Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 38 - Section 4 - Question 17
March 16, 2014Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 114 - Section 4 - Question 17
March 16, 2014Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 38 - Section 1 - Question 17
March 16, 2014Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 114 - Section 1 - Question 17
March 16, 2014
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that car insurance premiums should increase as one drives more frequently. As support, she says that the chance of being involved in an accident increases in proportion to the number of times they drive.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that people who drive more frequently drive with a comparable amount of skill or safety to those who drive less frequently.
A
People who drive infrequently are more likely to be involved in accidents that occur on small roads than in highway accidents.
The location of accidents (whether they occur on small roads or on highways) is not relevant to the argument. The argument does not distinguish between different types of accidents; the argument is about accidents generally.
B
People who drive infrequently are less likely to follow rules for safe driving than are people who drive frequently.
(B) tells us that those who drive infrequently drive less safely than those who drive frequently. This means that the claim that those who drive more frequently should have higher premiums has less support.
C
People who drive infrequently are less likely to violate local speed limits than are people who drive frequently.
This gives us a reason to believe that people who drive infrequently may be safer drivers than those who drive frequently. This does not weaken the argument (and may marginally strengthen it).
D
People who drive frequently are more likely to make long-distance trips in the course of a year than are people who drive infrequently.
We have no information that compares the safety of longer trips with that of shorter trips, so this is outside the scope of the argument.
E
People who drive frequently are more likely to become distracted while driving than are people who drive infrequently.
Distracted driving poses a risk, so (E) gives a reason why frequent drivers may drive less safely than infrequent drivers, so this marginally strengthens the argument.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 42 - Section 4 - Question 17
March 5, 2014Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 127 - Section 1 - Question 17
March 5, 2014Curator: Our museum displays only twentieth-century works, which are either on loan from private collectors or in the museum’s permanent collection. Prints of all of the latter works are available in the museum store. The museum store also sells prints of some works that are not part of the museum’s permanent collection, such as Hopper’s Nighthawks.
Summary
If it’s on display, it’s a 20th century work.
If it’s a 20th century work on display, it’s on loan OR in the permanent collection.
If it’s in the permanent collection, prints of it are available in the store.
Some works that aren’t part of the permanent collection are in the store, such as Nighthawks.
Notable Valid Inferences
No particular inference stands out, aside from recognizing the connections between conditionals. If something’s on display, then it must be on loan OR permanent. If it’s permanent, prints of it are available in the store.
A
Every print in the museum store is of a work that is either on loan to the museum from a private collector or part of the museum’s permanent collection.
Could be false. We don’t know about everything available in the store. We know that anything in permanent collection is available in the store. That doesn’t tell us that everything available in the store is on loan or in the permanent collection.
B
Every print that is sold in the museum store is a copy of a twentieth-century work.
Could be false. We don’t know about everything available in the store. There could be many things in the store that are not on display.
C
There are prints in the museum store of every work that is displayed in the museum and not on loan from a private collector.
Must be true. If it’s on display, but not on loan, it must be in permanent. And if it’s in permanent, there are prints available of it in the store.
D
Hopper’s Nighthawks is both a twentieth-century work and a work on loan to the museum from a private collector.
Could be false. We know Nighthawks is not part of the permanent collection. That doesn’t tell us anything else about Nighthawks. It might be on loan, or it might not. It might be 20th century, or it might not.
E
Hopper’s Nighthawks is not displayed in the museum.
Could be false. We know Nighthawks is not part of the permanent collection. That doesn’t tell us whether it is on display. It might be, or it might not.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 42 - Section 2 - Question 17
March 5, 2014Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 4 - Question 17
March 5, 2014
A
does not address the arguments advanced by the politician’s opponents
The opponents argue “on theoretical grounds” in favor of reducing social spending. The politician fails to show why those theoretical grounds are unpersuasive, or why the opponents’ argument is flawed. This makes the politician’s argument unconvincing.
B
makes an attack on the character of opponents
The politician doesn’t attack the opponents’ character. He criticizes the focus of their argument, but the focus of an argument is not part of one’s character.
C
takes for granted that deficit spending has just one cause
The politician describes the “main cause” of deficit spending. This doesn’t suggest the author believes deficit spending has only one cause. There can be other causes; the politicians identifies what he views to be the main one.
D
portrays opponents’ views as more extreme than they really are
We don’t have any indication that the politician’s description of the opponents’ argument makes the opponents’ position more extreme. All we know is that the opponents’ argument is based on “theoretical grounds.” We don’t know whether this exaggerates the opponents’ position.
E
fails to make clear what counts as excessive spending
The specific level of spending that constitutes “excessive” is not relevant. The opponents argue that there is too much social spending, and the politician responds that we should not reduce social spending. Nothing requires the politician to specify a particular dollar amount.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 45 - Section 4 - Question 17
February 28, 2014Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 118 - Section 4 - Question 17
February 28, 2014
Summarize Argument
The art critic concludes that the two metrics used to judge art — whether or not its value is intrinsic and whether or not judgments of its quality are objective — are related. The art critic says that if an artwork’s value is shown not to be intrinsic, then judgments of its quality must not be objective.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The flaw with this argument lies in the assumption that art with extrinsic value can’t be viewed objectively. There’s no reason to believe that this must be the case. Why can’t art with extrinsic value still be judged objectively? The art critic doesn’t provide an answer.
A
judgments about the quality of an artwork are always a matter of taste
The critic doesn’t assume that all judgments of an artwork's quality are a matter of taste, only those directed at art with extrinsic value.
B
people sometimes agree about judgments that are only matters of taste
Whether people agree or disagree on anything is irrelevant. The argument is focused on the relationship between an artwork’s quality and value.
C
judgments about extrinsic value cannot be objective
This describes the art critic’s assumption. The critic claims that if the value of a work is extrinsic, then judgments about its quality can only be a matter of taste, but provides no evidence that this is the case.
D
judgments about intrinsic value are always objective
The critic makes no claim about works with intrinsic value. The claim is that works with extrinsic value are never judged objectively, not that ones with intrinsic value always are.
E
an artwork’s value is sometimes intrinsic to it
The critic never assumes that any artwork actually has intrinsic value, only that ones with extrinsic value cannot be judged objectively.