LSAT 146 - Section 2 - Question 26

September 7, 2017

Winston: The rules for awarding Nobel Prizes stipulate that no more than three people can share the same prize. Nobel Prizes in scientific disciplines are generally given in recognition of particular scientific results, however, and many important results are the work of four or more scientists.

Sanjay: Those rules also stipulate that prize winners must be living, but some highly influential scientists died before their work was fully appreciated.

Speaker 1 Summary

Winston tells us that the rules for awarding Nobel Prizes do not allow more than three people to share the same prize. Prizes in scientific disciplines are typically given for scientific results, which often involve the work of more than three scientists. This suggests that some scientists who worked on prize-winning work might not receive a Nobel Prize.

Speaker 2 Summary

Sanjay tells us that the Nobel Prize rules also require winners to be living. Some influential scientists died before their work was fully appreciated. This suggests that some dead scientists might not be able to win a Nobel Prize, even if their work ends up worthy of a prize.

Objective

We’re looking for a point of agreement. The speakers agree that Nobel Prize rules may end up preventing some scientists who would deserve a prize from winning one.

A
the rules that govern the awarding of Nobel Prizes should be changed so that prizes can be awarded to deceased persons

Neither speaker expresses an opinion. Nobody indicates what should or should not be the case. The speakers simply describe aspects of Nobel Prize rules without suggesting those aspects are good or bad.

B
the rules that govern the awarding of Nobel Prizes in scientific disciplines should be different from the rules for other Nobel Prizes

Neither speaker expresses an opinion. Nobody indicates what should or should not be the case. The speakers simply describe aspects of Nobel Prize rules without suggesting those aspects are good or bad.

C
Nobel Prizes in scientific disciplines should not be given in recognition of particular scientific results

Neither speaker expresses an opinion. Nobody indicates what should or should not be the case. The speakers simply describe aspects of Nobel Prize rules without suggesting those aspects are good or bad.

D
the evaluation of individual achievement in science is a highly subjective matter

Neither speaker expresses an opinion. Nobody discusses the subjectivity of evaluating individual achievement in science. They simply describe aspects of Nobel Prize rules and how they might prevent some scientists from obtaining a prize.

E
Nobel Prizes are inaccurate indicators of scientists’ contributions to their disciplines

This is a point of agreement. Winston’s comments indicate some scientists might not get a prize simply because of the size of their teams. Sanjay’s comments indicate some might not get a prize because they died. This means prizes might not go to people who should get one.


43 comments

LSAT 146 - Section 2 - Question 25

September 7, 2017

Substantial economic growth must be preceded by technological innovations that expanding industries incorporate into their production or distribution procedures. Since a worldwide ban on the use of fossil fuels would surely produce many technological innovations, it is obvious that such a ban would be followed by an economic boom rather than by the economic depression forecast by the critics of such a ban.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that a ban on fossil fuels would be followed by substantial economic growth. This is based on the fact that substantial economic growth requires the occurrence of technological innovations. And, a ban on fossil fuels would produce many technological innovations.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author confuses a sufficient condition with a necessary condition. Technological innovations are necessary for substantial economic growth (the word “must” indicates necessity). But the author thinks that having technological innovations will be sufficient for substantial economic growth. This is why the author thinks the ban on fossil fuels will be followed by an economic boom.

A
The argument assumes the truth of the conclusion for which it purports to be providing evidence.
(A) describes circular reasoning. The conclusion is not a restatement of one of the premises.
B
The argument attempts to establish the falsehood of a proposition by criticizing the reasoning of those who assert its truth.
The author doesn’t criticize someone else’s reasoning.
C
The argument attempts to establish a conclusion on the basis of stronger evidence than the conclusion requires.
There’s nothing flawed about establishing a conclusion using evidence stronger than needed. Anyway, (C) doesn’t happen because the evidence here isn’t enough to prove the conclusion.
D
The argument confuses a necessary condition for a phenomenon with a sufficient condition for that phenomenon.
The argument confuses a necessary condition (tech innovations) for a phenomenon (substantial economic growth) with a sufficient condition for that phenomenon. This is flawed because we aren’t told tech innovations are enough to guarantee substantial economic growth.
E
The argument presumes, without providing warrant, that because certain conditions only sometimes precede a certain phenomenon, these conditions always bring about the phenomenon.
The conclusion is based on the fact that any time there’s substantial economic growth, there must be tech innovations that preceded. This is a claim that sub. economic growth requires tech innovations. Not a claim that tech innovations “only sometimes” happen before growth.

20 comments

LSAT 146 - Section 2 - Question 24

September 7, 2017

3 comments

LSAT 146 - Section 2 - Question 23

September 7, 2017

5 comments

LSAT 146 - Section 2 - Question 22

September 7, 2017

In a recent study, one group of participants watched video recordings of themselves running on treadmills, and a second group watched recordings of other people running on treadmills. When contacted later, participants in the first group reported exercising, on average, 1 hour longer each day than did the other participants. This shows that watching a recording of yourself exercising can motivate you to exercise more.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that watching a recording of yourself exercising can motivate you to exercise more. This is based on a study in which one group of participants watched recordings of themselves running, and a second group watched recordings of other people running. Later, the first group reported exercising, on average, 1 hour longer each day than the second group reported exercising.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the greater reported amount of exercise for the first group reflects a greater actual amount of exercise in that group. (There’s a difference between reported amounts and actual amounts.) The author also assumes that the first group’s watching themselves run caused increased motivation, which in turn caused greater amounts of exercise.

A
In another study, people who watched recordings of themselves lifting weights exercised for more time each day than did people who watched recordings of themselves running.
This suggests that watching yourself doing some kinds of exercise can cause you to exercise more than watching yourself engage in other kinds. But the author never suggested that there was no difference between the potential motivating effects of different exercises.
B
Another study’s members exhibited an increased willingness to give to charity after hearing stories in which people with whom they identified did so.
If (B) does anything, it might strengthen the argument by providing evidence that one might increase a certain behavior after identifying with someone doing that behavior.
C
Participants who were already highly motivated to exercise did not report exercising for any longer each day than they had before the study.
The conclusion doesn’t say that everyone will be motivated by watching themselves exercise. There can be some exceptions. And, we have no reason to think the second group had more of these already-motivated people than the first. So (C) doesn’t provide an alternate hypothesis.
D
In studies of identical twins, participants who observed their twin reading overreported by a significant amount how much time they themselves spent reading in the days that followed.
This suggests that the first group might have overreported the amount they exercised. This provides an alternate hypothesis to explain the results of the study. Maybe watching themselves didn’t actually lead to more exercise in the first group, just exaggerated reports.
E
A third group of participants who watched recordings of themselves sitting on couches afterwards reported being sedentary for more time each day than did the other participants.
If (E) does anything, it might strengthen the argument by providing additional evidence that people report engaging in an activity more after watching themselves do a similar kind of activity.

116 comments

LSAT 146 - Section 2 - Question 21

September 7, 2017

13 comments

LSAT 146 - Section 2 - Question 20

September 7, 2017

Voting records regularly show that people over 65 vote in the highest percentages while young adults are least likely to vote. This indicates that citizens are becoming increasingly disconnected from the political system with each passing generation.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that citizens are becoming increasingly disconnected from politics with each passing generation. This is based on records that show people over 65 vote in the highest percentages, while young adults are the least likely to vote.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that people become more likely to vote as they get older. In other words, the reason for the disparity in voting rates between old people and young people doesn’t have to be due to a decline in political engagement among more recent generations of people. Each individual generation may be equally likely to vote as other generations when comparing them at similar ages. But likelihood to vote could simply increase with age, for each generation. (A generation is a cohort of people born during a range of particular years.)

A
compares an early stage of one generation to a later stage of another
The argument compares an early stage of one gen. (the young adults’ generation) to a later stage of another (the older people’s generation). This opens the possibility that the disparity in voting is due to the stage of the gen., not a difference between one gen. and another.
B
fails to take into account the relative sizes of the generations compared
The sizes of the generations are irrelevant, because the argument concerns explanations for a disparity in the likelihood of voting. People over 65 are more likely to vote than young adults. The comparative number of each group doesn’t affect how we interpret this disparity.
C
provides evidence for a phenomenon without providing an explanation of the phenomenon
The author does try to provide an explanation of the disparity in voting rates — this is the purpose of the author’s conclusion. (C) therefore doesn’t accurately describe what happens in the argument.
D
confuses the cause of an effect with the effect itself
(D) describes potential reverse causation. But it doesn’t make sense to think that one’s likelihood to vote or one’s level of political engagement could cause one to age or cause one to be part of a generation.
E
overlooks the possibility that voting patterns among age groups will change in the future
The author doesn’t overlook this possibility; in fact the author believes that each generation will be more and more politically disconnected. So the author could very well accept that for each age, future people of that age will be less likely to vote.

62 comments

LSAT 146 - Section 2 - Question 19

September 7, 2017

Analyst: Any new natural-gas-powered electrical generation station needs to be located close to a natural-gas pipeline, a large body of water for cooling, and transmission lines. It also must be situated in a region where residents will not oppose construction. Our country has an extensive system of transmission lines, but our natural-gas pipelines run in the vicinity of only three of our large bodies of water, and residents would oppose any significant construction projects near these bodies of water.

Summary

Any new electrical station powered by natural gas needs to be located close to a natural gas pipeline, a large body of water, and transmission lines. A new natural-gas electrical station must be located where residents will not oppose construction. Our country has extensive transmission lines. Our country’s natural gas pipelines are only near three large bodies of water, where residents would oppose significant construction projects.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

It is impossible for our country to build a new electrical station powered by natural gas without expanding the existing pipeline network.

A
Future electrical needs will have to be met by alternatives to natural-gas-powered generation.

This is unsupported because future electrical needs may take into account new pipeline growth that allows natural-gas-powered stations to be built outside of areas where local residents would oppose them.

B
If a new natural-gas-powered electrical station is built in a region, many residents will move away from that region.

This is unsupported because the author never states that residents would move away from natural-gas-powered stations if they oppose the stations. Rather, the author states that their opposition would be a barrier to building the station in the first place.

C
No site would be suitable for constructing a natural-gas-powered electrical station unless the existing system of natural-gas pipelines is expanded.

This is strongly supported because all the pipelines near large bodies of water are in areas where local residents would oppose the plant construction, which our author says is an obstacle to new plants.

D
There currently is no natural-gas-powered electrical generation station near any of the three largest bodies of water.

This is unsupported because the author is only talking about new electrical stations powered by natural gas, meaning there could be existing stations near those bodies of water.

E
Many residents who would oppose the construction of a new natural-gas-powered electrical station in their region would not oppose the construction of new transmission lines there.

This is unsupported because we don’t know anything about public opposition to new transmission lines from reading the stimulus.


50 comments

LSAT 146 - Section 2 - Question 18

September 7, 2017

The consensus among astronomers, based upon observations of the surfaces of pulsars, is that pulsars are spinning balls of neutrons compressed into a sphere some 10 kilometers in diameter with a mass roughly equal to that of our sun. However, their observed properties are also consistent with some pulsars actually being filled with quarks, the building blocks of neutrons. Because the core of a quark-filled pulsar, unlike a neutron-filled one, would have an overall positive charge, it would attract a layer of negatively charged particles that could support a crust of neutrons.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that it is possible for pulsars to be filled with quarks. This is in contrast with the consensus among astronomers, which is that pulsars are made of neutrons. To support her conclusion, the author says that if a pulsar was filled with quarks, it would have a positive charge, which would attract a layer of negatively charged particles, which could then support a crust of neutrons. Other astronomers believe that pulsars are made of neutrons because of observations of the surfaces of pulsars; the information provided by the author would explain this surface of neutrons but opens the possibility that pulsars are filled with quarks instead of neutrons.

Identify Argument Part
The statement in the question stem is a premise that provides information to explain how a quark-filled pulsar could still have a crust of neutrons.

A
It helps explain how pulsars could have neutrons on their surface even if they were not entirely made up of neutrons.
The statement in the question stem provides information that helps explain how the author’s conclusion that pulsars are filled with quarks is consistent with the observation that pulsars have neutrons on their surface.
B
It forms part of a challenge to the claim that some pulsars may be made up of quarks.
The statement in the question stem helps support the conclusion that pulsars may be made of quarks; it does not challenge this claim.
C
It helps explain why some pulsars would not be readily recognized as such by astronomers.
The argument does not discuss what astronomers can readily recognize. We do not know if astronomers have difficulty recognizing pulsars; the argument is concerned with the composition of pulsars.
D
It presents a new finding that challenges the consensus view of the structure of pulsars.
The claim in the question stem does open an alternative to the consensus view, but we cannot say that it is a new finding.
E
It points out a problem with the view that pulsars have a mass roughly equal to that of our sun.
The information in the question stem does not challenge the claim about the mass of pulsars.

11 comments

LSAT 146 - Section 2 - Question 17

September 7, 2017

Film historians often find it difficult to determine typical audience members’ responses to particular films, especially those from the early twentieth century. Box office figures help little, for they indicate only a film’s financial success or failure; they do not show what audiences found funny, or frightening, or moving. These historians also find that newspaper and magazine reviews fail to provide much insight.

Summary
Film historians find it difficult to determine how audience members typically respond to films from the early twentieth century. Why? Because box office figures only indicate a film’s financial success or failure, they do not indicate what audiences found funny, frightening, or moving. Newspaper and magazine reviews of films also provide little insight.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Film historians believe that newspaper and magazine reviews of films do not reveal how an audience member would typically respond to a film.

A
Newspaper and magazine reviews of films are usually written in advance of a film’s general release.
We don’t know when newspaper or magazine reviews of films were written. We only know that film historians believe these sources do not provide much insight into audience members’ reactions.
B
Typical audience members’ responses to films from the latter part of the twentieth century are easy to determine.
We don’t know whether responses to films from the later twentieth century are easy to determine. The argument is limited to films from the early twentieth century.
C
The box office success of a film does not depend on its viewers finding it funny, frightening, or moving.
We don’t know what factors would cause a film’s success or failure at the box office. We only know that box office figures do not reflect how audiences typically responded to a given film.
D
Film historians do not believe that film reviews in newspapers and magazines reveal typical film audience members’ views.
Film historians must believe that newspaper and magazine reviews do not reveal typical film audience members’ views. In the stimulus, we are told that the historians find that these sources fail to provide much insight.
E
Films from the early part of the twentieth century were not usually reviewed in newspapers or magazines.
We don’t know whether early twentieth century films were usually reviewed in newspapers or magazines. We don’t even know if these films were usually reviewed at all.

42 comments

123456789›»