Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 31 - Section 2 - Question 17
June 18, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 113 - Section 3 - Question 17
June 18, 2015
Summary
Addictive drugs are physically harmful.
Athletes are never justified in using addictive drugs.
Some people claim that, because nonaddictive drugs are unnatural, athletes should not be permitted to take large amounts of such drugs before competing.
There are lots of unnatural things used in sports—running shoes, boxing gloves—and these things are not prohibited.
We don’t currently do enough to address the serious problems in modern sports that cause unnecessary deaths and injuries.
Athletes are never justified in using addictive drugs.
Some people claim that, because nonaddictive drugs are unnatural, athletes should not be permitted to take large amounts of such drugs before competing.
There are lots of unnatural things used in sports—running shoes, boxing gloves—and these things are not prohibited.
We don’t currently do enough to address the serious problems in modern sports that cause unnecessary deaths and injuries.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
There are more serious problems in modern sports than nonaddictive drugs.
The use of nonaddictive drugs does not typically result in unnecessary deaths and injuries in modern sports.
A thing should not be banned from sports solely because that thing is unnatural.
The use of nonaddictive drugs does not typically result in unnecessary deaths and injuries in modern sports.
A thing should not be banned from sports solely because that thing is unnatural.
A
The fact that something is unnatural is not a sufficient reason for banning it.
Very strongly supported. The author both concedes that nonaddictive drugs are unnatural and affirms that they should not be banned. Together, these statements allow us to infer that a thing’s unnaturalness is not sufficient reason to ban it from sports.
B
There is nothing unnatural about the use of nonaddictive drugs by athletes.
Anti-supported. The author cedes that nonaddictive drugs are unnatural, although she does not believe that this is sufficient reason to prohibit their use.
C
The use of addictive drugs by athletes should be prohibited because addictive drugs are unnatural.
Anti-supported. The author does not believe that anything should be prohibited solely because it is unnatural. She believes that addictive drugs should be banned, but because they’re physically harmful, not because they’re unnatural.
D
Some of the unnecessary deaths and injuries in modern sports are caused by the use of addictive drugs by athletes.
Unsupported. While we do know that addictive drugs are physically harmful, we can’t infer that they cause unnecessary deaths and injuries. The physical harm they inflict could take another form, like illness.
E
The use of addictive drugs by athletes is a less serious problem than are unnecessary injuries.
Unsupported. We don’t know how addictive drug use stacks up against unnecessary deaths and injuries—the drugs could cause these things, for all we know! We know that the use of nonaddictive drugs by athletes is less serious than unnecessary injuries, but that isn’t what (E) says.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 30 - Section 2 - Question 17
June 18, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 3 - Question 17
June 18, 2015Only a very small percentage of people from the service professions ever become board members of the 600 largest North American corporations. This shows that people from the service professions are underrepresented in the most important corporate boardrooms in North America.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that people from the service professions are underrepresented in the most important corporate boardrooms in North America. She supports this by noting that only a small percentage of them become board members of the 600 largest corporations.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author’s conclusion is about the amount of board members who are from service professions, while her premise is about the percentage of people from service professions who are board members.
She assumes that, because a small percentage of people from service professions are board members, it must be that a small percentage of board members are from service professions. But what if only 5% of people from service professions are board members, but 75% of board members are from service professions? Then people from the service professions would certainly not be underrepresented.
A
Six hundred is too small a sample on which to base so sweeping a conclusion about the representation of people from the service professions.
The author’s argument isn’t flawed due to sample size. 600 is simply referring to the number of the largest corporations in North America, and the conclusion is about these same “most important” corporations. She isn’t using an unrepresentative sample to draw her conclusion.
B
The percentage of people from the service professions who serve on the boards of the 600 largest North American corporations reveals little about the percentage of the members of these boards who are from the service professions.
Just because a small percentage of people from service professions are board members, does not mean that a small percentage of board members are from service professions. The author mistakenly assumes that it does.
C
It is a mistake to take the 600 largest North American corporations to be typical of corporate boardrooms generally.
The author doesn't make this mistake because she isn’t talking about corporate boardrooms generally. She’s just talking about “the most important corporate boardrooms in North America.”
D
It is irrelevant to smaller corporations whether the largest corporations in North America would agree to have significant numbers of workers from the service professions on the boards of the largest corporations.
How this impacts smaller corporations is irrelevant. The argument only addresses the largest corporations in North America.
E
The presence of people from the service professions on a corporate board does not necessarily imply that that corporation will be more socially responsible than it has been in the past.
The author never addresses corporations’ levels of social responsibility or how board members from service professions might impact social responsibility. (E) is irrelevant.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 27 - Section 1 - Question 17
June 18, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 104 - Section 1 - Question 17
June 18, 2015
Summarize Argument
The author claims that for a society to be stable, its citizens must have stable goals. This is a conditional claim, which is supported by chaining together two conditional premises. One premise is that a stable society necessitates laws that increase the happiness of its citizens. The other is that creating laws which increase citizens’ happiness requires most people to have “a predictable and enduring set of aspirations”, i.e. stable goals.
P1. stable society → laws increase happiness
P2. laws increase happiness → stable goals
Therefore, stable society → stable goals
P1. stable society → laws increase happiness
P2. laws increase happiness → stable goals
Therefore, stable society → stable goals
Identify Argument Part
The claim that “a society is stable only if its laws tend to increase the happiness of its citizens” is one of the premises used to establish the conclusion.
A
It is the conclusion of the argument.
The claim about stability and laws that increase happiness is a premise used to reach the conclusion. It’s not supported by anything else, so can’t be a conclusion.
B
It helps to support the conclusion of the argument.
This correctly identifies that the claim about stability and laws that increase happiness is one of the author’s premises. It supports the conclusion, and has no other role in the argument.
C
It is a claim that must be refuted if the conclusion is to be established.
The argument doesn’t contain any claims that need to be refuted. The author takes both premises for granted, and they validly yield the conclusion. It’s that simple, no refutation involved.
D
It is a consequence of the argument.
The claim about stability and laws that increase happiness that increase happiness can’t be a consequence of anything because nothing else leads to it. It’s just stated without any support.
E
It is used to illustrate the general principle that the argument presupposes.
The claim about stability and laws that increase happiness doesn’t illustrate anything. It combines with another premise to lead to the conclusion, but not by providing an example.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 74 - Section 4 - Question 17
January 10, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 142 - Section 4 - Question 17
January 10, 2015
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author implicitly concludes that proponents of jury nullification are wrong. He supports this by claiming that jury nullification depends too much on jurors’ objectivity and that juries too often make serious mistakes when deciding to acquit based on perceived unfairness.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author undermines the proponents of jury nullification by pointing out that the doctrine has negative consequences— overreliance on jurors’ objectivity and a tendency for juries to make serious mistakes based on perceived unfairness.
A
attacking the motives of the proponents of the doctrine
The author never attacks the motives of the proponents of jury nullification. He just undermines their position by pointing out negative consequences of the doctrine.
B
identifying an inconsistency within the reasoning used to support the position
The author doesn’t point out any inconsistencies in the proponents’ reasoning. He just points out the consequences of their position.
C
attempting to show that a premise put forward in support of the position is false
The proponents’ premise is that jury nullification is legitimate “because it helps shield against injustice.” The author never argues that this is false, and we can’t presume that his argument implies that it’s false. Instead, he highlights negative consequences of the doctrine.
D
presenting a purported counterexample to a general claim made by the doctrine’s proponents
The author never presents a counterexample to the proponents’ claim. He just presents consequences of jury nullification.
E
arguing that the application of the doctrine has undesirable consequences
The author undermines the proponents’ conclusion by arguing that the application of the doctrine has undesirable consequences— overreliance on jurors’ objectivity and a tendency for juries to make serious mistakes based on perceived unfairness.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 74 - Section 1 - Question 17
January 10, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 142 - Section 1 - Question 17
January 10, 2015
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that Han purple was probably discovered by accident during the production of glass. This is based on the fact that the same chemical ingredients are used for Han purple and a common type of white glass that was made during the period Han purple was made. In addition, both Han purple and this white glass were made using processes that involved high heat and mixing in lead.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes there’s no more likely explanation for the origin of Han purple besides accidental discovery during the production of white glass.
A
Chemical analysis shows that most of the known fragments of both Han purple and the white glass were produced within a small geographical radius.
This strengthens by establishing at least that Han purple and white glass were produced near each other. If this were not true, the author’s hypothesis wouldn’t make sense. (A) isn’t a powerful strengthener, but it most strengthens compared to the other answers.
B
Han purple was used for luxury and ceremonial items, whereas the white glass was used to make certain household items.
The purposes of Han purple and white glass doesn’t reveal anything about how Han purple was discovered.
C
The technique used for producing Han purple was known to very few people during the Qin and Han dynasties.
This limits the number of people who knew how to make Han purple. But does this help show that Han purple was discovered during the production of white glass? We have no reason to think so.
D
The ingredients used in producing both Han purple and the white glass were easily obtainable during the Qin and Han dynasties.
How easy the ingredients were to obtain doesn’t shed any light on whether Han purple was discovered during the production of white glass.
E
The white glass is found in more surviving artifacts from the Qin and Han dynasties than Han purple is.
(E) suggests white glass might have been more widely used or more durable. But that doesn’t tell us anything about whether Han purple was discovered during the production of white glass.