Sections 3

LSAT 133 - Section 3 - Question 02

May 13, 2012

LSAT 133 - Section 3 - Question 03

May 13, 2012

The qwerty keyboard became the standard keyboard with the invention of the typewriter and remains the standard for typing devices today. If an alternative known as the Dvorak keyboard were today’s standard, typists would type significantly faster. Nevertheless, it is not practical to switch to the Dvorak keyboard because the cost to society of switching, in terms of time, money, and frustration, would be greater than the benefits that would be ultimately gained from faster typing.

Summary

The qwerty keyboard is the standard for typing devices today. Another keyboard, the Dvorak, would allow people to type faster. But it’s not practical to switch to the Dvorak because the societal costs of switching (time, money, having to learn how to type on a new keyboard) outweigh the benefits gained from faster typing.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

People aren’t typing as fast they could be typing.
Sometimes it’s more practical to keep something that’s the societal standard even if a change could have some benefits.

A

Often it is not worthwhile to move to a process that improves speed if it comes at the expense of accuracy.

Unsupported. There’s no suggestion that the Dvorak keyboard is less accurate. Although there are cost associated with frustration of switching to the Dvorak, that doesn’t imply that anyone would be less accurate.

B

People usually settle on a standard because that standard is more efficient than any alternatives.

Unsupported. We don’t know why qwerty became the standard. There’s no suggestion it was the most efficient at the time it was adopted.

C

People often remain with an entrenched standard rather than move to a more efficient alternative simply because they dislike change.

Unsupported. That doesn’t imply people don’t want to switch from qwerty merely because they don’t like change. They might like change, but weigh the costs and benefits of a particular change.

D

The emotional cost associated with change is a factor that sometimes outweighs financial considerations.

Unsupported. The stimulus cites to frustration as one of the costs of switching to Dvorak. That doesn’t imply that the emotional cost of switching by itself outweighs the benefits of faster typing. It’s also not clear that faster typing is a financial consideration.

E

The fact that a standard is already in wide use can be a crucial factor in making it a more practical choice than an alternative.

Strongly supported. Qwerty is the standard. The fact it’s standard increases the costs of switching, because it takes more time and money to switch every keyboard, and people need to learn Dvorak. These costs are an important reason keeping qwerty is more practical.

1 comment

LSAT 133 - Section 3 - Question 04

May 13, 2012

Sam: Mountain lions, a protected species, are preying on bighorn sheep, another protected species. We must let nature take its course and hope the bighorns survive.

Meli: Nonsense. We must do what we can to ensure the survival of the bighorn, even if that means limiting the mountain lion population.

Speaker 1 Summary

Sam doesn’t make an argument, instead just claiming without support that humans should not intervene when one protected species (mountain lions) is preying on another protected species (bighorn sheep).

Speaker 2 Summary

Meli states the opinion that humans should ensure bighorn sheep survive, even if that requires taking action against mountain lions. This also isn’t an argument, because Meli doesn’t offer any support.

Objective

We need to find a point of disagreement between Sam and Meli. The two disagree about whether or not humans should intervene to protect bighorn sheep from mountain lions.

A

Humans should not intervene to protect bighorn sheep from mountain lions.

Sam agrees with this, but Meli disagrees, meaning that this is the point of disagreement. Sam states that humans should “let nature take its course,” meaning not intervene, while Meli says that humans should take action to protect the sheep.

B

The preservation of a species as a whole is more important than the loss of a few individuals.

Neither speaker offers an opinion. Sam and Meli’s discussion is about what role people should take in a specific predator-prey dynamic, not about overall principles of species preservation.

C

The preservation of a predatory species is easier to ensure than the preservation of the species preyed upon.

Neither speaker talks about this. Firstly, neither Sam nor Meli discusses which species is easier to preserve between mountain lions and bighorn sheep. Second, they also never discuss general principles applicable to all species.

D

Any measures to limit the mountain lion population would likely push the species to extinction.

Neither speaker makes this claim. Only Meli talks about potentially taking measures to limit the mountain lion population, but never mentions a risk or likelihood of extinction.

E

If the population of mountain lions is not limited, the bighorn sheep species will not survive.

Neither speaker claims this. Meli is the only speaker who mentions limiting the mountain lion population, but even that is only meant as a potential measure that could be taken, not as a necessary step to saving bighorn sheep.

4 comments

LSAT 133 - Section 3 - Question 05

May 13, 2012

4 comments

LSAT 133 - Section 3 - Question 06

May 13, 2012

8 comments

LSAT 133 - Section 3 - Question 07

May 13, 2012

Economic growth accelerates business demand for the development of new technologies. Businesses supplying these new technologies are relatively few, while those wishing to buy them are many. Yet an acceleration of technological change can cause suppliers as well as buyers of new technologies to fail.

Summary

Economic growth causes demand for the development of new technology. Businesses that produce new technology are few, while businesses wishing to buy new technology are many. However, an acceleration of changes within technology can cause the producers and buyers of new technology to fail.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Businesses that produce new technology can sometimes fail during periods of economic growth.

A

Businesses supplying new technologies are more likely to prosper in times of accelerated technological change than other businesses.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what “other businesses” are being referred to here in this answer. There could be a type of business that benefits from these economic conditions more so than producers of new technology.

B

Businesses that supply new technologies may not always benefit from economic growth.

This answer is strongly supported. Since we know that economic growth causes increased demand for new technology, and rapidly developing new technology can cause buyers and producers to fail, these businesses may not benefit from economic growth.

C

The development of new technologies may accelerate economic growth in general.

This answer is unsupported. We know from the stimulus that economic growth can cause demand for developing new technologies, but we don’t know if the reverse of this relationship is also true.

D

Businesses that adopt new technologies are most likely to prosper in a period of general economic growth.

This answer is unsupported. Saying that these businesses are “most likely” to proper is too strong. We don’t know which businesses are being compared in this answer.

E

Economic growth increases business failures.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know whether it’s a fact that economic growth will cause businesses to fail. We only know that economic growth can increase the risk of some businesses to fail.

6 comments

LSAT 133 - Section 3 - Question 08

May 13, 2012

33 comments

LSAT 133 - Section 3 - Question 09

May 13, 2012

5 comments

LSAT 133 - Section 3 - Question 10

May 13, 2012

Editorial: Many critics of consumerism insist that advertising persuades people that they need certain consumer goods when they merely desire them. However, this accusation rests on a fuzzy distinction, that between wants and needs. In life, it is often impossible to determine whether something is merely desirable or whether it is essential to one’s happiness.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Critics complain that advertising tricks people into confusing wants with needs, but this complaint relies on making the difficult distinction between wants and needs. In reality, it can be nearly impossible to determine whether something is merely a want or a genuine need.

Identify Conclusion

Critics' complaints about advertising require making a distinction between wants and needs, which is almost impossible.

A

The claim that advertising persuades people that they need things that they merely want rests on a fuzzy distinction.

This is a good summary of the editorial’s argument. The editorial contends that the claim made by critics of consumerism—that advertising tricks people into confusing wants with needs—“rests on a fuzzy distinction” because wants and needs are almost impossible to distinguish.

B

Many critics of consumerism insist that advertising attempts to blur people’s ability to distinguish between wants and needs.

This sentence provides context for the stimulus. It introduces the position that advertising causes confusion between wants and needs, setting the stage for the editorial’s counterargument that distinguishing between wants and needs is not as clear-cut as critics suggest.

C

There is nothing wrong with advertising that tries to persuade people that they need certain consumer goods.

The editorial does not make this argument because the editorial does not judge advertising itself. Instead, the editorial critiques the reasoning of consumerism’s critics, particularly the critics’ assumption that it is possible to distinguish between wants and needs clearly.

D

Many critics of consumerism fail to realize that certain things are essential to human happiness.

This is not a flaw in the critics’ reasoning that the editorial addresses. The editorial challenges the assumption that it is possible to clearly distinguish between wants and needs, not whether critics recognize the existence of needs or things “essential to human happiness.”

E

Critics of consumerism often use fuzzy distinctions to support their claims.

The stimulus only offers one example of critics using fuzzy distinctions, so we cannot conclude that critics “often” do this. Since the stimulus doesn’t fully support this claim, it cannot be the main conclusion.

1 comment

LSAT 133 - Section 3 - Question 11

May 13, 2012

40 comments