Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 128 - Section 2 - Question 10

June 15, 2016

2 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 77 - Section 4 - Question 10

January 31, 2016

2 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 145 - Section 4 - Question 10

January 31, 2016

Columnist: Some people argue that the government should not take over failing private-sector banks because the government does not know how to manage financial institutions. However, rather than managing a bank’s day-to-day operations, the government would just need to select the bank’s senior management. Most politicians have never been military professionals, yet they appoint the top military officials entrusted with defending the country—at least as great a responsibility as managing a bank.

Summary

Some people argue the government should not take over failing private-sector banks because the government does not know how to manage financial institutions. However, the government would just need to select the bank’s senior management, not manage day-to-day operations. Most politicians have never been military professionals, yet they appoint the top military officials. This is at least as great a responsibility as managing a bank.

Notable Valid Inferences

Managing the military requires more knowledge than managing a private-sector bank does.

Government-owned banks can be well managed.

Politicians do an acceptable job when appointing top military officials to defend the country.

A
Commanding a branch of the military requires greater knowledge than running a bank does.

Could be true. The Columnist tells us that appointing top military officials is as least as great a responsibility as managing a bank. It is possible that commanding a military branch requires greater knowledge if it requires as much or more responsibility.

B
Politicians do an adequate job of appointing the top military officials entrusted with defending the country.

Could be true. The Columnist tells us that appointing top military officials is as least as great a responsibility as managing a bank in order to support their main conclusion. It is consistent for the Columnist to believe that politicians do an adequate job.

C
Politicians are not capable of managing a bank’s day-to-day operations.

Could be true. It is possible that the Columnist believes politicians are not capable of managing day-to-day operations, but the Columnist claims that politicians would not have to do this anyway. Instead, the politicians would select senior management.

D
Banks that are owned by the government cannot be well managed.

Must be false. This answer choice directly contradicts the Columnist’s argument in the stimulus. The Columnists is arguing against the people who claim the government should not take over failing private-sector banks.

E
The government should not take over private-sector banks that are financially sound.

Could be true. The argument in the stimulus is restricted to government takeover of failing private-sector banks. It is possible the Columnist believes the government should not take over private banks that are financially stable.


3 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 77 - Section 2 - Question 10

January 27, 2016

15 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 145 - Section 2 - Question 10

January 27, 2016

One year ago, a municipality banned dishwasher detergents containing phosphates. Anecdotal evidence indicates that many residents continued to use detergents containing phosphates; they just purchased them from out-of-town stores. However, it is clear that some residents did switch to phosphate-free detergents, since phosphate pollution from the municipal wastewater treatment plant decreased significantly in the past year.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that some residents switched to phosphate-free detergents. Her evidence is that phosphate pollution from the municipal water plant experienced a major decrease in the past year.

Notable Assumptions
Based on a mere correlation, the author assumes that the decrease in phosphate pollution from the municipal treatment plant was due to some residents switching to phosphate-free detergents. This means the author believes that such a switch can cause a “major decrease,” and that no other, unaccounted-for factor caused the pollution decrease.

A
Why did many residents continue to use detergents containing phosphates?
We don’t care why people continued using phosphate detergents. We need to evaluate the connection between the decrease in phosphate pollution from the treatment plant and some people switching to phosphate-free detergents.
B
What pollutants, if any, are present in phosphate-free dishwashing detergents?
We don’t care what pollutants are present. We’re simply evaluating the connection between the decrease in phosphate pollution from the treatment plant and some people switching to phosphate-free detergents.
C
Were any changes made in the past year to the way the municipality’s wastewater treatment plant treats phosphates?
If the answer to this is “yes,” then there may be some other factor that caused the drop in phosphate pollution from the local treatment plant besides people switching to phosphate-free detergents. If the answer is “no,” then a viable alternative cause is eliminated.
D
Does most of the phosphate pollution in the municipality’s waterways come from treated wastewater from the municipal treatment plant?
Irrelevant. We’re concerned with pollution from the municipal treatment plant. We don’t care where else phosphate pollution comes from.
E
Did municipal officials try to stop people from bringing detergents containing phosphates into the municipality?
We don’t care what official tried to do. We need to know if the decrease in phosphate pollution from the municipal treatment plant means that people switched to phosphate-free detergents.

16 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 76 - Section 4 - Question 10

December 17, 2015

19 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 144 - Section 4 - Question 10

December 17, 2015

Richard: Because it fails to meet the fundamental requirement of art—that it represent—abstract art will eventually be seen as an aberration.

Jung-Su: Although artists, like musicians, may reject literal representation, makers of abstract art choose to represent the purely formal features of objects, which are discovered only when everyday perspectives are rejected. Thus, whatever others might come to say, abstract art is part of the artistic mainstream.

Speaker 1 Summary
Abstract art will eventually been seen as an aberration. Why? Because abstract art does not represent. Representation is necessary for art.

Speaker 2 Summary
Abstract art is art. Why? Because it represents purely formal features of objects.

Objective
We need a statement that Richard and Jung-Su disagree on. They disagree on whether abstract art is representational. Richard thinks abstract art is not representational. Jung-Su thinks that abstract art is representational because it represents formal features of objects.

A
makers of abstract art reject literal representation
Both speakers agree with this statement. Richard thinks this is the reason why abstract art will eventually be seen as an aberration. Jung-Su concedes that abstract art doesn’t literally represent objects, but represents purely formal features.
B
the fundamental requirement of art is that it represent
Jung-Su does not express an opinion on this statement. Jung-Su does not counter Richard’s claim that art must represent something.
C
musicians may reject literal representation
Richard does not express an opinion on this statement. Richard’s comments are limited to abstract art.
D
abstract art will be seen as an aberration
Jung-Su does not express an opinion on this statement. Jung-Su does not comment on the future viewpoint surrounding abstract art. Her comments are limited to how abstract art could be viewed now.
E
abstract art is representational
Richard and Jung-Su disagree on this statement. Richard disagrees and thinks that abstract art is not art because it lacks the representation requirement of art. Jung-Su thinks abstract art satisfies the representation requirement by representing formal features.

19 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 76 - Section 2 - Question 10

December 17, 2015

7 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 144 - Section 2 - Question 10

December 17, 2015

The Asian elephant walks with at least two, and sometimes three, feet on the ground at all times. Even though it can accelerate, it does so merely by taking quicker and longer steps. So the Asian elephant does not actually run.

Summary
The author concludes that the Asian elephant does not run. Why? Because the Asian elephant always has at least two feet on the ground at all times. In addition, it accelerates only by taking quick and longer steps.

Missing Connection
We’re trying to prove that the Asian elephant doesn’t run. But do we know from the premises what “running” requires? No. We don’t know what can establish that something doesn’t run. So, at a minimum, the correct answer should tell us what’s required to run.
To go further, we can anticipate some specific relationships that would make the argument valid. Any answer that gets us from one of the premises to “not run” could be correct. For example:
In order to run, something must have fewer than two feet on the ground at some point in time.
In order to run, something must accelerate in a way besides merely taking quicker and longer steps.

A
If an animal cannot accelerate, then it cannot run.
But the Asian elephant can accelerate. So (A) doesn’t establish that the elephant can’t run.
B
To run, an animal must have all of its feet off the ground at once.
(B) establishes that running requires having all feet off the ground at once. But we know the Asian elephant doesn’t have all of its feet off the ground at once — it always has at least 2 feet on the ground. So (B) allows us to conclude that the Asian elephant doesn’t run.
C
The Asian elephant can walk as quickly as some animals run.
(C) doesn’t tell us what’s required to run. So it doesn’t establish that the Asian elephant can’t run.
D
It is unusual for a four-legged animal to keep three feet on the ground while walking.
(D) doesn’t tell us what’s required to run. So it doesn’t establish that the Asian elephant can’t run.
E
All four-legged animals walk with at least two feet on the ground at all times.
(E) doesn’t tell us what’s required to run. So it doesn’t establish that the Asian elephant can’t run.

7 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 29 - Section 4 - Question 10

October 24, 2015

11 comments

«‹2345678910111213141516171819202122›»