Questions Question 14

LSAT 110 - Section 3 - Question 14

August 8, 2012

People’s political behavior frequently does not match their rhetoric. Although many complain about government intervention in their lives, they tend not to reelect inactive politicians. But a politician’s activity consists largely in the passage of laws whose enforcement affects voters’ lives. Thus, voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent.

Summarize Argument

The author tells us that what people say about politics often contradicts their political behavior. The argument defines these concepts: what people say is that they want less government intervention, but what they do is vote out inactive politicians. The author tells us that what politicians do is pass laws that intervene in voters’ lives. We then get a sub-conclusion: “voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent,” meaning that people vote for active politicians who interfere with their lives, which they don’t like. This all supports the claim that people’s political talk and behavior differ.

Identify Argument Part

The claim that people tend not to reelect inactive politicians is a factual premise that supports a sub-conclusion (that voters reelect politicians they resent), which in turn supports the main conclusion.

A

It describes a phenomenon for which the argument’s conclusion is offered as an explanation.

The claim that people don’t reelect inactive politicians is not explained by anything else in the argument. It’s just stated as a stand-alone factual claim.

B

It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent.

This is an accurate description of the claim that people don’t reelect inactive politicians. The claim helps to support the idea that voters reelect politicians they resent, which is a sub-conclusion that supports the main conclusion that political talk and behavior differ.

C

It is offered as an example of how a politician’s activity consists largely in the passage of laws whose enforcement interferes with voters’ lives.

The author never offers an example of how politicians’ main activity is to pass laws that interfere with people’s lives. Also, the claim that people don’t reelect inactive politicians is a distinct factual statement from the interference claim.

D

It is a generalization based on the claim that people complain about government intervention in their lives.

The claim that people don’t reelect inactive politicians is not based on the claim that people complain about government intervention. They’re two totally separate statements.

E

It is cited as evidence that people’s behavior never matches their political beliefs.

The author does not claim that people’s political behavior never matches their beliefs, only that it sometimes doesn’t.

</section

89 comments

LSAT 65 - Section 4 - Question 14

May 13, 2012

6 comments

LSAT 135 - Section 4 - Question 14

May 13, 2012

Geographer: Because tropical storms require heat and moisture, they form especially over ocean surfaces of at least 26 degrees Celsius (79 degrees Fahrenheit), ocean temperatures that global warming would encourage. For this reason, many early discussions of global warming predicted that it would cause more frequent and intense tropical storms. But recent research shows that this prediction is unlikely to be borne out. Other factors, such as instabilities in wind flow, are likely to counteract global warming’s effects on tropical storm development.

Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation

Global warming is unlikely to cause more frequent and intense tropical storms. Early predictions suggested that global warming would increase the frequency and intensity of tropical storms by raising ocean temperatures conducive to such storms. However, this is unlikely because global warming will have other effects, such as changes in wind flow, that will counteract its impact on tropical storm development.

Identify Conclusion

The conclusion is the geographer’s opinion that early predictions about global warming’s impact on tropical storm development were wrong. The geographer concludes that global warming will probably not cause more frequent and intense tropical storms.

A

Tropical storms are especially likely to form over warm ocean surfaces.

This answer is incorrect because it summarizes the context of the stimulus. It explains why some predicted that global warming would lead to more frequent and intense tropical storms: tropical storms are more likely to form over warm oceans.

B

Contrary to early discussions, global warming is not the only factor affecting the frequency and intensity of tropical storms.

This misstates the conclusion. The correct conclusion is that global warming will probably not result in more frequent and intense storms. However, this answer claims that the conclusion is about global warming not being the only factor affecting storm frequency and intensity.

C

If global warming were reversed, tropical storms would be less frequent and less intense.

This isn’t an argument made in the stimulus. The geographer doesn’t consider what would be required to reverse global warming; she only disputes one prediction about the effects global warming may have. Since this claim isn’t made in the stimulus, it can’t be the main conclusion.

D

Instabilities in wind flow will negate the effect of global warming on the formation of tropical storms.

This addresses a premise, not the main conclusion. The geographer uses global warming's effect on wind flow to support her conclusion that global warming won't lead to more intense and frequent storms. Since this claim is supporting evidence, it can't be the main conclusion.

E

Global warming probably will not produce more frequent and intense tropical storms.

This accurately captures the main conclusion: the geographer believes that predictions about global warming’s effect on tropical storms were likely incorrect. The answer summarizes this by stating that global warming probably won't lead to more frequent and intense storms.

6 comments

LSAT 65 - Section 1 - Question 14

May 13, 2012

13 comments

LSAT 135 - Section 1 - Question 14

May 13, 2012

14 comments

LSAT 64 - Section 3 - Question 14

May 13, 2012

Arnot's conclusion: making fundamental changes to our government will eliminate social ills.

Please note that we are not presented with Arnot's premises. Only his conclusion. In other words, we don't have Arnot's argument.

Author's conclusion: making fundamental changes to our government will NOT eliminate social ills.
Author's premise: Arnot's argument [which we didn't get to see] for "this claim" [references "Arnot's conclusion"] makes a bad assumption. That's fine. Arnot may well have made an unreasonable assumption. That doesn't mean that the author has proved anything about "making fundamental changes to our government will or will NOT eliminate social ills." The author only showed us that a person made a bad argument.

Let's say I make a really shitty argument for the claim that "nuclear world war would be really bad for everyone." You call me out on my argument being shitty. Specifically, you claim that I made a bad assumption in my argument. Okay. Does that mean that therefore "the conclusion is obviously false"? In other words, it doesn't mean that you've proven "nuclear world war would NOT be really bad for everyone". You just showed that I made a bad argument.

The question of whether "nuclear world war would be really bad for everyone" is still up in the air.

You can see why you can't just say "You made a bad argument for X. Therefore, not X is obviously true."

58 comments

LSAT 134 - Section 3 - Question 14

May 13, 2012

Arnot's conclusion: making fundamental changes to our government will eliminate social ills.

Please note that we are not presented with Arnot's premises. Only his conclusion. In other words, we don't have Arnot's argument.

Author's conclusion: making fundamental changes to our government will NOT eliminate social ills.
Author's premise: Arnot's argument [which we didn't get to see] for "this claim" [references "Arnot's conclusion"] makes a bad assumption. That's fine. Arnot may well have made an unreasonable assumption. That doesn't mean that the author has proved anything about "making fundamental changes to our government will or will NOT eliminate social ills." The author only showed us that a person made a bad argument.

Let's say I make a really shitty argument for the claim that "nuclear world war would be really bad for everyone." You call me out on my argument being shitty. Specifically, you claim that I made a bad assumption in my argument. Okay. Does that mean that therefore "the conclusion is obviously false"? In other words, it doesn't mean that you've proven "nuclear world war would NOT be really bad for everyone". You just showed that I made a bad argument.

The question of whether "nuclear world war would be really bad for everyone" is still up in the air.

You can see why you can't just say "You made a bad argument for X. Therefore, not X is obviously true."

58 comments

LSAT 64 - Section 1 - Question 14

May 13, 2012

13 comments

LSAT 134 - Section 1 - Question 14

May 13, 2012

Superconductor development will enable energy to be transported farther with less energy lost in transit. This will probably improve industrial productivity, for a similar improvement resulted when oil and natural gas replaced coal as the primary fossil fuels used in North America. Shipping costs, a function of the distance fossil fuels are shipped and the losses of material in transit, decreased for factory owners at that time.

The author concludes that superconductor development, which will enable more efficient energy transport, will improve industrial productivity. As evidence, the author offers an analogous case where oil replaced coal as the primary fossil fuel and decreased shipping costs in the process.

Identify Argument Part

The referenced text is the argument’s main conclusion. The argument uses an analogy to explain how superconductor development will improve industrial productivity.

A

It is a conclusion for which the claim that shipping costs for fossil fuels are partly a function of the losses of material in transit is offered as partial support.

Shipping costs are partly a function of transit losses, and superconductor development will enable more efficient transit. Thus the conclusion, superconductor develop will improve industrial productivity. The first premise is the “partial support” the answer refers to.

B

It is a generalization for which the claim that superconductor development will enable energy to be transported farther with less energy lost in transit is offered as an illustration.

This isn’t a generalization. Instead, it’s a specific prediction the author attempts to support through an analogy.

C

It is an assumption supporting the conclusion that superconductor development will enable energy to be transported farther with less energy lost in transit.

This is a conclusion that’s supported by the argument, rather than support itself. It’s not assumed—it’s reasoned to be likely.

D

It is a premise offered to support the claim that oil and natural gas have replaced coal as the primary fossil fuels used in North America.

The referenced text isn’t a premise. Instead, it’s a conclusion supported by premises, such as the analogy about oil and natural gas in North America.

E

It is cited as evidence that shipping costs are a function of the distances fossil fuels are shipped and the losses of material in transit.

The referenced text concludes that superconductor development will improve productivity. It doesn’t support the definition of “shipping costs,” which is what this answer refers to.

13 comments

LSAT 63 - Section 3 - Question 14

May 13, 2012

27 comments