Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 118 - Section 3 - Question 10
June 18, 2015
Summary
Every Western tradition moral theory tells us what a good life is. However, most people would judge anyone embodying any Western moral theory as not living a good life. To most people, a good life is a life they would want for themselves and their children.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Most people think that a good life requires qualities that are not required in any Western theory moral tradition.
A
Most people desire a life for themselves and their children that is better than a merely good life.
We don’t know whether most people desire anything better than a good life. We only know the characteristics that most people believe a good life requires.
B
A person who fits the ideals of one moral theory in the Western tradition would not necessarily fit the ideals of another.
We don’t know if the ideals of Western tradition moral theories are different from one another. It could be that the ideals across all of these theories are the same. We only know that what most people believe is ideal is different from any moral theory of Western tradition.
C
Most people have a conception of a good life that does not match that of any moral theory in the Western tradition.
If most people believe that anyone who embodies any moral theory of Western tradition is not living a good life, then most people must believe that a good life entails something different than what any theory does.
D
A good life as described by moral theories in the Western tradition cannot be realized.
We don’t know whether it’s impossible to live a good life as described by moral theories in the Western tradition. Rather, what is being debated is what a good life entails, not if it is possible to live a good life.
E
It is impossible to develop a theory that accurately describes what a good life is.
We don’t know whether it’s impossible for a theory to describe a good life accurately. Just because most people disagree with these theories does not mean it’s impossible to accurately describe a good life.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 32 - Section 1 - Question 10
June 18, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 117 - Section 3 - Question 10
June 18, 2015
Summarize Argument
The argument concludes that the geography of cities would be very different if cars hadn’t been as widely used. This is because cities were designed with lots of space for houses and parking lots to allow for the use of cars.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This argument fails to prove that, without cars, cities would had to have been designed quite differently. The wide use of cars caused cities to be designed with a particular layout, but something else could have also caused cities to be designed similarly. While it’s possible that, without the wide use of cars, cities could have ended up with very different geography, the premises don’t prove that they definitely would have.
A
infers from the idea that the current geography of modern cities resulted from a particular cause that it could only have resulted from that cause
This describes how the argument fails to consider the fact that there could be other causes that would result in cities being designed with lots of space. It’s entirely possible that, even without cars, the geography of cities would still be similar.
B
infers from the idea that the current geography of modern cities resulted from a particular cause that other facets of modern life resulted from that cause
The argument never makes a claim about any other facets of modern life. The conclusion is about the geography of cities.
C
overlooks the fact that many technological innovations other than the personal automobile have had some effect on the way people live
The argument doesn’t presume that cars are the only influence on the design of cities. It just notes that they had a significant effect. The flaw is failing to consider that they may not be the only thing that could possibly have that effect.
D
takes for granted that shopping malls do not need large parking lots even given the use of the personal automobile
This is irrelevant. The argument refers to malls to support the idea that their design was influenced by the use of cars. It doesn’t matter whether or not the extra space is actually required.
E
takes for granted that people ultimately want to live without personal automobiles
The argument never makes any claim about what people want; it’s about how the use of cars affects the geography of cities.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 31 - Section 3 - Question 10
June 18, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 114 - Section 2 - Question 10
June 18, 2015
Summary
Wasting natural resources is wrong.
Burning huge amounts of trash in incinerators is a waste of natural resources.
Recycling trash wastes fewer resources than burning it in incinerators.
If an incinerator is built, less trash will be recycled.
The city shouldn’t build an incinerator.
Burning huge amounts of trash in incinerators is a waste of natural resources.
Recycling trash wastes fewer resources than burning it in incinerators.
If an incinerator is built, less trash will be recycled.
The city shouldn’t build an incinerator.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
The city should not take an action that is wrong.
The city should not take an action that will inhibit a reduction in resource waste.
If the city is burning huge amounts of trash in an incinerator, the city is wasting resources.
The city should not take an action that will inhibit a reduction in resource waste.
If the city is burning huge amounts of trash in an incinerator, the city is wasting resources.
A
All of the city’s trash that is not recycled goes into incinerators.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t suggest that the only disposal options are recycling and incineration. It’s true that building an incinerator leads to less recycling, but there might also be more methods! Maybe some trash goes landfills and the rest is either burnt or recycled.
B
By recycling more trash, the city can stop wasting resources entirely.
Unsupported. “Recycling more trash” doesn’t necessarily mean recycling all trash—huge amounts could still be burnt! Also, recycling might still waste resources, albeit fewer. Finally, the city might be wasting resources in other ways, too, and recycling trash wouldn’t stop that.
C
The most effective way to conserve resources is to recycle trash.
Unsupported. We know that recycling trash helps conserve resources, but we don’t know that this is the most effective way to do so.
D
If the city is to avoid wasting resources, huge amounts of trash cannot be burned in any city incinerator.
Very strongly supported. Burning huge amounts of trash in incinerators wastes resources, so as long as the city is doing that, it is wasting resources. If the city were to avoid wasting resources, it would need to stop burning huge amounts of trash in incinerators!
E
If the city does not burn trash, it will not waste resources.
Unsupported. The city might be wasting resources in other ways! Maybe the city has a policy of leaving lights on in government buildings, or uses wasteful water distribution plans, or engages in any number of other wasteful practices!
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 31 - Section 2 - Question 10
June 18, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 113 - Section 3 - Question 10
June 18, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 30 - Section 2 - Question 10
June 18, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 3 - Question 10
June 18, 2015Nordecki: If pay is the issue, I must disagree. The average annual salary of the striking workers at Ergon Foods is over $29,000.
Speaker 1 Summary
Goswami supports the striking workers at Ergon Foods. This is because she thinks the amount they are paid (most make less than $20,000 per year) is too low.
Speaker 2 Summary
Nordecki concludes that if the strike is about pay, he does not support the strike. This is because the average annual salary of the striking workers is above $29,000.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether the striking workers are underpaid. Goswami thinks they are. Nordecki thinks they aren’t.
A
The average annual salary at Ergon Foods is over $29,000.
Goswami doesn’t express an opinion. She says most earn less than $20,000, but that doesn’t allow us to infer what she believes about the average salary of Ergon Foods workers. The average could be higher than $29,000 or lower, even if most earn less than $20,000.
B
Pay is the primary issue over which the workers are striking at Ergon Foods.
Neither expresses an opinion about this. Although you might think the workers are striking over pay, neither speaker describes the cause of the strike.
C
It is reasonable to support striking workers who are underpaid.
Not a point of disagreement. Nordecki believes the Ergon workers are not underpaid. But we don’t know whether he would support their strike if they were underpaid. You might think he implicitly supports strikes from underpaid workers, in which case he agrees with Goswami.
D
The striking workers at Ergon Foods are underpaid.
This is a point of disagreement. Goswami believes they are underpaid. We can infer that Nordecki does not, because he says that he disagrees with the strike if pay is the issue underlying the strike.
E
It was unreasonable for the workers at Ergon Foods to go on strike.
Nordecki doesn’t express an opinion. He disagrees with the strike if it is based on pay. But it might be based on a different reason, in which case we don’t know whether Nordecki might support the strike.