Questions Question 10

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 105 - Section 2 - Question 10

October 24, 2015

Premiums for automobile accident insurance are often higher for red cars than for cars of other colors. To justify these higher charges, insurance companies claim that, overall, a greater percentage of red cars are involved in accidents than are cars of any other color. If this claim is true, then lives could undoubtedly be saved by banning red cars from the roads altogether.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The author hypothesizes that banning red cars could save lives, based on the claim that a greater percentage of red cars are involved in accidents than are cars of any other color.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is a cookie-cutter “correlation does not imply causation” flaw, where the author sees a positive correlation and then assumes that one thing causes the other, without ruling out alternative hypotheses. She assumes that red cars cause car accidents simply because more red cars are involved in accidents. She goes on to conclude that banning red cars could save lives.

She overlooks the possibility that some other, underlying factor could be causing the correlation— maybe there’s something that causes people to buy red cars and to be involved in car accidents.

A

accepts without question that insurance companies have the right to charge higher premiums for higher-risk clients

Irrelevant— even if she does accept this, it has nothing to do with her argument. Her argument is about the correlation between red cars and accidents; insurance company rates are just context.

B

fails to consider whether red cars cost the same to repair as cars of other colors

Irrelevant— she may not consider repair costs, but this isn’t the flaw because repair costs don’t affect her argument. She hypothesizes that banning red cars could save lives; it doesn’t matter how much they cost to repair.

C

ignores the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars

This describes an alternative hypothesis that the author ignores. She assumes red cars cause accidents, without considering that some other, underlying factor may be causing the correlation— maybe reckless drivers just like red cars and that’s why more red cars are in accidents.

D

does not specify precisely what percentage of red cars are involved in accidents

Irrelevant— the exact percentage of red cars doesn’t matter, since we already know that “a greater percentage of red cars are involved in accidents” than cars of other colors.

E

makes an unsupported assumption that every automobile accident results in some loss of life

The author never makes this assumption. She just assumes that some car accidents result in some loss of life. Based on this assumption and the assumption that red cars cause accidents, she concludes that banning red cars could save lives.

39 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 19 - Section 4 - Question 10

October 24, 2015

1 comment

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 103 - Section 1 - Question 10

October 24, 2015

Audiences find a speaker more convincing if the speaker begins a speech by arguing briefly against his or her position before providing reasons for accepting it. The reason this technique is so effective is that it makes the speaker appear fair-minded and trustworthy. Therefore, candidates for national political office who wish to be successful in winning votes should use this argumentative technique in their speeches.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that candidates for national political office should begin their speeches by briefly arguing against their own position before giving reasons why their position should in fact be accepted. As evidence, she claims that the technique is effective since it makes the speaker look fair-minded and trustworthy.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that candidates should do what audiences find generally most effective in a speech. This means that the author doesn’t believe that candidates’ speeches differ from other sorts of speeches, at least not to an extent that the technique wouldn’t work.

A

Political candidates typically have no control over which excerpts from their speeches will be reported by the news media.

While a candidate holds position A, the news media simply shows clips of them arguing against that same position. This isn’t a good look for a candidates, and seriously weakens the efficacy of this technique.

B

Many people do not find arguments made by politicians convincing, since the arguments are often one-sided or oversimplify the issues.

If anything, this strengthens the author’s position. If people find politicians’ arguments one-sided, then this technique would presumably mitigate that problem.

C

People decide which political candidate to vote for more on the basis of their opinions of the candidate’s character than on the exact positions of the candidate.

While people care more about the candidate’s character than their positions, the positions may still matter. And the technique the author recommends might then still be effective.

D

People regard a political candidate more favorably if they think that the candidate respects an opponent’s position even while disagreeing with it.

This seems to support the author’s argument. If people think being fair and even-handed is a good quality in a candidate, than the recommended technique would be useful.

E

Political candidates have to address audiences of many different sizes and at many different locations in the course of a political campaign.

We have no idea how the technique in question works on different audiences. We know that, in general, it’s effective. We need something that weakens the idea politicians should start using it.

53 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 19 - Section 2 - Question 10

October 24, 2015

1 comment

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 102 - Section 3 - Question 10

October 24, 2015

54 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 75 - Section 3 - Question 10

August 16, 2015

13 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 143 - Section 3 - Question 10

August 16, 2015

Television host: While it’s true that the defendant presented a strong alibi and considerable exculpatory evidence and was quickly acquitted by the jury, I still believe that there must be good reason to think that the defendant is not completely innocent in the case. Otherwise, the prosecutor would not have brought charges in the first place.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that there must be good reason to think the defendant is not completely innocent. This is based on the author’s belief that the prosecutor would not have brought charges if the defendant were completely innocent.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author assumes that the charging decision of the prosecutor constitutes evidence that the defendant isn’t completely innocent. This overlooks the possibility that the charging decision might indicate nothing about the defendant’s guilt. For example, perhaps the charging decision is based on mistaken or fraudulent evidence. Or maybe the decision is corrupt and merely used to threaten and harass the defendant. We simply have no idea whether the charging decision is indicative of guilt.

A

takes lack of evidence for a view as grounds for concluding that the view is false

The author’s premise is that the prosecutor brought charges. It’s not asserting a lack of evidence for the view that the defendant is innocent.

B

presupposes as evidence the conclusion that it is trying to establish

(B) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion isn’t presupposed as evidence. The conclusion is that the defendant is not completely innocent. The evidence is the fact that the prosecutor brought charges. These aren’t the same idea.

C

places undue reliance on the judgments of an authority figure

The author places undue reliance on the charging decision of the prosecutor. There’s no compelling reason to believe that the defendant is guilty simply because of the prosecutor’s judgment that the defendant is guilty. We have to evaluate the evidence.

D

confuses legal standards for guilt with moral standards for guilt

It’s not clear whether the author means innocent in a legal sense or a moral sense, but regardless, it doesn’t matter, because the author never shifts between the two ideas. The flaw isn’t based on the difference between legal/moral standards.

E

concludes that a judgment is suspicious merely on the grounds that it was reached quickly

The author doesn’t argue that the jury’s decision is suspicious because it was reached quickly.

16 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 75 - Section 1 - Question 10

August 16, 2015

13 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 143 - Section 1 - Question 10

August 16, 2015

Copyright statutes benefit society by providing incentive to produce original works, so some kind of copyright statute is ultimately justified. But these statutes also represent a significant cost to society because they create protected monopolies. In many countries, copyright statutes grant copyright protection for the life of the author plus several decades. This is too long, since the societal benefit from the additional years of copyright is more than offset by the societal cost.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that copyright protection for the life of the author plus several decades is too long. This is because the societal benefit from the additional years of copyright is more than offset by the societal cost of creating monopolies in the copyrighted works. In other words, the societal cost of the additional years of protection outweighs the societal benefit.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that if the societal cost of additional years of copyright protection outweighs the societal benefit, this is something that makes those additional years of protection unjustified. The author also assumes that there aren’t non-societal benefits that could help justify the costs of additional years of copyright protection.

A

A statute should be written in a way that eliminates any appearance of its being inconsistent in its aims.

The argument’s reasoning has nothing to do with an inconsistency in copyright statutes. There’s nothing contradictory within the statutes. They have benefits, and they also have costs. That’s not a contradiction.

B

A statute should be repealed if the conditions that originally justified enacting the statute no longer hold true.

The author never suggests that the original justification has changed. The argument is simply based on an assessment of costs and benefits, and the author doesn’t say that those costs/benefits have changed.

C

A statute that is justified in one country is justified in every country.

The author never presents a country in which copyright statutes are justified. He is simply criticizing certain countries’ copyright statutes.

D

A statute should not limit rights unless it can be shown that it thereby enhances other rights.

The reasoning isn’t that copyright statutes are unjustified because they don’t enhance other rights. The reasoning is based on weighing costs/benefits. Copyright statutes may enhance the rights of the owner, so (D) wouldn’t help show some statutes are unjustified.

E

If a statute is to be justified by its benefit to society, it should be designed so that its societal benefit always exceeds its societal cost.

(E) connects the premise, which shows that the costs outweigh the benefits, to the judgment that copyright protections for life plus several decades are too long, or in other words, unjustified.

13 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 18 - Section 4 - Question 10

August 7, 2015

104 comments