premises would not interact with the conditional in (E). We still would not know whether most of the drinking water is likely to become polluted.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 140 - Section 2 - Question 16
November 17, 2013
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Some advertising for heartburn medications is false because unrelieved heartburn is not likely to cause esophageal cancer. In reality, only about 5 percent of people with severe heartburn have a condition that raises the risk of cancer. So, only about 5 percent of people—those with this condition—are at a higher risk of developing cancer due to heartburn.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s contention that some heartburn medications are falsely advertised because it is not true that unrelieved heartburn is likely to cause esophageal cancer.
A
Only those people with Barrett’s esophagus can suffer an increased risk of developing cancer from heartburn.
This is a premise. The stimulus notes that only 5% of people—those with Barrett's esophagus—have a higher risk of cancer to support the conclusion that heartburn isn’t "likely" to increase the risk of cancer. If only 5% of people are at risk, it’s unlikely for the average person.
B
An increase in the risk of esophageal cancer arises from cells similar to those in the stomach’s lining developing in the lower esophagus.
This is a premise. It provides background on a condition called Barrett's esophagus, which the author mentions to support her conclusion. Since readers may be unfamiliar with Barrett’s esophagus, this claim gives them the information needed to follow the author’s argument.
C
Unrelieved heartburn is not likely to cause esophageal cancer.
This accurately states the main conclusion. The author argues that some heartburn-medication ads are untrue because unrelieved heartburn is not likely to cause esophageal cancer. Since only 5% of people are at risk, the average person is not "likely" to have an increased risk.
D
Some heartburn-medication advertisements imply that unrelieved heartburn is likely to cause esophageal cancer.
This is context. The claim that some heartburn-medication ads imply unrelieved heartburn is likely to cause esophageal cancer helps explain the author's argument, which concludes that this advertising is false since heartburn only increases cancer risk in about 5% of people.
E
The dangers touted by heartburn-medication advertisements will affect relatively few of the people who see those advertisements.
The stimulus doesn’t make this claim. A premise states that only 5% of people will have a higher risk of esophageal cancer from heartburn but doesn’t suggest that only 5% of people who see the ads have this condition. People with the condition may be more likely to see the ads.