Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 43 - Section 2 - Question 17
July 30, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 116 - Section 2 - Question 17
July 30, 2013
Summary
If a country has a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, then that country is not a small country and not a country in the southern hemisphere. Each country with a permanent seat is in favor of increased international peacekeeping efforts and a greater role for the United Nations in moderating regional disputes. However, some countries in favor of increased international peacekeeping efforts are firmly against increased spending on refugees.
Notable Valid Inferences
Some countries in favor of a greater role for the United Nations in regional disputes are not countries in the southern hemisphere.
Some countries in favor of increased international peacekeeping efforts are not small countries.
Some countries in favor of a greater role for the United Nations in regional disputes are not small countries.
Some countries in favor of increased international peacekeeping efforts are not small countries.
Some countries in favor of a greater role for the United Nations in regional disputes are not small countries.
A
Some small countries do not want the United Nations to increase its spending on refugees.
Could be false. We only have information in the stimulus about countries that are not small countries. This answer choice is outside of the scope of our conditions.
B
Some countries in the southern hemisphere are not in favor of increased international peacekeeping efforts.
Could be false. We only have information in the stimulus about countries that are not in the southern hemisphere. This answer choice is outside of the scope of our conditions.
C
Some countries that have permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council are against increased spending on refugees by the United Nations.
Could be false. This answer is a popular invalid inference form. It is possible that no countries with permanent seats are against increased spending on refugees.
D
Some small countries are in favor of a greater role for the United Nations in moderating regional disputes.
Could be false. We only have information in the stimulus about countries that are not small countries. This answer choice is outside of the scope of our conditions.
E
Some countries that are in favor of a greater role for the United Nations in moderating regional disputes are not located in the southern hemisphere.
Must be true. You can always make “some” inferences between “all” statements that branch off from a common sufficient condition. There must always be some overlap between “all” statements.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 28 - Section 1 - Question 17
April 19, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 106 - Section 1 - Question 17
April 19, 2013
"Surprising" Phenomenon
How does a new shopping mall generate significant economic activity while contributing little to the overall economy?
Objective
Any hypothesis that resolves this discrepancy must address the relationship between the economic activity in a shopping mall and the greater community’s economy. It must allow for the overall economy to grow somewhat, but by a smaller amount than the total economic activity contained in the mall.
A
When large shopping malls are new they attract a lot of shoppers but once the novelty has worn off they usually attract fewer shoppers than does the traditional downtown shopping district.
This introduces a distinction between new and old shopping malls that is irrelevant to the discrepancy at hand. The author refers to new shopping malls, and does not reference economic effects at different stages of a mall’s life cycle.
B
Most of the money spent in a large shopping mall is spent by tourists who are drawn specifically by the mall and who would not have visited the community had that mall not been built.
This widens the discrepancy by implying the mall's economic activity should be mostly reflected in the community’s overall economy. If most customers come from out of town, they bring economic activity to the community that would otherwise go elsewhere.
C
Most of the jobs created by large shopping malls are filled by people who recently moved to the community and who would not have moved had there been no job offer in the community.
This implies the mall causes an increase in the community’s population, which if anything would boost the larger economy even more than expected. If the mall draws workers, then those workers will spend their money in the greater community and increase the total economic output.
D
Most of the money spent in a large shopping mall is money that would have been spent elsewhere in the same community had that mall not been built.
This explains why a new mall will contribute little to the overall economy. If the mall draws business from other places in the community, it causes a redistribution of existing economic activity but does not necessarily generate new activity.
E
Most of the jobs created by the construction of a large shopping mall are temporary, and most of the permanent jobs created are low paying.
This is an irrelevant distinction between the economy when the mall is being built and the economy after the mall is built. The mall offering low-paying permanent jobs does not explain its failure to grow the community's economy as a whole.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 39 - Section 2 - Question 17
March 28, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 115 - Section 2 - Question 17
March 28, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 39 - Section 4 - Question 17
March 26, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 115 - Section 4 - Question 17
March 26, 2013
Summary
The author concludes that humans should not try to prevent or control forest fires; rather, fores firest should be left alone and allowed to burn out naturally. This is based on the fact that forest fires are required for many forests to flourish.
Missing Connection
The conclusion tells us that we shouldn’t try to prevent or control forest fires. But the premise doesn’t tell us anything about when we “should not” do something. All we know from the premise is that many forests need forest fires in order for their ecosystems to flourish. The correct answer needs to connect this premise to something prescriptive. For example, “If forest fires are required by many forests to flourish, then humans should not try to prevent or control forest fires.”
A
Human intervention in natural processes tends to reduce the biological diversity of ecosystems.
(A) doesn’t tell me why we “should not” do something. Sure, maybe human intervention reduces biological diversity...but is that something we should care about? We don’t know.
B
Protection of forests and their ecosystems is the only legitimate reason for attempting to prevent or control forest fires.
(B) isolates protection of forests and their ecosystems as the only “legitimate” reason for trying to prevent or control forest fires. In other words, no other consideration should matter when deciding whether to prevent/control forest fires. And, since we know from the premise that forest fires are good for the protection of forests, (B) implies that we should not prevent/control fires.
C
Forest fires begun by careless campers should be the target of human fire control efforts.
We’re trying to conclude that we shouldn’t systematically prevent/control forest fires. (C) goes in the opposite direction.
D
Humans tend to view forests as well as other ecosystems as instruments for the satisfaction of human needs.
(D) doesn’t establish that we shouldn’t try to prevent/control fires. How humans perceive forests doesn’t prove anything about what humans should not do.
E
If the health of an ecosystem is threatened by insects or other predators, human beings should not intervene to block that threat.
(E) concerns threats to an ecosystem by insects or other predators. But we have no reason to think this is related to threats posed by forest fires. What humans should do in response to threats by insects or other predators does not prove what they should do in response to forest fires.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 37 - Section 4 - Question 17
March 16, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 113 - Section 4 - Question 17
March 16, 2013A year ago the government reduced the highway speed limit, and in the year since, there have been significantly fewer highway fatalities than there were in the previous year. Therefore, speed limit reduction can reduce traffic fatalities.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that a speed limit reduction can reduce traffic fatalities. This is based on the fact that a year ago, the government reduced the highway speed limit, and in the year since that reduction, there have been fewer highway deaths than there were in the previous year.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the reduction in highway speed limit caused the decrease in highway fatalities. This overlooks the possibility that there are other explanations for the decrease in highway fatalities in the year following the speed limit reduction.
A
highway traffic has not increased over the past year
The negation of (A) doesn’t undermine the argument. If traffic has increased over the past year, that might strengthen the argument, because we’d expect to see more fatalities. Since the negation doesn’t hurt the argument, the author doesn’t have to assume (A).
B
the majority of drivers obeyed the new speed limit
The author doesn’t have to assume that most drivers obeyed the speed limit, because a speed limit reduction can still affect driving behavior even if most people don’t follow the speed limit. For example, the new limit can cause people to drive slower.
C
there is a relation between driving speed and the number of automobile accidents
The author’s conclusion concerns the number of highway deaths. This doesn’t commit the author to any belief about the number of accidents, which is different from the number of deaths.
D
the new speed limit was more strictly enforced than the old
If anything, the author assumes that the new speed limit was not more strictly enforced. More strict enforcement could have been an alternate explanation for the decline in fatalities. So the author assumes this didn’t happen, not that it did happen.
E
the number of traffic fatalities the year before the new speed limit was introduced was not abnormally high
This must be assumed because if the number of fatalities the year before the new limit was abnormally high, then that suggests the decrease in fatalities after the speed limit might just be a coincidence. It might be a return to the normal fatality rate.