Sections 3

LSAT February 1997 - Section 3 - Question 04

January 30, 2024

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

1 comment

LSAT February 1997 - Section 3 - Question 02

January 30, 2024

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this

LSAT February 1997 - Section 3 - Question 13

January 30, 2024

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

14 comments

LSAT C - Section 3 - Question 26

January 30, 2024

Comment on this

LSAT 108 - Section 3 - Question 26

January 30, 2024

Anthropologist: After mapping the complete dominance hierarchy for a troupe of vervet monkeys by examining their pairwise interaction, we successfully predicted more complex forms of their group behavior by assuming that each monkey had knowledge of the complete hierarchy. Since our prediction was so accurate, it follows that the assumption we used to reach it was in fact true.Primatologist: Although I agree that your assumption helped you make those predictions, your conclusion does not follow. You might as well argue that since we can predict the output of some bank cash machines by assuming that these machines actually want to satisfy the customers’ requests, these cash machines must really have desires.

Speaker 1 Summary

The anthropologist claims that an assumption about vervet monkeys’ knowledge of the hierarchy within their troupe has been proven true. How so? Because this assumption led to accurate predictions of the monkeys’ group behavior.

Speaker 2 Summary

The primatologist believes that the anthropologist’s predictions do not provide sufficient support to conclude that the anthropologist’s assumption is true. This is supported by an example: assuming that an ATM wants to help customers can lead to accurate predictions of the ATM’s outputs, but that doesn’t mean the ATM actually has desires.

Objective

We need to find a point of disagreement. The key disagreement is about whether the anthropologist’s predictions are sufficient support for the conclusion that the assumption about monkey knowledge is true.

A

whether the anthropologist successfully predicted the behavior of individual monkeys by use of the map of the troupe’s dominance hierarchy

The speakers agree about this point. The anthropologist claims that these successful predictions happened, and the primatologist accepts that the anthropologist was able to predict the monkeys’ behaviour.

B

whether the output of a bank cash machine can be accurately predicted on the basis of knowledge of the requests made to it by customers

The primatologist believes that such a prediction is possible. The anthropologist, on the other hand, never says anything about cash machines. There’s certainly no indication that the anthropologist disagrees with the primatologist on this point.

C

whether vervet monkeys can have knowledge of the complete hierarchy of dominance relations that exists within their own troupe

The anthropologist believes that vervet monkeys can have this knowledge. In fact, it’s a necessary assumption for the conclusion drawn. The primatologist offers no opinion; the disagreement is about having grounds to believe a claim, not whether the claim is actually true.

D

whether the fact that the anthropologist’s assumption led to such successful predictions provides sufficient grounds for the claim that the vervet monkeys had knowledge of their dominance hierarchy

The anthropologist thinks that the predictions are sufficient grounds—that’s the anthropologist’s entire argument. The primatologist thinks that the predictions are insufficient and that the anthropologist’s conclusion “does not follow.” This is the point of disagreement.

E

whether the behavior exhibited by vervet monkeys in experimental situations can be used as the basis for a generalization concerning all vervet monkeys

Neither speaker says anything about generalizing vervet monkeys’ behaviour in experimental situations to apply to all vervet monkeys. This simply isn’t discussed.

</section

Comment on this

LSAT C - Section 3 - Question 20

January 30, 2024

4 comments

LSAT 108 - Section 3 - Question 20

January 30, 2024

Sarah: Reporters, by allotting time to some events rather than others, are exercising their judgment as to what is newsworthy and what is not. In other words, they always interpret the news.

Ramon: Reporters should never interpret the news. Once they deem a story to be newsworthy, they are obliged to relay the facts to me untainted.

Speaker 1 Summary

Sarah argues that reporters “always interpret the news.” How so? When reporters decide what is and isn’t newsworthy, they’re using their judgment. This, Sarah implies, is an act of interpretation.

Speaker 2 Summary

Ramon argues that “reporters should never interpret the news.” As support, he says that reporters have an obligation to objectively communicate the facts of anything they deem newsworthy. This indicates that Ramon doesn’t think that determining newsworthiness counts as interpretation as long as the facts are “untainted.”

Objective

We need to find an idea that the speakers disagree on. One such idea is whether determining the newsworthiness of an event counts as interpretation. Sarah thinks it does, but Ramon thinks it doesn’t.

A

Reporters actually do interpret the news every time they report it.

Sarah agrees with this, but Ramon doesn’t express an opinion. Ramon’s argument is all about what reporters “should” do, and never goes into what they actually do or don’t do.

B

Reporters should exercise their own judgment as to which events are newsworthy.

Like (D), neither speaker offers an opinion on this. Sarah never says anything about what reporters should or shouldn’t do. Ramon never discusses the standard by which reporters should deem events newsworthy, so it could be by their judgment or some other standard.

C

Reporters’ primary responsibility is to see that people are kept informed of the facts.

Neither speaker discusses the ranking of reporters’ responsibilities. Sarah doesn’t mention any kind of responsibility at all, while Ramon talks about an obligation not to taint the facts, but doesn’t say what reporters’ primary responsibility might be.

D

Reporters should not allot time to reporting some events rather than others.

Like (B), neither speaker discusses this. Lucy only talks about what does happen, not what should happen. Ramon does talk about what should happen, but only in the context of leaving facts “untainted” rather than how reporters should allot their time.

E

Reporting on certain events rather than others qualifies as interpreting the news.

Lucy agrees with this, but Ramon disagrees, so this is the point of disagreement. This is the conclusion of Lucy’s argument. On the other hand, Ramon thinks that deciding what’s newsworthy doesn’t count as interpreting as long as the facts are left “untainted”.

</section

12 comments

LSAT February 1997 - Section 3 - Question 05

January 30, 2024

Comment on this

LSAT C - Section 3 - Question 08

January 30, 2024

Comment on this

LSAT 108 - Section 3 - Question 08

January 30, 2024

A metaphor is the application of a word or phrase to something to which it does not literally apply in order to emphasize or indicate a similarity between that to which it would ordinarily apply and that to which it is—nonliterally—being applied. Some extremists claim that all uses of language are metaphorical. But this cannot be so, for unless some uses of words are literal, there can be no nonliteral uses of any words.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The author claims it is impossible for all uses of language to be metaphorical, contrary to what “some extremists” believe. This is demonstrated logically: the author tells us that unless some uses of language are literal, no uses of language can be nonliteral. By the definition given, metaphor is a nonliteral use of language. Therefore, there must be literal uses of language.
P1. Any nonliteral uses → some literal uses;
P2. Metaphor is a nonliteral use;
Therefore, there must be some literal uses.

Identify Conclusion

The author’s conclusion is that it “cannot be so” that all uses of language are metaphorical.

A

It is not the case that all uses of language are metaphorical.

This is a good statement of the author’s conclusion. The argument is designed to prove that there must be some literal uses of language, and since metaphor is nonliteral, that means it’s impossible for all language use to be metaphorical.

B

Either all uses of words are literal or all uses of words are metaphorical.

This is not a claim the author makes. The argument takes for granted the existence of some nonliteral uses (metaphor) and attempts to prove that there must also be literal uses. It’s not all-or-nothing.

C

Nonliteral meaning is possible only if some uses of words employ their literal meanings.

This claim is not supported by anything else in the argument. It is used by the author in combination with affirming the sufficient condition (nonliteral use being possible) to conclude that literal uses must exist. This is a premise, not a conclusion.

D

Metaphors are nonliteral uses of language that can be used to suggest similarities between objects.

This claim is not supported by anything else in the argument. It affirms the sufficient condition of the conditional claim made by the author to bring us to the conclusion that literal uses of language must exist. In other words, this is a premise.

E

The ordinary meanings of words must be fixed by convention if the similarities between objects are to be representable by language.

The author never says this. The ordinary meanings of words play no part in this argument, which just focuses on the theoretical debate of whether language is 100% metaphor or not.

</section

Comment on this