Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 18 - Section 4 - Question 03
August 7, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 18 - Section 4 - Question 01
August 7, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 35 - Section 4 - Question 25
July 15, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 25
July 15, 2015Stephen: But it was extremely common for painters of Michelangelo’s era to add painted details to their own fresco work after the frescos had dried.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to Zachary’s claim that everything except the original fresco work must be stripped away in order to restore the Sistine Chapel to the appearance Michelangelo intended, Stephen points out that it is common for painters of that era to add painted details to their own fresco work after the frescos dried.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Stephen counters the position held by Zachary. He does this by pointing out an assumption that underlies Zachary’s argument. If it was common for painters of Michelangelo’s era to add details to fresco works after they have dried, then it may be that Michelangelo himself made the additions to the fresco work in the Sistine Chapel. If this is true, then it may not be necessary to strip away everything but the original fresco work as Zachary claims.
A
calling into question an assumption on which Zachary’s conclusion depends
The assumption Zachary’s conclusion depends on is the assumption that the additions made to the fresco work were not done by Michelangelo himself.
B
challenging the definition of a key term in Zachary’s argument
Stephen does not challenge the definition of any key terms. He does not dispute what counts as fresco work, etc.
C
drawing a conclusion other than the one that Zachary reaches
Stephen does not draw any conclusion. He provides additional information meant to counter an assumption that Zachary’s argument relies on.
D
denying the truth of one of the stated premises of Zachary’s argument
Stephen does not deny whether any later painters may have obscured Michelangelo’s original fresco work. Instead, he suggests that it is possible some of this later work was done by Michelangelo himself.
E
demonstrating that Zachary’s conclusion is not consistent with the premises he uses to support it
Zachary’s argument is not self-contradictory. We cannot say that an argument is self-contradictory because the argument relies on an assumption.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 35 - Section 4 - Question 23
July 15, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 35 - Section 4 - Question 24
July 15, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 23
July 15, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 24
July 15, 2015
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that lowering cholesterol reduces heart disease risk. She supports this with a study showing that people treated with pravastatin, which lowers cholesterol, had fewer heart attacks and heart disease deaths than people not taking the drug. She also notes that people with heart disease often have higher cholesterol levels.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking correlation for causation. The author shows that high cholesterol and heart disease are correlated and assumes that high cholesterol causes heart disease risk.
Also, she thinks that pravastatin further proves this causation, assuming that it reduces the risk of heart disease by lowering cholesterol. But the drug could reduce heart disease risk in another way, and simply lower cholesterol as a side effect.
A
neglects the possibility that pravastatin may have severe side effects
Pravastatin may have severe side effects, but this wouldn’t affect whether it reduces the risk of heart disease by lowering cholesterol.
B
fails to consider that pravastatin may reduce the risk of heart disease but not as a consequence of its lowering cholesterol levels
The author assumes that pravastatin reduces the risk of heart disease by lowering cholesterol. She uses this as evidence that lowering cholesterol reduces heart disease risk. But the drug could reduce the risk in another way, with cholesterol reduction just being a side effect.
C
relies on past findings, rather than drawing its principal conclusion from the data found in the specific study cited
The author does use past findings about the link between high cholesterol and heart disease. But she also uses the data found in the specific study on pravastatin.
D
draws a conclusion regarding the effects of lowering cholesterol levels on heart disease, when in fact the conclusion should focus on the relation between pravastatin and cholesterol levels
The author does draw a conclusion regarding the effects of lowering cholesterol on heart disease, but this isn’t a flaw in her argument. Just because the study on pravastatin was used as evidence doesn’t mean that her conclusion has to be about pravastatin.
E
fails to consider what percentage of the general population might be taking pravastatin
It doesn’t matter what percentage of the general population take pravastatin. We know that enough people take it to make up a sizable study on its effects, which is all that matters here.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 35 - Section 4 - Question 20
July 15, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 20
July 15, 2015
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The archaeologist concludes the first Eurasian settlers in North America were not the closest. Why? Because a projectile found in a mastodon is dissimilar from any in the closest part of Eurasia, and the first Eurasians in North America settled shortly before the North American mastodon went extinct.
Notable Assumptions
The archaeologist assumes the projectile could not have been made by people from the closest part of Eurasia, either because it resembles a projectile from elsewhere in Eurasia or because people from the closest part of Eurasia were less likely to develop a new projectile for some other reason. She also assumes that only the first settlers to North America from Eurasia could have made the projectile, and that it penetrated the mastodon while it was alive.
A
The projectile found in the mastodon does not resemble any that were used in Eurasia before or during the Ice Age.
This eliminates the distinction between the closest part of Eurasia and the rest of Eurasia. If the projectile doesn’t resemble any from Eurasia, there’s no reason to assume its makers came from farther in Eurasia.
B
The people who occupied the Eurasian area closest to North America remained nomadic throughout the Ice Age.
This doesn’t mean those people left the area closest to North America. It’s possible people in Eurasia maintained well-defined geographic boundaries despite living nomadic lifestyles.
C
The skeleton of a bear from the same place and time as the mastodon skeleton contains a similar projectile.
The species of prey is not relevant to the argument. The subsequent extinction of the mastodon implies the settlers who killed it were some of the early settlers, and the existence of a bear with the same projectile doesn’t change that fact.
D
Other North American artifacts from the peak of the Ice Age are similar to ones from the same time found in more distant parts of Eurasia.
This provides another reason to believe the archaeologist’s conclusion, but does not address her argument. The presence of these other artifacts does not challenge any assumption made by the archaeologist to draw her conclusion.
E
Climatic conditions in North America just before the Ice Age were more conducive to human habitation than were those in the part of Eurasia closest to North America at that time.
This draws no distinction between the parts of Eurasia closer to and farther from North America that calls into question the archaeologist’s conclusion. It’s possible the parts of Eurasia farther from North America were equally inhospitable.