Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 113 - Section 2 - Question 10
March 11, 2014Carla: But how do you go about choosing whose perspective is the valid one? Is the foot soldier’s perspective more valid than that of a general? Should it be a French or an English soldier? Your approach would generate a biased version of history, and to avoid that, historians must stick to general and objective characterizations of the past.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Carla denies Mark’s claim and concludes historians must stick to general and objective characterizations of the past. To support her claim, Carla poses rhetorical questions and states that the answers would generate a biased version of history.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Carla counters the position held by Mark. She does this by posing questions Mark’s argument fails to consider and states the approach would generate biased versions of history.
A
contests Mark’s understanding of historical events
Carla does not contest Mark’s understanding. She suggests that Mark’s proposed process would generate biased versions of history.
B
questions Mark’s presupposition that one person can understand another’s feelings
Carla does not question this presupposition. In fact, it’s implied that Carla agrees that one person can understand another’s feelings because she suggests we can choose between different perspectives.
C
argues that the selection involved in carrying out Mark’s proposal would distort the result
The selection involved is the selection of choosing which perspective is valid. The distorted result are the biased versions of history Carla claims Mark’s process would produce.
D
questions whether Mark accurately describes the kind of historical writing he deplores
Mark does not state that he deplores a certain kind of historical writing. We cannot assume that just because Mark prefers historical writing to be done a certain way, Mark deplores other kinds of historical writing.
E
gives reason to believe that Mark’s recommendation is motivated by his professional self-interest
Carla does not address any of Mark’s self-interests. Carla addresses Mark’s argument directly without focusing on personal characteristics.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 43 - Section 3 - Question 10
March 9, 2014Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 116 - Section 3 - Question 10
March 9, 2014
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that gravity is a property of space itself. Her evidence is that photons and neutrinos emitted by a distant supernova all reached Earth at the same time.
Notable Assumptions
The author believes that the neutrinos and photons wouldn’t have all reached Earth at the same time unless gravity was a property of space itself. The author therefore assumes that objects moving at uniform speed through space signifies that gravity is a property of space.
A
Einstein predicted that photons and neutrinos emitted by any one supernova would reach Earth simultaneously.
We don’t care if Einstein predicted the premise. We’re trying to strengthen the connection between that premise and the conclusion: that gravity is an aspect of space.
B
If gravity is not a property of space itself, then photons and neutrinos emitted simultaneously by a distant event will reach Earth at different times.
Unless gravity was a property of space, then the photons and neutrinos would’ve reached Earth at different times. Since they reached Earth at the same time, gravity must be a property of space.
C
Photons and neutrinos emitted by distant events would be undetectable on Earth if Einstein’s claim that gravity is a property of space itself were correct.
We don’t care about whether photons and neutrinos are undetectable. Besides, those photons and neutrinos evidently were detectable, yet the author argues Einstein’s claim is correct.
D
Photons and neutrinos were the only kinds of particles that reached Earth from the supernova.
We don’t care. There could’ve been other particles the author chose not to mention.
E
Prior to the simultaneous arrival of photons and neutrinos from the supernova, there was no empirical evidence for Einstein’s claim that gravity is a property of space itself.
We don’t care when Einstein’s claim was given empirical weight. We’re trying to strengthen the connection between the particles reaching Earth at the same time and gravity being a property of space.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 43 - Section 2 - Question 10
March 9, 2014Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 116 - Section 2 - Question 10
March 9, 2014Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 42 - Section 4 - Question 10
March 5, 2014Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 127 - Section 1 - Question 10
March 5, 2014
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author claims that reducing phenomena to mathematical expressions in the social sciences would be a mistake, despite what some social scientists assume. The predictions would leave out social science data that is not easy to reduce to those expressions, so the predictions of social phenomena would be inaccurate.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s opinion of using reducing phenomena to mathematical expressions in the social sciences: “this would be a mistake;”
A
The social sciences do not have as much predictive power as the natural sciences.
The author does not discuss predictive power, only what is compatible with being reduced to mathematical formulas for prediction.
B
Mathematics plays a more important role in the natural sciences than it does in the social sciences.
The author does not claim where math plays a more important role. He only claims that reducing phenomena to mathematical expressions for prediction purposes in the social sciences is a mistake.
C
There is a need in the social sciences to improve the ability to predict.
This is not contained in the stimulus. As part of the context, we know some social scientists want the power to predict accurately, but that is all. We don’t know anything about a need for improvement,
D
Phenomena in the social sciences should not be reduced to mathematical formulas.
This accurately paraphrases the conclusion. The author says “this” (reducing phenomena in the social to mathematical expressions) “would be a mistake” (should not happen).
E
Prediction is responsible for the success of the natural sciences.
In the context, we are told prediction is the “hallmark” of the natural sciences. This is an inaccurate paraphrase of that context.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 42 - Section 2 - Question 10
March 5, 2014Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 4 - Question 10
March 5, 2014
Summarize Argument
The problems caused by urbanization could be solved by trading urban-produced goods for agricultural products.
Notable Assumptions
The right answer choice will offer evidence to believe that the issues resulting from urbanization could be solved by trading urban-produced goods/services for agricultural products. As of right now, we have no reason to believe that urban-produced and agricultural goods have anything to do with the issues resulting from urbanization—the correct answer choice will offer information that makes the relationship clearer.
A
Government subsidies to urban manufacturers can ease the problems caused by the migration of people from rural to urban areas.
This does not affect the argument. It provides another way to solve the problems caused by urbanization but doesn’t tell us about how good the economists’ solution is.
B
All problems that have economic causes must have economic solutions.
This does not affect the argument. We don’t know if urbanization has economic causes—maybe people leave rural areas because they just want to experience life in the city.
C
A scarcity of agricultural products is a central element of many problems created by urbanization.
This strengthens the argument by giving us reason to believe that obtaining agricultural products would improve the issues caused by urbanization—a lack of these products is a central part of the problem, so increasing access to them through trade would help improve the issues.
D
Problems associated with migration to cities from rural areas are primarily due to trade imbalances between countries.
This does not affect the argument. We don’t know if the proposed solution would have any impact on existing trade deficits—this answer choice would require us to make several assumptions to have any impact.
E
Free trade policies can exacerbate the problems caused by increasing urbanization.
This weakens the argument by suggesting that the economists’ solution would actually make the problems they’re trying to solve worse.