Questions Question 10

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 17 - Section 3 - Question 10

August 7, 2015

28 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 17 - Section 2 - Question 10

August 7, 2015

83 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 18 - Section 2 - Question 10

June 18, 2015

140 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 34 - Section 3 - Question 10

June 18, 2015

2 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 110 - Section 3 - Question 10

June 18, 2015

Philosopher: People are not intellectually well suited to live in large, bureaucratic societies. Therefore, people can find happiness, if at all, only in smaller political units such as villages.

Summarize Argument

The philosopher concludes that, if people can find happiness at all, they can only do so in smaller communities, like villages. She supports this by saying that people aren’t intellectually well suited to live in large, bureaucratic societies.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The philosopher’s reasoning is flawed because she makes a key assumption. By concluding that people can only find happiness in small communities because they aren’t intellectually well suited to large ones, the philosopher must assume that people cannot find happiness in a society that they aren’t intellectually well suited to.

She ignores the fact that some people might be able to find happiness in large bureaucratic societies, even though they’re not intellectually well suited to them.

A

no one can ever be happy living in a society in which she or he is not intellectually well suited to live

In order to draw her conclusion, the philosopher takes for granted that people cannot be happy in a society that they aren’t intellectually well suited to. But what if some people can be happy in large, bureaucratic societies, even though they’re not well suited to live there?

B

the primary purpose of small political units such as villages is to make people happy

The author never makes this claim, nor does she take it for granted. She says that “people can find happiness, if at all, only in smaller political units.” She never claims that these communities’ purpose is to make people happy, or even that they will make people happy at all.

C

all societies that are plagued by excessive bureaucracy are large

The author never makes this claim, nor does she take it for granted. She just says that people aren’t well suited to live in large, bureaucratic societies. Maybe small bureaucratic societies exist, or maybe they don’t; it doesn’t affect the argument either way.

D

anyone who lives in a village or other small political unit that is not excessively bureaucratic can find happiness

The author doesn't make this assumption. She says that “people can find happiness, if at all, only in smaller political units.” She never assumes that people in small political units actually can or will find happiness.

E

everyone is willing to live in villages or other small political units

The author doesn’t make this assumption. Her argument isn’t addressing where people may or may not be willing to live. It’s just addressing where people must live in order to potentially find happiness.

2 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 34 - Section 2 - Question 10

June 18, 2015

4 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 110 - Section 2 - Question 10

June 18, 2015

8 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 33 - Section 3 - Question 10

June 18, 2015

2 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 109 - Section 3 - Question 10

June 18, 2015

The importance of the ozone layer to terrestrial animals is that it entirely filters out some wavelengths of light but lets others through. Holes in the ozone layer and the dangers associated with these holes are well documented. However, one danger that has not been given sufficient attention is that these holes could lead to severe eye damage for animals of many species.

Summary

The ozone layer entirely filters out some wavelengths of light but lets others through. Dangers associated with holes in the ozone layer are well documented. However, one danger that is not talked about enough is that these holes could lead to severe eye damage for some species.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Some wavelengths of light that could damage eyesight are more likely to reach the earth when there are holes in the ozone layer.

A

All wavelengths of sunlight that can cause eye damage are filtered out by the ozone layer, where it is intact.

This answer is unsupported. To say “all” wavelengths are filtered out is too strong here. We only know that the ozone layer filters out some wavelengths but not others. Additionally, we don’t know whether the filtered wavelengths are the same ones that could cause eye damage.

B

Few species of animals live on a part of the earth’s surface that is not threatened by holes in the ozone layer.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t have any information in the stimulus to determine where any species live.

C

Some species of animals have eyes that will not suffer any damage when exposed to unfiltered sunlight.

This answer is unsupported. To say that “some” species could suffer severe eye damage when exposed to unfiltered sunlight does not imply that there are some species that will not suffer any damage. “Some”, in this case, could mean “all.”

D

A single wavelength of sunlight can cause severe damage to the eyes of most species of animals.

This answer is unsupported. To say a “single wavelength” causes the damage is too strong. We know that there are wavelengths that cause damage, but we don’t know from the stimulus if it is one wavelength in particular.

E

Some wavelengths of sunlight that cause eye damage are more likely to reach the earth’s surface where there are holes in the ozone layer than where there are not.

This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that the ozone layer filters out some wavelengths. If there are holes in this layer, that makes it more likely that damaging wavelengths will not be filtered and cause eye damage.

4 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 32 - Section 4 - Question 10

June 18, 2015

2 comments