Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 155 - Section 4 - Question 10
February 16, 2020
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that jumping spiders defend EFN-producing plants against leaf-eating insects. He supports this by noting that ants that display behavior similar to that of the spiders defend the plants. He then cites experiments showing that the spiders land on plants with active EFNs six times more often than on those without EFNs, and they regularly eat the plant's nectar.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there’s no alternative explanation for the spiders’ attraction to the EFN-producing plants, simply because the spiders’ behavior is similar to the ants’ behavior. He implicitly rules out all other explanations. But maybe the spiders just land on the plants for food and have a neutral or even negative effect on the plants’ health.
A
For many species of nectar-producing plants, productivity is increased when a plant is protected from leaf-eating insects.
Irrelevant—this doesn’t rule out any alternative explanations for the spiders’ behavior. It makes sense that plants are more productive when protected from leaf-eating insects, but (A) doesn’t address whether the spiders themselves are actually protecting the plants.
B
In field experiments, the introduction of jumping spiders into an environment was followed by a significant increase in the population of EFN-producing plants.
This strengthens the author’s hypothesis by validating a prediction that would follow from it. If his hypothesis were true, we’d expect to see the plants thriving and reproducing when the spiders are introduced, since the spiders protect them from leaf-eating insects.
C
Some species of EFN-producing plants cannot survive without some outside agent protecting them from leaf-eating insects.
Irrelevant— this fails to address whether jumping spiders are protecting the plants from leaf-eating insects and thus fails to strengthen the argument.
D
Experiments with types of spiders other than jumping spiders suggest that these other types of spiders do not defend EFN-producing plants.
Irrelevant— the argument is only concerned with whether or not the jumping spiders defend EFN-producing plants. The effect of other types of spiders on EFN-producing plants doesn’t matter.
E
Regions with large populations of ants also tend to have large populations of EFN-producing plants.
Irrelevant— we already know that certain ants protect EFN-producing plants from leaf-eating insects, so it makes sense that areas with lots of ants also have lots of EFN-producing plants. But (E) fails to address whether jumping spiders also protect these plants.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 89 - Section 2 - Question 10
February 16, 2020Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 155 - Section 2 - Question 10
February 16, 2020
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Toning shoes don’t exercise leg muscles more than regular shoes, yet most people who switch to toning shoes experience a strengthening of their leg muscles.
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains a key difference between toning shoes and regular shoes, beyond the actual exercise the shoes afford. This difference likely rests in who wears the shoes. People may, for example, experience a strengthening of their leg muscles after switching to toning shoes because they’re making a concerted effort to get exercise.
A
Toning shoes strengthen small underused muscles in the feet and ankles.
We’re concerned with how major leg muscles are strengthened.
B
Muscles in the leg adapt to the rounded shape of toning shoes almost immediately.
This reinforces the idea that toning shoes provide no exercise benefit. We need to know why people who switch to them get a benefit, anway.
C
Many people find toning shoes especially comfortable and walk more as a result.
True, toning shoes don’t have any real exercise advantage over regular shoes. But people who switch to toning shoes end up walking more, which certainly exercises their leg muscles. This explains how they get a benefit from toning shoes.
D
There is little evidence that toning shoes cause injuries to their wearers.
Our stimulus says nothing about injuries. We need to know why people who switch to toning shoes get a benefit.
E
Shoes that strengthen the major leg muscles are more marketable than ordinary shoes.
Toning shoes don’t themselves strengthen the major leg muscles.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 88 - Section 4 - Question 10
November 21, 2019Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 154 - Section 4 - Question 10
November 21, 2019
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the dangers of mountain climbing have been greatly exaggerated. This is based on the fact that between 1922 and 2002, there have been fewer than 200 climbing deaths on Mt. Everest. But there were over 7,000 traffic deaths in France alone in 2002.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author fails to consider the number of people who climbed Mt. Everest between 1922 and 2002 and the number of people who drove in France in 2002. This is relevant to the overall fatality rate. For example, maybe there were only 200 people who climbed Mt. Everest during that time, and almost every one of them died. This would tend to show that climbing Mt. Everest was extremely dangerous.
A
whether the number of traffic fatalities in France was higher in 2002 than in other years
The author cited the numbers in France simply to show the large disparity in deaths from driving and from climbing. If in 2001, there were, for example, 6,900 traffic deaths, that has no impact. Or if 2000 involved 5,000 deaths, that’s still far more than 200 climbing deaths.
B
whether the number of traffic fatalities in France is usually higher than that in other countries
The author cited the numbers in France simply to show the large disparity in deaths from driving and climbing. If France usually has a higher number of traffic deaths than other countries, that changes nothing, because the disparity in fatalities from driving and climbing would still be large.
C
whether the number of fatalities among climbers on Mount Everest could be reduced by implementing stricter safety measures
The author doesn’t assume that we can’t make things safer. The argument is about the current danger presented by climbing, not whether climbing can be made safer.
D
how many climbers were on Mount Everest during those 80 years and how many people traveled on French roads in 2002
The author fails to consider that there might have been very few climers on Mount Everest, and many thousands of driver on French roads. This is relevant to the overall fatality rate, which is a more accurate measure of danger than simply counting the number of deaths.
E
how many climbing fatalities there were during those 80 years on mountains other than Mount Everest
The number of deaths on other mountains doesn’t tell us anything about the death rate on Mount Everest. What’s missing from this argument is information that bears upon the relative death rate on Mount Everest vs. driving in France in 2002.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 88 - Section 2 - Question 10
November 14, 2019Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 154 - Section 2 - Question 10
November 14, 2019Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 87 - Section 3 - Question 10
August 16, 2019Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 153 - Section 3 - Question 10
August 16, 2019
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The scientists hypothesize that humans, who arrived just before the last ice age ended, caused sloths to start disappearing from the Americas around 10,000 years ago and eventually to go extinct. This is supported by the fact that humans’ arrival and sloths’ disappearance happened around the same time.
Notable Assumptions
The scientists assume that humans could have caused the extinction of all giant ground sloths worldwide. They also assume that there are no alternative hypotheses, like other predators, natural disasters, or disease, to explain the sloths’ disappearance.
A
Scientists have not found any physical evidence to support the idea that giant ground sloths were hunted to extinction.
This weakens the argument by suggesting that humans may not have been responsible for sloths’ extinction, since no physical evidence of hunting has been found.
B
Species of smaller tree-dwelling sloths continue to live throughout South and Central America.
The scientists’ argument only addresses giant ground sloths that did go extinct. The survival of other kinds of sloths is irrelevant.
C
Their large size made the giant ground sloths less adaptable than most other ground mammals.
This weakens the argument by suggesting that the scientists’ original hypothesis- that giant ground sloths failed to adapt to climate changes- may have been correct after all.
D
Giant ground sloths are not the only large mammals that began to disappear from the Americas around 10,000 years ago.
This fails to address the cause of the giant ground sloths’ disappearance. Even if other large mammals also began disappearing at the same time, (D) doesn’t strengthen the hypothesis that humans are responsible for these disappearances.
E
One type of giant ground sloth survived on isolated islands until human beings arrived there well after the last ice age.
Some giant ground sloths survived long after the last ice age, meaning they didn’t disappear due to climate changes. These sloths only disappeared after humans arrived, which strengthens the hypothesis that humans were responsible for their extinction.