Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 147 - Section 4 - Question 10
January 5, 2017
Summary
The author concludes that the caliber of news reporting does not necessarily go down as the entertainment value of it goes up. This is based on the fact that the greatest journalists have been the most entertaining.
Missing Connection
We know that the greatest journalists have been the most entertaining. But this doesn’t tell us anything about the relationship between entertainment value and the caliber of their work. What if the more entertaining pieces they wrote were of lower caliber than the less entertaining pieces? We want to establish that for the greatest journalists, their work did not decrease in caliber as it got more entertaining.
A
The news reporting of the greatest journalists has been of the highest caliber.
(A) establishes the greatest journalists’ news reporting has been of the maximum caliber. This proves that it’s impossible for their work to have decreased in caliber as it got more entertaining. If their work is all of the highest caliber, then more entertainment value isn’t associated with lower caliber.
B
The greatest journalists have been entertainers who report the news.
(B) doesn’t establish anything about the caliber of reporting of the greatest journalists. So it leaves open the possibility that their work decreased in caliber as it got more entertaining.
C
Journalistic greatness involves producing news that is very valuable in some sense.
(C) doesn’t establish anything about the caliber of reporting of the greatest journalists. So it leaves open the possibility that their work decreased in caliber as it got more entertaining.
D
Entertainment and news are not mutually exclusive categories.
(D) doesn’t establish anything about the caliber of reporting of the greatest journalists. So it leaves open the possibility that their work decreased in caliber as it got more entertaining. The fact that something can be both entertainment and news does not establish that there’s no inverse relationship between entertainment value and quality.
E
The worst journalists have been more entertaining than informative.
(E) doesn’t establish anything about the caliber of reporting of the greatest journalists. So it leaves open the possibility that their work decreased in caliber as it got more entertaining.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 79 - Section 1 - Question 10
January 5, 2017Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 147 - Section 1 - Question 10
January 5, 2017
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that if more of Earth’s surface area is covered with snow and ice, the global atmosphere will probably become cooler. This is supported by the observations that snow and ice reflect more sunlight into space than ocean or land, and the atmosphere becomes cooler when more sunlight is reflected into space.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that increased snow and ice coverage on Earth will not have other effects that counteract the cooling caused by greater sunlight reflection.
A
Low atmospheric temperatures are required for the formation of clouds that result in snow.
This is irrelevant. The author is only concerned with the effect that more snow and ice cover on Earth would have on the global atmosphere; it doesn’t matter where that snow comes from.
B
Other factors besides the reflectivity of ice and snow affect the cooling of Earth’s atmosphere.
Without more information about these factors, we don’t know whether and how they would affect the global atmospheric temperature if there was more snow and ice coverage, so this is irrelevant.
C
Ocean water and land heated by sunlight in turn warm Earth’s atmosphere.
This strengthens by providing an additional mechanism by which higher snow and ice cover on Earth would cool down the global atmosphere—that is, by reducing the area of atmosphere-warming ocean water and land.
D
The atmosphere derives most of its heat from the passage of sunlight through it.
This is irrelevant, since it doesn’t provide any additional information about the effect of snow and ice on the global atmospheric temperature.
E
Lighter-colored soil reflects more sunlight back into space than does darker-colored soil.
The argument only relies on the claim that snow and ice reflect more sunlight than land of any kind does, so comparing the reflectiveness of different types of land doesn’t make much difference—it’s just irrelevant.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 78 - Section 3 - Question 10
August 12, 2016Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 146 - Section 3 - Question 10
August 12, 2016
Summary
The author concludes that if Whalley sticks with her current platform, she can win the election. Why? Because although sticking with her current platform will lead to her losing to her opponent by a few percentage points among voters under 50, it will also lead to her beating her opponent by a bigger percentage among older voters.
Missing Connection
By sticking to her current platform, she’ll win older voters by a larger percentage than she will lose younger voters. But does that guarantee that she can win? No, since we don’t know the comparative number of voters that she’ll win/lose compared to her opponent in each age category. What if the number of over 50 people is much smaller than the number of younger people? In that case, Whalley might not win with her current platform.
To make the argument valid, we want to know that the number of voters Whalley will win among the older voters is higher than the number of voters Whalley will lose among the younger voters by sticking with the current platform.
To make the argument valid, we want to know that the number of voters Whalley will win among the older voters is higher than the number of voters Whalley will lose among the younger voters by sticking with the current platform.
A
There is no change Whalley could make to her platform that would win over more voters under 50 than it would lose voters 50 and over.
(A) establishes that Whalley doesn’t have a better alternative compared to her current platform for winning older voters. But this doesn’t establish that her current platform will allow her to get more votes than her opponent.
B
The issues that most concern voters under 50 are different from those that most concern voters 50 and over.
(B) doesn’t establish that her current platform will allow her to get more votes than her opponent.
C
If Whalley changes her platform, her opponent will not change his platform in response.
The argument concerns what her current platform allows. What happens if Whalley changes her platform doesn’t establish what happens if she keeps her current platform.
D
There will be more voters in the election who are 50 and over than there will be voters under 50.
If the older group has more people than the younger group, then that means the number of voters Whalley will gain by winning the older group will exceed the number of voters she’ll lose among the younger group.
E
Whalley would change her platform if she thought it would give her a better chance to win.
The argument concerns what her current platform allows. Whether Whalley would change her platform has nothing to do with what her current platform allows.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 78 - Section 1 - Question 10
August 12, 2016Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 146 - Section 1 - Question 10
August 12, 2016
Summarize Argument
The anthropologist concludes that Neanderthals could’ve created tools without language. She bases this on a study showing that university students were as capable of making one type of prehistoric stone tool when they learned by silent example as when they learned by verbal instruction.
Notable Assumptions
The anthropologist assumes that the stone tools Neanderthals made were no more sophisticated than those that the undergraduates made. If the Neanderthals consistently made far more sophisticated tools, then no conclusion can be drawn from the study about whether or not language was necessary for Neanderthal tool-building.
A
Apart from the sophistication of their stone tools, there is a great deal of evidence suggesting that Neanderthals possessed some form of language.
We don’t care about evidence that tells us Neanderthals had language. We’re interested in whether their tools prove they must’ve had language.
B
The students who were taught with verbal explanations were allowed to discuss the toolmaking techniques among themselves, whereas the students who learned by silent example were not.
Both groups created the same tools. This doesn’t further differentiate them in any meaningful way.
C
The tools that the undergraduates were taught to make were much simpler and easier to make than most types of tools created by Neanderthals.
Sure, simple tools can be made without language. But Neanderthals also made many types of sophisticated tools. We don’t know if they needed language to make those.
D
The instructor who taught the group of students who learned by silent example alone was much less proficient at making the stone tools than was the instructor who taught the other group of students.
Like (B), both groups created the same tools. This doesn’t further differentiate them in any meaningful way.
E
The tools created by Neanderthals were much less sophisticated than the tools created by anatomically modern humans who almost certainly possessed language and lived at the same time as the Neanderthals.
We don’t care about other humanoids. We need to know whether we can draw conclusions about Neanderthals and language based on the tools they made.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT C2 - Section 3 - Question 10
June 15, 2016Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 128 - Section 3 - Question 10
June 15, 2016
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
It’s not surprising to say that animals can use tools because all animals use them. If an animal uses something outside its body to help it do something, the animal is using a tool. For example, birds use twigs as tools to build nests, fish use mud as a tool to hide from predators, and squirrels use buildings as tools to move quickly between trees.
Identify Argument Part
The stimulus text refers to the argument's main conclusion: It’s not surprising to say that animals can use tools.
A
It provides evidence that the animals’ activities given as examples are purposeful.
The stimulus text is the argument’s main conclusion. It does not provide evidence for any other statement in the argument. Additionally, the stimulus does not offer evidence that the animals’ activities given as examples are purposeful, so no statement fulfills that role.
B
It is the conclusion of the argument.
This describes the role of the stimulus text in the overall argument. The author provides context about an announcement that biologists frequently make, concludes that the announcement is unsurprising, and then spends the rest of the stimulus explaining why it is unsurprising.
C
It is an assumption used by the argument to justify acceptance of a broader conception of what a tool is than that usually accepted by the biologists.
The stimulus text is the argument’s main conclusion. It is not an assumption—an unstated premise—of the argument. As the main conclusion, all the other statements in the stimulus support it; it doesn’t support or justify any other statement in the stimulus.
D
It calls into question the basis of the biologists’ conception of a tool.
The stimulus text is the argument’s main conclusion, stating that the biologists’ announcements are “unsurprising.” It does not question the biologists’ definition of a tool; it simply notes that many animals use tools.
E
It addresses a weakness in the biologists’ announcements that stems from their ambiguous use of the word “external.”
The stimulus text is the argument’s main conclusion, which simply states that the biologists’ announcements are “unsurprising.” The stimulus does not argue that the announcements are weak or that the biologists use “external” ambiguously.