LSATs 150

LSAT 150 - Section 2 - Question 02

August 10, 2018

LSAT 150 - Section 3 - Question 25

August 10, 2018

LSAT 150 - Section 3 - Question 24

August 10, 2018

Politician: Every regulation currently being proposed by the Committee for Overseas Trade will reduce the trade deficit. Our country’s trade deficit is so large that it weakens the economy. Therefore, each of the proposed regulations would help the economy.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that each (every single one) of the proposed regulations would help the economy. This is based on the following:

Every proposed regulation will reduce the trade deficit.

The trade deficit is so large that it weakens the economy.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author assumes that the proposed regulations won’t have any effects that could harm the economy that outweigh the benefit to the economy from reducing the trade deficit. This overlooks the possibility that the net effect of the regulations could harm the economy or end up not changing the economy.

A

takes for granted that the trade deficit will increase in size if no action is taken to reduce it

The author points out that the deficit is currently large enough to weaken the economy. But the author doesn’t assume that the deficit will grow if we don’t do anything to reduce it. The reasoning is based purely on the current deficit.

B

takes for granted that the only means of strengthening the economy is reducing the trade deficit

The author does not assume that we must reduce the trade deficit to strengthen the economy. There can be other ways to help the economy; the author is simply asserting that the proposed regulations would have the effect of helping the economy.

C

merely appeals to the authority of the committee without evaluating any reasons for the proposed regulations

The author does not “merely” appeal to the authority of the committee. The author does not say that we should pass the regulations because the committee recommends them. Rather, the author points to the effect the regulations have on the trade deficit.

D

fails to consider the possibility that one effect of a regulation will be offset by other effects

This possibility points out that even if a regulation reduces the trade deficit, it may have other effects that end up hurting the economy (ex. they might also enact tariffs or increase taxes, etc.). The net effect of a regulation might not end up helping the economy.

E

concludes that every regulation in a set will have the same effects as a set of regulations as a whole

(E) describes a whole-to-part fallacy. But the argument gives us a premise about “every regulation” — this is about each regulation. And the conclusion is also about each regulation. So the argument doesn’t start with a statement about the whole.

Flaw/Descriptive Weakening

Let's say that someone's very obese. That's bad for their overall health. There are now a number of proposals on the table to help them lose weight. Consider proposal 1 which I won't reveal yet but trust me, it definitely helps them lose weight. Are you willing to accept that therefore it'll be good for their overall health?

Well you shouldn't. Because you know what proposal 1 is? Crystal meth. It'll help with the obesity by suppressing appetite and speeding up metabolism. But it'll also increase chances of you dead. So no. It's not gonna be good for overall health.

There's the analogy for the politician's argument. The proposal 1 is the regulation proposals. The obesity is the large trade deficit. The overall health is the overall economy.

Just because the proposed regulations would cut down the trade deficit doesn't mean that it would be good for the overall economy. The regulations could have other effects that would be bad for the overall economy. That's what (D) says.

(E) is saying that this argument commits a whole to part flaw. The conclusion descriptor is true enough. It does conclude that "every/each regulation will help the economy" but no where did it say that the entire set of regulations as a whole would help the economy. Who's even thinking about enacting the entire set of regulations? I don't know.

(B) is just descriptively inaccurate. The politician does not assume (take for granted) that reducing the trade deficit is the only way of improving the economy, just that it's one way. If you said "excuse me, but here's some Martian technology from 100 years in the future, that'll help boost your economy" the politician will just be like "cool, thanks buddy!"

29 comments

LSAT 150 - Section 3 - Question 23

August 10, 2018

3 comments

LSAT 150 - Section 3 - Question 22

August 10, 2018

Commentator: Unfortunately, Roehmer’s opinion column has a polarizing effect on national politics. She has always taken a partisan stance, and lately she has taken the further step of impugning the motives of her adversaries. That style of argumentation is guaranteed not to change the minds of people with opposing viewpoints; it only alienates them. But that is likely not a problem for Roehmer, since her column is just an attempt to please her loyal readers.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that Roehmer’s style of argumentation — which involves criticizing the motives of her adversaries — is not a problem for Roehmer. The author supports this conclusion by asserting that Roehmer’s column is just an attempt to please her readers.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The argument inappropriately comments on the motivations of Roehmer’s column, even though it criticizes Roehmer for “impugning the motives of her adversaries.” (This isn’t necessarily something most would identify up front. You probably need to get to this flaw through process of elimination.)

A

fails to rule out the possibility that a purported cause of a phenomenon is actually an effect of that phenomenon

The argument isn’t trying to establish a causal relationship. Although the first sentence notes that Roehmer’s column has affected national politics, that statement isn’t the conclusion. So pointing out that there might be a reversal of cause and effect doesn’t hurt the argument.

B

criticizes a column merely by invoking the personal characteristics of its author

The author does not “merely invoke the personal characteristics” of Roehmer. The author comments on the effects of Roehmer’s impugning the motives of her adversaries, as well as Roehmer’s motivation. But neither of these are Roehmer’s personal characteristics.

C

concludes that one event caused another merely because that event occurred immediately prior to the other

The argument isn’t trying to establish a causal relationship. Although the first sentence notes that Roehmer’s column has affected national politics, that statement isn’t the conclusion. The author also doesn’t rely merely on the timing of two events as a premise.

D

contradicts itself in its portrayal of Roehmer’s column

The author doesn’t say contradictory things about Roehmer’s column. The author doesn’t say “Roehmer’s column is X” but also “Roehmer’s column is Not X.”

E

employs a tactic at one point that it elsewhere objects to

The author objects to Roehmer’s impugning the motives of her adversaries. But the author uses this same tactic — he criticizes Roehmer’s motivation as “just an attempt to please her loyal readers.”

In addition to the explanation given in the video for (E), here's another way to think about why (E) is the right answer. The Commentator relied on an appeal to the principle that one shall not impugn one's adversary's motives to establish his charge against Roehmer. But in his very argument, he violates that principle. So he's vulnerable to the very same criticism that he's charging Roehmer with. So, you or I could come along and say to him, which is it Commentator? Impugn okay or impugn not okay? If impugn not okay, then your argument fails because it impugns. If impugn okay, then your main argument against Roehmer fails. You lose either way. That's what (E) calls out, the inconsistency in the reasoning.

94 comments

LSAT 150 - Section 3 - Question 21

August 10, 2018

Finance minister: The World Bank’s “Doing Business” report ranks countries in terms of ease of doing business in them. In producing the rankings, the World Bank assesses how difficult it is for a hypothetical business to comply with regulations and pay taxes. Since the last “Doing Business” report came out, our government has dramatically simplified tax filing for small and even midsized businesses. So our “Doing Business” ranking will probably improve.

Summarize Argument

The finance minister concludes that her country’s “Doing Business” ranking will improve. This is because the country simplified tax filing for small and midsized businesses, and ease of paying taxes is one factor in the “Doing Business” rankings.

Notable Assumptions

The finance minister assumes that there was no corresponding increase in how complex regulations are in her country that might offset the ease of tax filing. She also assumes that the World Bank’s hypothetical business is the size of a small or midsized business in her country.

A

If the finance minister’s country made it easier for small businesses to comply with regulations, would the rate at which new businesses are formed increase?

Irrelevant. The rate at which new businesses are formed doesn’t factor into the “Doing Business” ranking.

B

Has compliance with tax laws by small and midsized businesses increased since tax filing was simplified?

The World Bank cares about how easy it is to pay taxes. Even if tax compliance hasn’t gone up among businesses, ease of paying taxes could’ve still gone up with the new simplified tax filing.

C

For small and midsized businesses in the finance minister’s country, is tax preparation and filing more difficult than complying with other regulations?

Irrelevant. Even if tax compliance is more difficult than complying with other regulations, the new simplified tax filing could’ve still made paying taxes easier. That would improve the country’s “Doing Business” ranking.

D

Is what the finance minister considers to be a midsized business smaller than the hypothetical business used to produce the “Doing Business” report?

If the answer is “yes,” then tax filing hasn’t changed for the World Bank’s hypothetical business; thus, the country’s ranking wouldn’t be likely to improve. If the answer is “no,” then tax filing has indeed been simplified for the World Bank’s hypothetical business.

E

Was the finance minister in office when the last “Doing Business” report was issued?

Totally irrelevant. Whether or not the finance minister was in office has no bearing on if her country’s “Doing Business” ranking will improve.

Further Explanation

Finance minister tells us that The World Bank runs a list for the Top Countries to Do Business in the World. They look at two things to determine your rankings. LSAT score no just kidding. They look at how easy it is for a hypothetical business to (1) file taxes and (2) comply with regulations. Ease of (1) plus ease of (2) gives you a good rating. If either or both are difficult, then that hurts your rating. The finance minister then tells us that they just made it a lot easier for small-medium sized businesses in their country to file taxes, i.e., to do (1). Okay, so next year their rankings will improve, right? Well maybe.

Here, probably many of you saw the issue with the rankings having two components. The arguments assumes that (2) didn't get any harder. So if we can show that (2) (complying with regulations) either got easier or stayed the same, then that's good for the minister's argument. But if (2) got harder, then it might have offset the gains made in (1) and that would be bad for the argument. So if that's what you had in mind, and you went down into the answer, you should have come up empty handed. No answers said that. (C) doesn't say that. (C) asks if (1) is more difficult than (2). What? We don't care about that! Answer that question either way and it doesn't matter. What we actually care about is if (2)-last-year was more difficult than (2)-this-year. It's the across-time-comparison of (2) to itself that we care about. Not the snapshot-in-time-comparison of (2) to (1).

Anyway, all of that is to hide another gaping hole in the argument. We kind of just assumed that because this person is the finance minister, they'd be talking only about relevant businesses, so we probably didn't even pay attention to when they said (1) was easier for small-medium sized businesses. We probably just assumed that those are the kinds of businesses that the World Bank would take as their hypothetical businesses. But we don't actually know that. What kinds of businesses will the World Bank actually look at when they're assessing the ease of (1) and (2)? We better hope for the Finance Minister's sake that they'll be looking at small-medium sized businesses! That's what (D) gives us.

58 comments

LSAT 150 - Section 3 - Question 20

August 10, 2018

History student: It is unfair for the History Department to prohibit students from citing certain online encyclopedias in their research papers merely because these sources are not peer reviewed. In their research, students should be allowed to read whatever they wish; otherwise, it is censorship.

History professor: Students are allowed to read whatever they like. The rule stipulates only that certain online encyclopedias are not to be cited as references since, given that they are not peer reviewed, they cannot reasonably be treated as reliable support for any claim.

Speaker 1 Summary

The student says it’s unfair for the History Department to ban students from citing online encyclopedias. Why is it unfair? Because students should be allowed to read anything they want. This is further supported by a claim that to limit this freedom would be censorship. (The unspoken assumption is that prohibiting citing encyclopedias counts as not allowing the students to read them.)

Speaker 2 Summary

The professor argues that students are, in fact, allowed to read whatever they want. In support, the professor says that the rule only bans citing the encyclopedias. (This indicates that the professor believes a ban on citing something is different from a ban on reading it.)

Objective

We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The student and professor disagree about whether banning students from citing a source counts as banning them from reading that source.

A

research papers written for a history class require some citations to be from sources that have been peer reviewed

Neither speaker makes this claim. The discussion is only about a rule that bans students from citing certain non-peer-reviewed sources. Neither the student nor the professor talks about the role of peer reviewed sources, or what sources are required.

B

prohibiting a certain sort of online source material from being cited as a research reference amounts to prohibiting students from reading that source material

The student agrees with this but the professor disagrees. This is the point of disagreement. The student claims that a citation ban conflicts with the freedom to read any sources one desires, thus equating the two. The professor differentiates between citation and reading.

C

censorship of the reading of research publications that are peer reviewed can ever be justified

Neither speaker makes this claim. Only the student mentions censorship at all, and even then, only to say that limitations on what sources students can read would be censorship. No one talks about what might justify censorship.

D

sources that are not peer reviewed often have solid support for the claims that they make

The professor might disagree with this (although “reliable support” and “solid support” aren’t necessarily the same thing) but the student never talks about the quality of non-peer-reviewed sources or their ability to support claims.

E

students should be allowed to read whatever they wish to in preparing to write a research paper for a history class

The student makes this claim, but the professor doesn’t disagree. The professor’s argument doesn’t touch on whether students should have this freedom or not, just that the citation ban doesn’t conflict with this principle.

3 comments

LSAT 150 - Section 3 - Question 19

August 10, 2018

Henry: Engines powered by electricity from batteries cause less pollution than internal combustion engines. Therefore, to reduce urban pollution, we should replace standard automobiles with battery-powered vehicles.

Umit: I disagree. Battery-powered vehicles have very short ranges and must be recharged often. Their widespread use would create a greater demand for electricity generated by power plants, which are themselves a major source of pollution.

Summarize Argument

Umit concludes that we should not replace standard cars with battery-powered cars in order to reduce urban pollution. This is because the widespread use of battery-powered cars would create a greater demand for electricity from power plants, and power plants are a major source of pollution.

Notable Assumptions

Umit assumes that the pollution produced by power plants would affect urban areas (as opposed to affecting only non-urban areas). Umit also assumes that the decrease in urban pollution resulting from switching to battery-powered cars would not outweigh whatever increase in urban pollution is caused by the increased use of power plants.

A

Pollution caused by power plants is generally confined to a small number of locations a significant distance from major cities.

This provides a reason to think that the pollution from power plants would not necessarily affect urban areas. Thus, Umit’s point about pollution from power plants does not necessarily show that battery-powered cars can’t reduce urban pollution.

B

The increased air pollution resulting from a greater demand for electricity would be offset by the reduction in air pollution emitted by electric vehicles.

Even if the increased pollution from electricity demand would be offset by decreased pollution from electric cars, that just means we’re back to the same level of pollution as before. This doesn’t undermine Umit’s point, which is that electric cars won’t decrease urban pollution.

C

Electric motors could be restricted to lighter vehicles such as compact cars, which have smaller batteries and therefore require less power to charge than do the larger batteries needed to power larger vehicles.

Even if electric cars could be limited to smaller batteries, that doesn’t change the fact that widespread use of electric cars would create a greater demand for electricity from power plants.

D

Hybrid vehicles using both electric and gasoline power moderate the increased demand for electricity produced by power plants.

The argument concerns widespread use of battery-powered vehicles. Hybrid vehicles are a different kind of vehicle and don’t impact what would happen if non-hybrid electrics become widespread.

E

Most power plants are currently operating well below capacity and could therefore accommodate the increased demand for electricity.

The issue is not whether the power plants could produce enough electricity. It’s about the pollution produced from the power plants. If anything, (E) might strengthen by showing that power plants have the capacity to make more electricity and thus pollute.

Further Explanation

Henry says that electric engines (cars) pollute less than combustion engines. Therefore, switching from regular cars to electric cars would reduce urban pollution.

This isn't a terrible argument. Car engines are a major contribution to pollution. But, Henry hasn't given an exhaustive (hehe) account of the situation. What if the production of electric engines is way more polluting than the production combustion engines? Sure using electric engines is less pollution but you gotta make them in the first place and that could tip the scales.

Umit doesn't go there, though he could have. He brings up another consideration that Henry overlooked. He reminds us that electric engines run on batteries that need charging. Charging all those batteries places greater demand on power plants which then will generate more pollution as a result.

Okay, yeah, that's a good point Umit! You did a good weakening on Henry's argument by pointing out something Henry overlooked (i.e. assumed wasn't an issue). Henry, batteries don't power themselves okay? You gotta charge them you dodo!

Alright, so now we have to do another 180 and weaken Umit's argument. We have to see that Umit assumed that the extra pollution generated by the power plants is relevant. (A) gives us a reason to think that it's not relevant. If it's true that power plants are not near major cities, then does their pollution even matter? Henry was only concerned about urban pollution after all, not pollution in the entire country or on the whole planet. (A) may as well have told us that these power plants are on Mars.

(B) is an attractive trap. It says that the additional units of pollution from the power plants would be "offset" by the decreased units of pollution from the electric engine cars. Okay, "offset" by how much? Entirely offset? Or just somewhat offset? We're not sure. So it could be on a range anywhere from entirely offset to just somewhat offset. But anywhere on that range is bad for Henry. Even if it's entirely offset, then that just means switching to electric cars is no better than not switching in the first place. Henry actually needs switching to electric cars to be better for urban pollution. Not just neutral.

What (B) needed to say is that the additional additional units of pollution from the power plants is only a tiny fraction of the total decreased units of pollution from the electric engine cars. In other words, power plants are generating +1 unit of pollution but electric cars are saving -10 units of pollution. That would help Henry and hurt Umit.

71 comments

LSAT 150 - Section 3 - Question 18

August 10, 2018

7 comments

LSAT 150 - Section 3 - Question 17

August 10, 2018

Since mosquito larvae are aquatic, outbreaks of mosquito-borne diseases typically increase after extended periods of wet weather. An exception to this generalization, however, occurs in areas where mosquitoes breed primarily in wetland habitats. In these areas, outbreaks of mosquito-borne diseases are worse after periods of drought.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Mosquito-borne disease outbreaks typically increase after extended periods of wet weather, but in areas where mosquitoes breed primarily in wetland habitats, there tend to be more outbreaks after droughts.

Objective

The right answer will be a hypothesis that describes a key difference between areas where mosquitoes breed primarily in wetland habitats and areas where mosquitoes breed primarily in other types of environments. That difference must explain why droughts create improved conditions for mosquito-borne disease in areas where breeding occurs in wetland habitats. This difference might relate to humans’ susceptibility to disease, mosquitoes’ disease carriage abilities, or mosquito birthrates under drought conditions in these areas.

A

The use of insecticides is typically prohibited in wetland habitats.

This has nothing to do with droughts or wet periods—presumably, insecticides are prohibited regardless of weather conditions, so (A) doesn’t help explain the increased disease outbreaks that follow droughts in wetland habitats.

B

Human populations tend to be sparse in areas near wetland habitats.

This has nothing to do with droughts or wet periods, so it doesn’t help explain the increased disease outbreaks that follow droughts in wetland habitats.

C

Wetland habitats contain numerous aquatic insects that prey on mosquito larvae.

If wetland habitats contain aquatic insects that eat mosquito larvae, it makes sense that periods of drought lead to more cases of mosquito-borne disease. These aquatic predators die or are weakend during droughts, allowing more larvae to hatch and grow into diseased mosquitoes.

D

Wetland habitats host a wider variety of mosquito species than do other areas where mosquitoes breed.

This has nothing to do with droughts or wet periods, so it doesn’t help explain the increased disease outbreaks that follow droughts in wetland habitats.

E

Periods of drought in wetland habitats create conditions conducive to the emergence of new plant growth.

We have no information about how new plant growth might or might not impact incidences of mosquito-borne disease, so this answer choice doesn’t help resolve the discrepancy at hand.

21 comments