Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 25 - Section 2 - Question 17

October 24, 2015

15 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 102 - Section 2 - Question 17

October 24, 2015

Nicotine has long been known to cause heart attacks and high blood pressure. Yet a recent study has shown that the incidence of heart attacks and high blood pressure is significantly higher among cigarette smokers who do not chew tobacco than among nonsmokers exposed to an equal amount of nicotine through tobacco chewing.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do cigarette smokers who do not chew tobacco have a higher incidence of heart attacks and high blood pressure than nonsmokers who chew tobacco (and who are exposed to the same amount of nicotine)?

Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that does not offer a useful difference between cigarette smokers who do not chew tobacco and nonsmokers who chew tobacco. The incorrect answers will offer useful differences between these two groups, providing reasons for why the cigarette smokers showed a higher incidence of heart attacks and high blood pressure, even though both groups were exposed to the same amount of nicotine.

A
People who smoke but do not chew tobacco tend to exercise less than those who chew tobacco but do not smoke.
This could help resolve the discrepancy. The nonsmokers who chew tobacco exercise more, which presumably lowers their risk of heart attacks and high blood pressure compared to the smokers who do not chew tobacco.
B
Chemicals other than nicotine present in chewing tobacco but not present in cigarette smoke mitigate the effects that nicotine has on the cardiovascular system.
This could help resolve the discrepancy. The nonsmokers who chew tobacco ingest chemicals that mitigate nicotine’s harmful effects, while the smokers do not. This could decrease the risk of heart attacks and high blood pressure in nonsmokers who chew tobacco.
C
People who chew tobacco but do not smoke tend to have healthier diets than those who smoke but do not chew tobacco.
This could help resolve the discrepancy. The healthier diets of the nonsmokers who chew tobacco presumably decrease their risk of heart attacks and high blood pressure compared to the smokers who do not chew tobacco.
D
Chemicals other than nicotine present in chewing tobacco but not present in cigarette smoke can cause cancer.
This would not help resolve the discrepancy, and is therefore the correct answer. (D) discusses cancer, not heart attacks and high blood pressure.
E
Chemicals other than nicotine present in cigarette smoke but not present in chewing tobacco raise blood pressure.
This could help resolve the discrepancy. If cigarette smokers are ingesting chemicals that raise blood pressure, it would help explain why they have a higher incidence of high blood pressure.

16 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 24 - Section 2 - Question 17

October 24, 2015

1 comment

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 101 - Section 2 - Question 17

October 24, 2015

After the Second World War, the charter of the newly formed United Nations established an eleven-member Security Council and charged it with taking collective action in response to threats to world peace. The charter further provided that the five nations that were then the major powers would permanently have sole authority to cast vetoes. The reason given for this arrangement was that the burden of maintaining world peace would rest on the world’s major powers, and no nation should be required to assume the burden of enforcing a decision it found repugnant.

Summary
The Security Council’s structure gives permanent veto power to only those nations that were major powers at the end of World War II. The reason is that major powers are the ones responsible for keeping world peace, and they shouldn’t be made to enforce decisions that they strongly disagree with.

Notable Assumptions
The support says why any major power should have veto powers. But there’s no explanation for why only the major powers at the end of World War II should have those veto powers, or why they should have them permanently. By the argument’s premises, any new major powers should also be given veto powers, and if one of the original five ceased to be a major power, there would be no more reason for it to have veto powers.

The reasoning must assume both that no new major powers will arise and that none of the original five will cease to be a major power.

A
it does not make sense to provide for democracy among nations when nations themselves are not all democracies
We don’t know whether the members of the Security Council are all democracies, or whether the Security Council’s veto structure fails to “provide for democracy.” Since the argument doesn’t involve either of these considerations, it can’t depend on any assumptions about them.
B
no nation that was not among the major powers at the end of the Second World War would become a major power
In other words, no other nations would become major powers. If negated—if other nations were to become major powers—the premises would support giving those other nations veto powers too. So the premises support restricting veto powers to the original five only if (B) is assumed.
C
nations would not eventually gravitate into large geographical blocs, each containing minor powers as well as at least one major power
Allegiances have no effect on the reasoning. The argument is that the five major powers should have permanent, sole veto power so that as peacekeepers, they can say “no” to decisions they strongly disagree with. Whether they form blocs is irrelevant.
D
minor powers would not ally themselves with major powers to gain the protection of the veto exercised by major powers
Allegiances have no effect on the reasoning. The argument is that the five major powers should have permanent, sole veto power so that as peacekeepers, they can say “no” to decisions they strongly disagree with. Whether those vetoes protect allies is irrelevant.
E
decisions reached by a majority of nations in response to threats to world peace would be biased in favor of one or more major powers
Whether decisions are biased has no effect on the reasoning. The argument is that the five major powers should have permanent, sole veto power so that as peacekeepers, they can say “no” to decisions they strongly disagree with. The content or bias of any decision is irrelevant.

38 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 23 - Section 2 - Question 17

October 24, 2015

29 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 22 - Section 4 - Question 17

October 24, 2015

15 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 17

October 24, 2015

Council member: The preservation of individual property rights is of the utmost importance to the city council. Yet, in this city, property owners are restricted to little more than cutting grass and weeding. Anything more extensive, such as remodeling, is prohibited by our zoning laws.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Why does the city council prohibit all but the simplest home modifications when it believes so strongly in individual property rights?

Objective

A hypothesis resolving this inconsistency must present evidence that zoning laws somehow protect property rights. This protection must, in the city council's view, outweigh the potential infringement caused by the restrictions on home improvements.

A
Property owners are sometimes allowed exemptions from restrictive zoning laws.

This does not explain why the city council enforces zoning laws in the first place. It does not address how those zoning laws are compatible with the council's emphasis on individual property rights.

B
It is in the best interest of property owners to maintain current laws in order to prevent an increase in their property taxes.

This does not explain the city council's support for zoning laws. The council member states that individual property rights, not the financial interests of property owners, are its priority.

C
The city council places less importance on property rights than do property owners.

This does not explain why the city council would support zoning laws that restrict property rights. The council places “the utmost importance” on property rights, and thus should act to support those rights, regardless of the beliefs of property owners.

D
An individual’s property rights may be infringed upon by other people altering their own property.

This reconciles the city council’s support for property rights and its enforcement of zoning laws. Zoning laws protect individual property rights by preventing neighbors from infringing upon them indirectly.

E
Zoning laws ensure that property rights are not overly extensive.

This deepens the inconsistency. The city council claims to prioritize property rights, so it should not support zoning laws that limit those rights.


22 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 21 - Section 3 - Question 17

October 24, 2015

55 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 20 - Section 1 - Question 17

October 24, 2015

25 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 105 - Section 2 - Question 17

October 24, 2015

25 comments

«‹34567891011121314151617181920212223›»