Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 25 - Section 4 - Question 09
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 09
October 24, 2015
Summary
The argument concludes that the Federici Art Museum’s board will not harm the quality of the museum’s collection by selling some artworks to raise funds. Why not? Because, according to the museum’s curator, the collection includes several inferior works that don’t contribute to the collection’s overall quality.
Notable Assumptions
The argument relies on the assumption that the curator is correct that some works in the museum’s collection don’t contribute to the collection’s quality. Otherwise, the curator’s opinion wouldn’t support the conclusion.
It also relies on the assumption that the board will only sell artworks that the curator has identified as inferior—in other words, that the board won’t sell high-quality artworks that are important to the collection.
It also relies on the assumption that the board will only sell artworks that the curator has identified as inferior—in other words, that the board won’t sell high-quality artworks that are important to the collection.
A
Art speculators are unable to distinguish an inferior painting by Renoir from a masterpiece by him.
We have no idea if the opinions of art speculators reflect the true quality of an artwork, so this is irrelevant to the actual impact of the board’s decision on the quality of the collection.
B
All of the paintings that the board of trustees sells will be among those that the curator recommends selling.
This is necessary because the curator’s opinion that some works are inferior only supports the conclusion if the board plans to sell the inferior works. If the board were planning to sell other works, the conclusion would be unsupported.
C
All of the paintings by Renoir and Cézanne that are owned by the Federici Art Museum were purchased by Ms. Federici herself.
Whether or not the collection includes some works by Renoir and Cézanne that were purchased by other individuals has no impact on the argument.
D
Only an avid collector of paintings by Cézanne would be willing to pay a high price for early works by this artist.
Who would pay what prices for which artworks is irrelevant. The argument is focused on the impact to the collection’s quality, not the strategic points of fundraising.
E
A great work of art can be truly appreciated only if it is displayed in a carefully designed and well-maintained gallery.
It’s irrelevant whether or not any artwork will be appreciated. The argument is just concerned with the quality of the collection, not how people interact with it.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 25 - Section 4 - Question 08
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 08
October 24, 2015
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that aspiring ancient-history scholars no longer need to learn ancient languages, even though ancient languages are necessary to read original ancient documents. This is because most ancient documents have been translated into modern languages, making them readable even by people who don’t know an ancient language.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author draws a general conclusion based only on what is most usually the case. The conclusion that ancient-history scholars don’t need to learn ancient languages is broad and absolute. However, even though “most” ancient documents have been translated, some may still require an ancient language. It’s also possible that reading a document in its original language could be valuable even if a translation is available.
A
It concludes that something is never necessary on the grounds that it is not always necessary.
The author concludes that it is never necessary for ancient-history scholars to know ancient languages, on the grounds that “most” ancient documents have been translated. However, it’s still possible that ancient languages are necessary to read some untranslated documents.
B
A statement of fact is treated as if it were merely a statement of opinion.
The author doesn’t treat any factual statements as though they are just opinions.
C
The conclusion is no more than a restatement of the evidence provided as support of that conclusion.
The author’s conclusion (that ancient-history scholars don’t need to know ancient languages) is different from the supporting evidence (that most ancient documents have been translated).
D
The judgment of experts is applied to a matter in which their expertise is irrelevant.
The author doesn’t bring up the judgment of experts.
E
Some of the evidence presented in support of the conclusion is inconsistent with other evidence provided.
The author doesn’t use inconsistent supporting evidence. The only point of support is that most ancient documents have been translated, which isn’t inconsistent with anything else stated.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 25 - Section 4 - Question 05
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 05
October 24, 2015
Summarize Argument
Zimbabwe objects to a total ban on the ivory trade. Zimbabwe insists that poaching isn’t caused by the ivory trade, which Zimbabwe participates in, but rather by conservation policies other countries employ.
Notable Assumptions
Zimbabwe assumes that though the ban would remedy the poaching problem, it shouldn’t be enacted since Zimbabwe has solved the poaching problem without such a ban. Zimbabwe therefore believes that bans shouldn’t be enacted in situations where they would provide no benefit, or worse yet damage local economies.
A
International measures to correct a problem should not adversely affect countries that are not responsible for the problem.
Since Zimbabwe has eliminated poaching, it shouldn’t be negatively affected by a ban against poaching. This is precisely what Zimbabwe argues.
B
Freedom of trade is not a right but a consequence of agreements among nations.
We don’t care about freedom of trade. We’re interested in why the ban shouldn’t be enacted.
C
Respecting a country’s sovereignty is more important than preventing the extinction of a species.
Zimbabwe isn’t arguing that it should be able to determine its own laws. It’s saying that it shouldn’t be subject to a ban that will harm its economy while creating no difference in the poaching situation.
D
Prohibitions affecting several countries should be enforced by a supranational agency.
We have no idea who should enforce this ban. Zimbabwe thinks no one should.
E
Effective conservation cannot be achieved without eliminating poaching.
Zimbabwe is arguing about how the ban shouldn’t be enacted. We have no idea if Zimbabwe agrees with this.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 25 - Section 4 - Question 04
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 04
October 24, 2015
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The columnist concludes that we must defeat a piece of legislation that would improve workers’ rights. Why? Because some supporters of the legislation belong to unsavory groups, or are facing tax-eviction charges.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the argument attacks the source of a position rather than the position itself. In this case, the columnist is casting doubt on the character of the legislation’s supporters, instead of addressing the merits of the legislation.
A
attacks legislation by calling into question the integrity of the originators of the legislation
The columnist isn’t calling into question the character of the “originators” who introduced this legislation, but rather that of its supporters.
B
assails legislation on the basis of the questionable character of supporters of the legislation
The columnist concludes that we should reject legislation just because some of its supporters belong to violent groups or may have evaded taxes—in other words, because of the supporters’ questionable character.
C
attempts to discredit legislation by appealing to public sentiment for those who would be adversely affected
The columnist doesn’t bring up the possibility that anyone would be adversely affected by the legislation.
D
presupposes that legislation is bad legislation whenever it has only a small number of supporters outside the country’s national legislative body
The columnist never proposes a rule of when legislation is bad legislation. The argument also doesn’t ever mention how many or how few supporters the legislation has, whether inside or outside the legislative body.
E
rejects legislation on the grounds that its supporters act inconsistently in seeking to place burdens on manufacturers upon whose business success the supporters depend
The columnist doesn’t accuse the legislation’s supporters of acting inconsistently. The argument also never mentions the issue of burdening manufacturers, or whether the manufacturers’ success is important to anyone.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 25 - Section 4 - Question 02
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 02
October 24, 2015
Summary
20 pro income-tax advisors were given identical records to prepare an income-tax return. None of the completed tax returns were the exact same as each other. Only 1 out of the 20 returns was correct.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
Not every pro income-tax advisor will produce the same tax return from the same records.
Being a pro income-tax advisor does not guarantee that one will always produce a correct tax return.
Being a pro income-tax advisor does not guarantee that one will always produce a correct tax return.
A
Only one out of every twenty income-tax returns prepared by any given professional income-tax advisor will be correct.
We only know about one tax return prepared by each of the 20 advisors. We don’t have any information about how advisors would perform across multiple different tax returns.
B
The fact that a tax return has been prepared by a professional income-tax advisor provides no guarantee that the tax return has been correctly prepared.
This is supported by the fact that only 1 out of the 20 returns was correct. So the other 19 returns, even though they were prepared by a pro income-tax advisor, were wrong. This shows being prepared by a pro advisor does not guarantee a return will be correct.
C
In order to ensure that tax returns are correct, it is necessary to hire professional income-tax advisors to prepare them.
The stimulus doesn’t give us any evidence about what’s required for being correct.
D
All professional income-tax advisors make mistakes on at least some of the tax returns they prepare.
We don’t have evidence that every pro advisor makes mistakes. All we know is that 19 out of the 20 made a mistake on one tax return. But the one advisor who got the return correct might never make mistakes.
E
People are more likely to have an incorrectly prepared tax return if they prepare their own tax returns than if they hire a professional income-tax advisor.
The stimulus doesn’t present evidence concerning a comparison between self-prepared returns and pro-prepared returns.