Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 50 - Section 4 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 130 - Section 3 - Question 17
April 21, 2012
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the area of the brain controlling speech is not distinct from the area controlling other functions. He supports this by noting that the mountain climbers in the study slurred their speech, took longer to understand simple sentences, and showed poor judgment after climbing above 6,100 meters.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author concludes that the area of the brain controlling speech isn’t separate from the area controlling other functions because multiple brain functions worsened at high altitudes. He assumes that all these functions are controlled in the same area, ignoring the possibility that multiple areas could have been affected by the altitude.
In other words, the altitude might have impacted multiple distinct brain areas, or the entire brain, affecting both speech and judgment, even though they are controlled in distinct areas.
A
the climbers’ performance in speech, comprehension, and reasoning was impaired because oxygen deprivation affected their entire brains
If oxygen deprivation affected the climbers’ entire brains, then it’s possible that all of the affected functions are controlled in distinct areas of the brain and that oxygen deprivation is simply worsening them all at the same time.
B
the climbers’ performance in speech, comprehension, and reasoning was better than average before they were studied
If the climbers’ speech, comprehension, and reasoning were better than average before the study, it wouldn’t change the fact that these functions worsened at higher altitudes. So, even if the author does overlook (B), it doesn’t describe a flaw in his argument.
C
the climbers showed different levels of impairment in their performance in speech, comprehension, and reasoning
We should expect that the climbers didn't all experience the exact same level of impairment. What’s important is that all the climbers still showed worsened performance in these functions, even if the impairment was at different levels.
D
some of the effects described were apparent just before the climbers reached 6,100 meters
Even if some effects were apparent just before 6,100 meters, (D) doesn't change the fact that the climbers’ experienced worsened performance due to diminished oxygen at high altitudes.
E
many of the climbers had engaged in special training before the climb because they wanted to improve the efficiency with which their bodies use oxygen
The climbers still all experienced worsened performance in speech, understanding, and judgement, regardless of whether some of them had special training for the climb.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 50 - Section 2 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 129 - Section 1 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 49 - Section 4 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 122 - Section 4 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 49 - Section 2 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 122 - Section 2 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 48 - Section 4 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 121 - Section 4 - Question 17
April 21, 2012
A
takes for granted that because one event precedes another the former must be the cause of the latter
The author’s premises explicitly state that heavy rainfall in April and May can cause an increased risk of encephalitis. So she isn’t assuming a causal relationship where none exists.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that a certain outcome would be desirable
Presumably encephalitis is an undesirable outcome, but regardless, the author never makes any claims or assumptions about whether a certain outcome would be desirable. She just argues that people can’t affect that outcome.
C
ignores the possibility that a certain type of outcome is dependent on more than one factor
The author ignores the possibility that the threat of encephalitis is dependent on more than just heavy rainfall. Perhaps people can still decrease the threat of encephalitis by controlling other factors, like wearing bug spray, even though they can’t control the weather.
D
takes for granted that a threat that is aggravated by certain factors could not occur in the absence of those factors
The author never assumes that encephalitis could not occur without heavy rainfall in April and May. She just argues that heavy rainfall leads to more mosquitoes, which increases the threat of encephalitis.
E
draws a conclusion about what is possible from a premise about what is actually the case
The author does draw a conclusion about what’s possible— that it’s impossible for people to decrease the threat of encephalitis— from premises about what is actually the case. But the flaw is that she fails to address other factors that can also affect the threat of encephalitis.