LSAT 105 – Section 2 – Question 25

LSAT 105 - Section 2 - Question 25

February 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:48

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT105 S2 Q25
+LR
+Exp
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
8%
161
B
3%
159
C
4%
160
D
83%
166
E
2%
155
137
148
160
 +Medium 145.978 +SubsectionMedium

Tom: Employers complain that people graduating from high school too often lack the vocational skills required for full-time employment. Therefore, since these skills are best acquired on the job, we should require high school students to work at part-time jobs so that they acquire the skills needed for today’s job market.

Mary: There are already too few part-time jobs for students who want to work, and simply requiring students to work will not create jobs for them.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to Tom’s claim that high school students should be required to work part-time jobs, Mary points out that there are few part-time jobs available for students and a requirement to work will not create jobs.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Mary counters the position held by Tom. She does this by weakening a crucial assumption in Tom’s argument: that part-time jobs exist for students required to work them. By pointing out that there are already too few part-time jobs and that jobs will not be created by simply requiring students to work, Mary implies that high school students should not be required to work part-time jobs.

A
It analyzes an undesirable result of undertaking the course of action that Tom recommends.
Mary does not mention what would happen if students were required to work part-time jobs. Rather, she emphasizes the impossibility of instituting the requirement in the first place.
B
It argues that Tom has mistaken an unavoidable trend for an avoidable one.
Mary does not state that the trend of high school students graduating without vocational skills is unavoidable. Rather, she argues that Tom’s solution to the trend is not a viable solution.
C
It provides information that is inconsistent with an explicitly stated premise in Tom’s argument.
Mary does not provide information that contradicts the fact that employers are complaining or that vocational skills are best acquired on the job.
D
It presents a consideration that undercuts an assumption on which Tom’s argument depends.
The assumption Tom’s argument depends on is the assumption that part-time jobs are available for students if those students were required to work. Mary undercuts this assumption by pointing out that too few of these jobs exist to fulfill this requirement.
E
It defends an alternative solution to the problem that Tom describes.
Mary does not propose an alternative solution to the problem. Her argument is limited to addressing Tom’s proposed solution.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 105 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply