Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 46 - Section 2 - Question 25
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 119 - Section 2 - Question 07
April 21, 2012Instinctual behavior doesn’t use reasoning.
Instinctual behavior uses fewer nerve cells than does noninstinctual (flexible) behavior.
In order for an organism to perform flexible behavior, their brain needs to have a lot of neurons.
As of now, no insect brain is big enough to hold enough neurons to facilitate flexible behavior.
Insects currently only act based on instinct.
A
The behavior of organisms with elaborate brain mechanisms is usually not instinctual.
B
Insect behavior is exclusively instinctual.
C
All organisms with brains larger than insects’ brains are capable of some measure of flexible behavior.
D
All organisms with large brains are biologically equipped for flexible behavior.
E
Only organisms with brains of insect size or smaller engage in purely instinctual behavior.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 119 - Section 2 - Question 08
April 21, 2012The question stem reads: Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument? This is a Weaken question.
The author begins by describing how the laboratory experiment, which is the most effective method for teaching science, is disappearing from secondary school curricula. Instead of the laboratory experiment, students are simulating experiments using computers. We then see that the author believes this (simulating) experiments on computers) should be stopped, which is the author's conclusion. The reason the author gives is that the practice of simulating experiments in high school results in many students going to university without knowing how to work with laboratory experiments. We can reorganize the argument to read:
P1: High school students are using computers to simulate experiments.
P2: Using computers to simulate experiments results in many students going to university without knowing how to work with lab equipment.
C1: Simulating experiments should be stopped.
I highlighted the should to indicate that this conclusion is normative. Normative claims deal with good and bad. However, nothing is inherently good or bad about the world; determining what is good and bad requires us to make a value judgment. Is there anything inherently wrong with intentionally driving over a squirrel? You might argue that deliberately mowing down squirrels is wrong because it takes away life. Then I would ask you why taking away life is bad. You say it causes suffering. I say, what is wrong with suffering… and you see where I am going here. The upshot is that normative claims can only arise from other normative claims. If I have a normative claim in the conclusion, I need a normative claim in the premises.
The conclusion that we should stop simulating experiments in high school is normative, so I need to have a normative premise. However, the premises are descriptive; they describe a state of affairs. So what if kids go to college without knowing how to use laboratory equipment? There is nothing inherently wrong with that. The author assumes that it is a bad thing when we do not know if it is. To weaken this question, we need to look for an answer choice that suggests that going to college without knowing how to use laboratory equipment is not bad. The correct AC does not need to destroy the argument. It merely needs to cast doubt on the conclusion.
Answer Choice (A) says it is difficult for secondary schools to keep up with scientific knowledge without using computers. We have multiple issues. That might be true, but there is more to computer usage than just simulating experiments, so we do not know if this AC is even relevant to the argument. Even if we modified this (A) to say "difficult to keep up without simulating experiments," this would still be an incorrect AC. So what if it is difficult to teach students without computers? Just because something is easier for schools to teach using computers, that does not mean it is the right thing to do.
Answer Choice (B) is wrong on multiple counts. First, these schools might still have students simulate experiments on the computer and observe the teacher in other experiments. Even if there were mutually exclusive practices, the more critical issue is that the author's argument is entirely unconcerned with schools that do not simulate experiments on computers. The author merely wants to say that schools using computer simulations should stop.
Answer Choice (C) is irrelevant to the argument. The fact that computers are useful for teaching scientific terminology does not rule out computer simulations' bad downstream effects on university students. It can be true that both computers are useful for teaching scientific terminology, and using computers to simulate experiments is bad for students.
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect because the fact that secondary schools and universities have invested a lot of money into computers does not magically make using computers to simulate experiments acceptably. The author would simply reply, "That's unfortunate." (D) is the sunk cost fallacy.
Correct Answer Choice (E) because it identifies a reason that students going to college without knowing how to use lab equipment might be bad and rules that out. If not knowing how to use laboratory equipment makes students ill-prepared to learn science, that certainly seems bad. (E) rules that possibility out by saying students can learn just fine without knowing how to use lab equipment.
A
Scientific knowledge is changing so rapidly it is difficult for secondary schools to keep up without using computers.
B
In some secondary schools, teachers conduct laboratory experiments while students observe.
C
Computers have proven to be a valuable tool for teaching secondary school students scientific terminology.
D
Secondary schools and universities across the nation have put a great deal of money into purchasing computers.
E
University students can learn science effectively without having had experience in working with laboratory equipment.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 119 - Section 2 - Question 09
April 21, 2012Elwell: But despite election rhetoric, to put together majority coalitions in democracies, politicians usually end up softening their stands on individual issues once they are elected.
A
politicians heighten the differences between themselves and their opponents during elections
B
basic policies change drastically when one party succeeds another in a democracy
C
in a democracy the best way of ensuring continuity in policies is to form a coalition government
D
most voters stay loyal to a particular political party even as it changes its stand on particular issues
E
the desire of parties to build majority coalitions tends to support democratic systems
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 119 - Section 2 - Question 10
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 119 - Section 2 - Question 11
April 21, 2012
A
bases a conclusion about how one group will respond to self-deprecation on information about how a different group responds to it
B
ignores the possibility that what was viewed positively in the managers’ self-deprecating humor was the self-deprecation and not its humor
C
ignores the possibility that non-self-deprecating humor might have been viewed even more positively than self-deprecating humor
D
infers from the fact that self-deprecating humor was viewed positively that nonhumorous self-deprecation would not be viewed positively
E
bases a conclusion about certain popular career advice on a critique of only one part of that advice
The question stem reads: The career consultant's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on grounds that it. This is a Flaw question.
The consultant begins the argument by claiming the most popular career advice suggests emphasizing one's strengths and downplaying one's weaknesses to employers. The consultant then claims that research shows this advice to be incorrect. We have referential phrasing, so let's rephrase that claim to research shows emphasizing one's strengths and downplaying one's weaknesses to employers is bad advice. So if you are an employee, it is ill-advised to emphasize your good qualities and downplay your bad qualities, which is the consultant's conclusion.
Before we move forward, ask yourself what kind of research would provide the best evidence for the consultant's claim. Imagine if the consultant cited a study using dogs. Would you think that is excellent evidence for a claim about employees? Of course, you wouldn't because dogs are not the same as employees. Unless you are a Police K9, but let's not get too technical here. Good evidence would be research on employees. We want to be anticipating what the argument ought to say. If what the argument actually says deviates from what the argument ought to say, then bingo - we have found our flaw.
So what research does the consultant use? They say that a study of 314 managers shows that those who use self-deprecating humor in front of their employees are more likely to be seen by them (the employees) as even-handed, thoughtful, and concerned than those (the managers) who do not. Wait a minute, did the consultant just cite research about how managers present themselves to employees to conclude how employees should present themselves to employers? The argument uses evidence about one group to make a conclusion about another group. That is our flaw right there. Let's move to the answer choices.
Correct Answer Choice (A) is exactly what we identified as a flaw. When we map the stimulus onto (A), we get Bases a conclusion about how one group (managers) will respond to self-deprecation on information (the study of 314 managers) about how a different group (the employees) responds to it (self-depreciation). Bingo.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect because the argument's conclusion is not about humor; the conclusion says that employees should not downplay weakness and emphasize strength. If the consultant's conclusion were about how managers should use (any type of) humor in front of their employees, then (B) would look better.
Answer Choice (C) is wrong because the research cited by the consultant says that managers who used self-deprecating humor were in a more positive light than managers who did not use self-deprecating humor. So the proposed problem in (C) is covered by the argument. (C) would look better if the stimulus said, "Managers who used self-deprecating humor were seen positively by employees," instead of comparing the managers who used the humor and those who did not. Even then, we would still run into the mismatch between employees and managers.
Answer Choice (D) is simply not done by the argument. Eliminate it.
Answer Choice (E) is the popular wrong answer, but I think that is primarily out of desperation. It is difficult to map this onto the stimulus. Those who picked (E) likely saw that the manager made a conclusion about the popular career advice (to emphasize strengths and downplay weaknesses). However, the evidence cited by the researcher is not a critique of that career advice. It is simply research.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 119 - Section 2 - Question 12
April 21, 2012Researcher: We studied two groups of subjects over a period of six months. Over this period, one of the groups had a daily routine of afternoon exercise. The other group, the control group, engaged in little or no exercise during the study. It was found that those in the exercise group got 33 percent more deep-sleep at night than did the control group. Exercising in the afternoon tends to raise body temperature slightly until after bedtime, and this extra heat induces deeper sleep.
Summary
Over six months, two groups were studied. One group exercised in the afternoon every day. The other group had little or no exercise. The people in the group that exercised were found to have 33 percent more deep-sleep compared to the group that had little or no exercise. Researchers hypothesize this is because afternoon exercise raises the body temperature slightly until after bedtime, which induces deeper sleep.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Other activities that raise a person’s body temperature slightly before bedtime may cause that person to have increased levels of deep-sleep.
A
Regular afternoon exercise is one of the things required for adequate deep-sleep.
This answer is unsupported. Saying that regular afternoon exercise is “required” for adequate deep-sleep is too strong. We only know from the stimulus that afternoon exercise can increase deep-sleep.
B
Exercise in the morning is almost as likely to have as many beneficial effects on sleep as is exercise in the afternoon.
This answer is unsupported. The Researcher’s study is limited to exercise performed in the afternoon. We don’t know from these results what effects morning exercise could cause, if any.
C
The best way to get increased deep-sleep is to induce a slight increase in body temperature just before bedtime.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether a slight increase in a person’s body temperature is the “best way” to get increased deep-sleep. There could exist many other methods for this same effect.
D
No one in the control group experienced a rise in body temperature just before bedtime.
This answer is unsupported. It could be true that one or two people in the control group experienced a rise in body temperature, but that doesn’t change the 33 percent increase in deep sleep for the group that exercised.
E
Raising body temperature slightly by taking a warm bath just before bedtime will likely result in increased deep-sleep.
This answer is strongly supported. The Researcher hypothesizes that the rise in body temperature is the cause of increased deep-sleep for the people in the study. Exercise is one method for achieving this effect, but there are likely to be others.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 119 - Section 2 - Question 13
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 119 - Section 2 - Question 14
April 21, 2012
A
presumes, without providing justification, that authority opinion is often incorrect
B
attacks Bacon’s uncritical reliance on authority opinion
C
uses Bacon’s remarks to his students as evidence of his opinions
D
ignores the fact that thirteenth-century science may not hold up well today
E
criticizes Bacon’s character in order to question his scientific findings
The question stem reads: The reasoning in the argument is flawed because of the argument… This is a Weaken question.
The author beings with context, saying that Roger Bacon is a 13-century scientist who is said to have made important optics discoveries. They also claim he preached both hands-on experimentation and not uncritically relying on the opinion of authority to his students. However, the author notes that Bacon would appeal to authority when it was expedient (beneficial) for Bacon's argumentation. So Mr. Bacon was a bit of a hypocrite. The author concludes that Bacon's scientific work must be disregarded because of his hypocritical behavior.
Immediately this jumps out as an ad hominem attack, using someone's character instead of their position. In this case, the author claims we should disregard Bacon's work. Why? Because, on the authors' account, Bacon had some unsavory personality traits. When we attack opponents' arguments or work, our argument needs to be directed at that argument or work. In this case, the author has only provided reasons to think Bacon is a hypocrite and no evidence to discredit the validity of Bacon's discoveries. If this were a sufficient assumption question, we would need a premise like Hypocritie -> disregard work on optics, to bridge the gap between Bacon's personality and his work.
Answer Choice (A) is wrong because the author does not presume the authority's opinion is incorrect. If we turn to the stimulus, the author has nothing to say about whether authority opinion is correct or incorrect.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect because the author does not actually attack the fact that Bacon relied on authority opinion. The author attacks Bacon for saying one thing and doing another. The author might think that relying on authority opinion is an acceptable practice while still taking issue with Bacon's hypocrisy.
Answer Choice (C) is incorrect because the author does not use bacon remarks to his students to make an inference of Bacon's opinions. He uses Bacon's comments to infer that he is a hypocrite.
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect because the argument is based on Bacon's character - not on whether or not thirteenth-century science holds up well today. Additionally, (D) would not be a problem for the argument as it lends some (minor) credence to the conclusion that Bacon's work should be disregarded.
Correct Answer Choice (E) is our prephase. The author criticizes Bacon's character (the hypocrisy) in order to question his scientific findings (his work on optics).