LSAT 63 - Section 1 - Question 17

May 13, 2012

5 comments

LSAT 133 - Section 1 - Question 17

May 13, 2012

5 comments

LSAT 62 - Section 4 - Question 17

May 13, 2012

19 comments

LSAT 132 - Section 4 - Question 17

May 13, 2012

A 24-year study of 1,500 adults showed that those subjects with a high intake of foods rich in beta-carotene were much less likely to die from cancer or heart disease than were those with a low intake of such foods. On the other hand, taking beta-carotene supplements for 12 years had no positive or negative effect on the health of subjects in a separate study of 20,000 adults.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did people who ate lots of beta-carotene in their food avoid deadly cancer and heart disease when people taking beta-carotene supplements experienced no changes to their health?

Objective
The correct answer must fail to explain why people in the two studies experienced such different health outcomes. Every wrong answer, meanwhile, will state a flaw in the studies’ designs or explain why people who eat foods rich in beta-carotene are less likely to die from cancer and heart disease than those who take a supplement.

A
The human body processes the beta-carotene present in foods much more efficiently than it does beta-carotene supplements.
This would explain the discrepancy. People who eat foods rich in beta-carotene process more of it than those who only take supplements.
B
Beta-carotene must be taken for longer than 12 years to have any cancer-preventive effects.
This would explain why people in the first study showed benefits while people in the second study did not. Those in the second study did not consume high levels of beta-carotene over a long enough period to achieve health benefits.
C
Foods rich in beta-carotene also tend to contain other nutrients that assist in the human body’s absorption of beta-carotene.
This would explain the discrepancy. People who eat foods rich in beta-carotene eat food also rich in other nutrients, and those nutrients cause the lower risk of deadly cancer and heart disease.
D
In the 12-year study, half of the subjects were given beta-carotene supplements and half were given a placebo.
This does not explain the discrepancy. The author states that people who took the supplements experienced no health benefits, regardless of the placebo group.
E
In the 24-year study, the percentage of the subjects who had a high intake of beta-carotene-rich foods who smoked cigarettes was much smaller than the percentage of the subjects with a low intake of beta-carotene-rich foods who smoked.
This would explain the discrepancy. People in the first study were less likely to die of cancer and heart disease because they were less likely to smoke cigarettes.

21 comments

LSAT 62 - Section 2 - Question 17

May 13, 2012

This is a tough SA question that doesn't make itself easily translatable into Lawgic.

The argument in the stimulus:

(Premise) without health, happiness is not obtainable
(Premise, using Group 3 translation) happiness --> not sacrifice health [meaning you have health or you are healthy]

___________
(Conclusion) never sacrifice health to acquire money
(Conclusion, using Group 4 translation) acquire money --> not sacrifice health

So what's missing?
(sufficient assumption) acquire money --> happiness
(sufficient assumption) acquire money only if not make happiness unobtainable. The double negation "not" and "un" cancel out.

Together, we get:
acquire money --> happiness --> not sacrifice health
___________
acquire money --> not sacrifice health


19 comments

LSAT 132 - Section 2 - Question 17

May 13, 2012

This is a tough SA question that doesn't make itself easily translatable into Lawgic.

The argument in the stimulus:

(Premise) without health, happiness is not obtainable
(Premise, using Group 3 translation) happiness --> not sacrifice health [meaning you have health or you are healthy]

___________
(Conclusion) never sacrifice health to acquire money
(Conclusion, using Group 4 translation) acquire money --> not sacrifice health

So what's missing?
(sufficient assumption) acquire money --> happiness
(sufficient assumption) acquire money only if not make happiness unobtainable. The double negation "not" and "un" cancel out.

Together, we get:
acquire money --> happiness --> not sacrifice health
___________
acquire money --> not sacrifice health


19 comments

LSAT 61 - Section 4 - Question 17

May 13, 2012

10 comments

LSAT 143 - Section 4 - Question 17

May 13, 2012

Near many cities, contamination of lakes and rivers from pollutants in rainwater runoff exceeds that from industrial discharge. As the runoff washes over buildings and pavements, it picks up oil and other pollutants. Thus, water itself is among the biggest water polluters.

Summarize Argument
Water itself is one of the biggest water polluters. Why? Around many cities, pollution from runoff is greater than from industrial discharge. How? Water running over buildings and pavements picks up oil and other pollutants.

Identify Argument Part
This is evidence used to support that water is one of the biggest water polluters by showing water pollutes more than another big pollution source. It is also a sub-conclusion. The statement explaining how water picks up oil and contaminants supports it.

A
It is a conclusion for which the claim that water itself should be considered a polluter is offered as support.
The support relationship works the other way. The fact that water pollutes more than industrial discharge is evidence for why water is one of the biggest polluters.
B
It is cited as evidence that pollution from rainwater runoff is a more serious problem than pollution from industrial discharge.
The stimulus makes no claims about how serious the pollution is from any given source. It talks only about the amount of pollutants.
C
It is a generalization based on the observation that rainwater runoff picks up oil and other pollutants as it washes over buildings and pavements.
While that observation helps explain why water pollutes so much, the statement in question is not a generalization stemming from that observation. It is a comparative measurement against industrial pollution.
D
It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that water itself is among the biggest water polluters.
This evidence, that water pollutes more than industrial discharge, helps make the case that water is one of the biggest water polluters.
E
It is stated to provide an example of a typical kind of city pollution.
It notes a pattern that appears near many cities. It works to support the conclusion, not illustrate an example of city pollution.

10 comments

LSAT 61 - Section 2 - Question 17

May 13, 2012

21 comments

LSAT 142 - Section 2 - Question 17

May 13, 2012

21 comments

«‹1920212223242526272829303132333435›»