Sign up to star your favorites LSAT June 2007 - Section 2 - Question 17
March 5, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 123 - Section 2 - Question 17
March 5, 2013
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that our hospital should make protection of our clients’ confidentiality the highest priority. This is based on the fact that at a recent conference on nonprofit management, several computer experts said that the most significant threat faced by large institutions like ours is unauthorized access to confidential data.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the opinion of computer experts on what is the most important threat to hospitals should have weight in what a hospital should prioritize. This is flawed because we have no reason to think that a computer expert’s opinion on hospital management is something worth following. Another way to frame the flaw is that the author assumes what computer experts said is true. But what they said is the most significant threat does not have to be in fact the most significant.
A
The argument confuses the causes of a problem with the appropriate solutions to that problem.
The argument proposes a potential solution (making confidentiality highest priority) for the alleged problem of unauthorized access to data. But there’s nothing confused about the relationship between the proposed solution and alleged problem.
B
The argument relies on the testimony of experts whose expertise is not shown to be sufficiently broad to support their general claim.
The testimony is from “computer experts.” There’s no reason to believe these computer experts have expertise in hospital management. So, we have no reason to think what they claim is the most significant threat to hospitals is actually the most significant threat.
C
The argument assumes that a correlation between two phenomena is evidence that one is the cause of the other.
The premises do not establish a correlation, and the conclusion does not conclude or assume that there’s a causal relationship between two things. The premises merely describe what computer experts said at a conference.
D
The argument draws a general conclusion about a group based on data about an unrepresentative sample of that group.
The argument’s conclusion is not about a group. It’s about what one hospital should do (”we should make the protection...”). If you’re thinking the clients are the “group,” then (D) is still wrong because the premise doesn’t present a sample of clients.
E
The argument infers that a property belonging to large institutions belongs to all institutions.
The experts said that the most significant threat faced by “large universities and hospitals” is unauthorized access. The author assumes this comment is true about his hospital, but doesn’t assume that because it’s true about his hospital, it’s also true about all institutions.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 43 - Section 3 - Question 17
March 5, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 116 - Section 3 - Question 17
March 5, 2013
Summary
If one effect of a genetic mutation contributes substantially to survival of a species, that mutation will be favored in natural selection. In addition, if a mutation is favored in natural selection, that means at least one effect of that mutation contributes substantially to survival of a species.
The rules above are subject to one exception — when the effect of traits that are carried along with the genetic mutation are so negative that they cancel out the benefits of a mutation, the mutation won’t be favored.
The rules above are subject to one exception — when the effect of traits that are carried along with the genetic mutation are so negative that they cancel out the benefits of a mutation, the mutation won’t be favored.
Notable Valid Inferences
There’s no clear inference to draw. We just need to understand the complicated rules in the stimulus accurately.
A
A species possesses a trait whose effects are all neutral for the survival of that species.
Could be true. A species can have a trait with only neutral effects. This just implies the trait won’t be favored by natural selection.
B
All the effects of some genetic mutations contribute substantially to the survival of a species.
Could be true. There could be some mutations that only do very helpful things for survival. These mutations will be favored.
C
A species possesses a trait that reduces the species’ survival potential.
Could be true. A species can have a trait that reduces survival potential. This trait won’t be favored.
D
A genetic mutation that carries along several negative traits is favored in natural selection.
Could be true. A genetic mutation can carry several negative traits. And that mutation can still be favored as long as the negative traits aren’t so negative as to outweigh the benefits of the mutation.
E
A genetic mutation whose effects are all neutral to a species is favored in natural selection.
Must be false. If the effects are all neutral, then the mutation won’t be favored. One requirement to be favored is that one effect contributes substantially to survival.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 32 - Section 4 - Question 17
February 22, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 118 - Section 3 - Question 17
February 22, 2013
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why are researchers warning that widespread use of the antidote could be dangerous, even though it has no serious side effects and is currently effective at limiting chicken pox?
Objective
The correct answer should tell us some negative effect of widespread use of the antidote. If we don’t have any negative effect from widespread use of the antidote, it will be difficult to explain why researchers are calling its widespread use dangerous.
A
The drug is extremely expensive and would be difficult to make widely available.
The fact that the drug will be difficult to apply widely doesn’t tell me why its widespread use would be dangerous.
B
The drug has to be administered several times a day, so patient compliance is likely to be low.
Unlikelihood of patient compliance doesn’t tell us why widespread use would be dangerous. Maybe patients wouldn’t get the full benefit; that doesn’t make the antidote dangerous if widely used.
C
The drug does not prevent the spread of chicken pox from one person to another, even when the drug eventually cures the disease in the first person.
But if the drug cures the disease in an individual person, why would widespread use be dangerous? We could just cure the disease in many individual people with widespread use.
D
When misused by taking larger-than-prescribed doses, the drug can be fatal.
Risk of overdose is present even when use isn’t widespread. There’s no reason widespread use would increase any particular individual’s chance of an overdose.
E
Use of the drug contributes to the development of deadlier forms of chicken pox that are resistant to the drug.
As the drug is used by and more people, the risk of more resistant, deadlier forms of chicken pox becomes greater. This helps connect how widely the antidote is used with danger, unlike (D).
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 30 - Section 4 - Question 17
February 21, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 112 - Section 4 - Question 17
February 21, 2013
Summarize Argument
The researchers implicitly conclude that drinking just two cups of coffee per day gives them less risk of heart disease than drinking five or more cups per day. Why? Because their research found that people who drink five or more cups daily have an elevated risk of heart disease.
Notable Assumptions
The researchers assume that people who drink two cups of coffee per day have less risk of heart disease than those who drink five or more per day. They also assume there’s no factor besides age and smoking habits that is associated with coffee intake and would explain the health effect.
A
The study found that for people who drank three or more cups of coffee daily, the additional risk of heart disease increased with each extra daily cup.
This is irrelevant because it does not apply to people drinking two or fewer cups per day. It’s possible that people who drink two cups daily have an even higher risk of heart disease than people who drink five cups.
B
Per capita coffee consumption has been declining over the past 20 years because of the increasing popularity of soft drinks and also because of health worries.
The proportion of people in the world drinking coffee is not relevant to the researchers’ decision. Lots of coffee can have negative health effects even if it’s less popular than it used to be.
C
The study did not collect information that would show whether variations in level of coffee consumption are directly related to variations in level of stress, a major causal factor in heart disease.
This introduces an alternative explanation for the study’s results that challenges the researchers’ conclusion. If people who are stressed tend to consume lots of coffee, then simply reducing coffee intake may not reduce the risk of heart disease.
D
Subsequent studies have consistently shown that heavy smokers consume coffee at about 3 times the rate of nonsmokers.
The study controlled for smoking, so a relationship between smoking habits and coffee consumption should not have influenced the results.
E
Subsequent studies have shown that heavy coffee consumption tends to cause an elevated blood-cholesterol level, an immediate indicator of increased risk of heart disease.
This explains why drinking more coffee increases the risk of heart disease, without challenging the researchers’ conclusion. It does not imply that variations in blood-cholesterol levels confounded the study’s results.