LSAT 152 - Section 4 - Question 21

January 24, 2019

If you use a wood stove to heat your home, you should use a wood-pellet stove rather than a regular wood stove. Because wood pellets are made from by-products of manufacturing processes that would otherwise go to landfills, heating a home with a wood-pellet stove will not cause more trees to be felled. The same cannot be said for regular wood stoves. So wood-pellet stoves are better for the environment than are regular wood stoves.

Summarize Argument
The main conclusion is that people who use a wood stove to heat their homes should use wood-pellet stoves instead of regular wood stoves. The author bases this on a subsidiary conclusion that wood-pellet stoves are better for the environment than regular wood stoves. The support for this subsidiary conclusion are the claims that wood-pellet stoves don’t cause more trees to be cut down, whereas regular wood stoves will cause more trees to be cut down.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s recommendation about what kind of wood stove to use: “If you use a wood stove to heat your home, you should use a wood-pellet stove rather than a regular wood stove.”

A
Wood pellets are made from waste products of manufacturing processes that would otherwise not be recycled.
This is a premise. The author uses this fact to establish that wood-pellet stoves are better for the environment than regular wood stoves, which in turn supports the author’s recommendation.
B
Heating a home with a wood-pellet stove is better for the environment than is heating a home with a regular wood stove.
This is a subsidiary conclusion. The author uses this to support the recommendation about what kind of wood stove to use.
C
Using a wood-pellet stove to heat one’s home does not cause trees to be felled.
This is part of the author’s support. Because wood-pellet stoves don’t cause more trees to be felled, whereas regular wood stoves do, wood-pellet stoves are better for the environment. This in turn supports the author’s recommendation.
D
Using a regular wood stove to heat one’s home causes trees to be felled.
This is part of the author’s support. Because wood-pellet stoves don’t cause more trees to be felled, whereas regular wood stoves do, wood-pellet stoves are better for the environment. This in turn supports the author’s recommendation.
E
People who use wood stoves to heat their homes should use wood-pellet stoves instead of regular wood stoves.
This is a paraphrase of the first sentence, which is the main conclusion.

4 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 4 - Question 10

January 24, 2019

9 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 1 - Question 11

January 24, 2019

7 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 1 - Question 09

January 24, 2019

Comment on this

LSAT 152 - Section 1 - Question 05

January 24, 2019

7 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 3 - Passage 4 - Questions

January 24, 2019

Extra Curricular

Sean Carroll's Podcast


66 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 3 - Passage 4 - Passage

January 24, 2019

18 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 4 - Question 16

January 22, 2019

Editorial: The main contention of Kramer’s book is that coal companies are to blame for our region’s economic difficulties. Kramer bases this contention primarily on allegations made by disgruntled coal company employees that the companies made no significant investments in other industries in our region. Yet the companies invested heavily—albeit sometimes indirectly—in road building and manufacturing in the region. Thus, the book’s main contention is simply false.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The editorial concludes that Kramer’s contention that coal companies are responsible for the region’s economic problems is false. As evidence, it suggests that Kramer’s support is weak, since coal companies did invest significantly in other industries in the region.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming a conclusion is false simply because the argument in support of that conclusion is weak.

Here, the editorial argues that Kramer’s conclusion is false simply because his support— that those companies did not invest significantly in other industries in the region— is weak. The editorial successfully weakens Kramer’s support, but this isn’t enough to prove that his conclusion is false. Maybe coal companies are still responsible for the region’s economic problems, even though they did invest in other industries.

A
concludes that one party is not to blame for a particular outcome merely on the grounds that another party is to blame for that outcome
The editorial does conclude that coal companies are not to blame for the economic issues, but it doesn’t do so on the grounds that some other group is to blame. Instead, it does so merely on the grounds that Kramer’s support is weak.
B
concludes that a person’s statement is false merely on the grounds that, if accepted as true, it would impugn the reputation of an important industry
The editorial does conclude that Kramer’s statement is false, but it doesn’t do so on the grounds that Kramer’s statement would stain the coal industry’s reputation. Instead, it concludes that Kramer’s statement is false merely on the grounds that Kramer’s support is weak.
C
rejects an argument merely on the grounds that the person offering the argument has an ulterior motive for doing so
This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the source of an argument rather than the argument itself. But the editorial never claims that Kramer has ulterior motives against coal companies; it just points out that Kramer’s support is weak.
D
takes a sufficient condition for the coal companies’ having made significant investments in other industries in the region to be a necessary condition for their having done so
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The editorial doesn’t make this mistake. It simply claims that the coal companies have made significant investments; it doesn't present a sufficient or a necessary condition for their having done so.
E
concludes that a person’s statement is false merely on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been given for it
The editorial concludes that Kramer’s statement is false merely because his support is weak. But weakening his support isn’t enough to prove that his conclusion is false. Maybe coal companies are responsible for the economic issues, even though they invested in other industries.

7 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 4 - Question 14

January 22, 2019

Max: As evidence mounts showing the terrible changes wrought on the environment by technology, the conclusion that humans must return to a natural way of living becomes irrefutable.

Cora: It is natural for humans to use technology to effect changes on the environment—humans have used technology in that way for many thousands of years. Therefore, your criticism is misguided.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Cora concludes that Max is misguided for claiming “humans must return to a natural way of living” in light of the environmental damage caused by technology. Why does Cora conclude Max is misguided? Because humans have historically utilized technology to change their environments, so we can consider humans’ use of technology to be “natural.”

Identify Argument Part
The claim disputes an assumption in Max’s argument that humans’ use of technology is unnatural.

A
It is used to suggest that the alleged cause of terrible changes to the environment cannot be correctly described as unnatural.
Contrary to Max’s argument, Cora does claim that humans’ use of technology could be considered “natural.”
B
It is used to suggest that humans have benefited from many of the changes that they have wrought on the environment.
It is unclear whether Cora thinks that humans have benefited from changes to the environment. She is concluding, rather, that using technology to cause these changes could be considered “natural.”
C
It is used to suggest that Max’s conclusion that technology has wrought terrible changes on the environment has not been supported.
It is unclear whether Cora thinks that humans’ use of technology have caused terrible changes to the environment. She is concluding, rather, that using technology to cause these changes could be considered “natural.”
D
It is used to suggest that the conveniences of modern life will make it difficult for humans to return to a natural way of living.
Cora is not concluding that humans’ use of technology will make it difficult to return to a natural way of living. She is concluding, rather, that the use of technology itself could be considered “natural.”
E
It is used to suggest that it is a mistake to take the environmental changes caused by technology to be a moral issue.
Cora does not conclude that environmental changes caused by technology are not a moral issue. She is concluding, rather, that the use of technology by humans could be considered “natural.”

8 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 4 - Question 09

January 22, 2019

Office manager: Every vacation an office worker takes significantly reduces the psychological exhaustion experienced on the job. Therefore, to reduce the amount of psychological exhaustion as much as possible over the course of a year, office workers should divide their vacation time into several short vacations spaced throughout the year, rather than into one or two long vacations.

Summarize Argument

The manager concludes that workers should take several short vacations throughout the year instead of one or two long ones to reduce psychological exhaustion as much as possible. She supports this by saying that each vacation a worker takes significantly reduces the psychological exhaustion experienced on the job.

Identify and Describe Flaw

Just because each vacation "significantly reduces" exhaustion doesn't mean they’re equally effective. If long vacations reduce exhaustion more than short ones, then one or two long vacations might actually be more effective than several short ones. In that case, the manager can't conclude that workers should take several short vacations to reduce exhaustion as much as possible.

A
It takes for granted that each short vacation taken by an office worker during a year reduces the psychological exhaustion experienced on the job by an equal amount.

Even if the manager did assume this, it wouldn’t affect her conclusion. Instead, her argument is vulnerable to criticism because she assumes that short vacations are equally as effective as long vacations at reducing exhaustion.

B
It overlooks the possibility that there are methods office workers can employ to reduce the amount of psychological exhaustion experienced on the job that are as effective as taking vacations.

The manager never assumes that vacations are the only methods that effectively reduce workers’ exhaustion. She just argues that workers should take several short vacations instead of one or two long ones to reduce exhaustion as much as possible.

C
It overlooks the possibility that individual office workers may differ substantially in the extent to which taking vacations reduces the amount of psychological exhaustion they experience on the job.

Even if vacations reduce exhaustion differently for each worker, it doesn’t change the manager’s argument that several short vacations are better than one or two long ones for reducing exhaustion. It doesn't matter if some workers experience more or less reduction.

D
It fails to consider that for office workers the total amount of vacation time taken over the course of a year may have a much greater effect on the amount of psychological exhaustion experienced on the job than does the number of vacations taken during the year.

The manager focuses on how vacation time is divided, not the total amount. More vacation time probably is better, but this doesn’t impact the argument that workers— regardless of their total vacation time— should take several short vacations instead of one or two long ones.

E
It fails to consider that a long vacation may reduce the psychological exhaustion an office worker experiences on the job much more than a short vacation does.

The manager fails to consider that long vacations might reduce exhaustion much more than short ones. If this is the case, then one or two long vacations might actually reduce exhaustion more than several short ones.


28 comments

123456789›»