Sections 4

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 35 - Section 4 - Question 18

July 15, 2015

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 18

July 15, 2015

Philosopher: Scientists talk about the pursuit of truth, but, like most people, they are self-interested. Accordingly, the professional activities of most scientists are directed toward personal career enhancement, and only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth. Hence, the activities of the scientific community are largely directed toward enhancing the status of that community as a whole, and only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth.

Summarize Argument

The philosopher concludes that the scientific community’s activities are mainly about enhancing the community’s status, and only incidentally about pursuing truth. She supports this by saying that scientists are self-interested and most scientists’ professional activities are mainly about enhancing their personal careers, and only incidentally about pursuing truth.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is a cookie-cutter “part to whole” flaw, where the author takes a characteristic of one part or parts of a group and assumes it to be true of the group as a whole.

The philosopher takes a premise about most scientists— that they’re motivated by career-enhancement rather than truth— and uses it to draw a conclusion about the scientific community as a whole— that it too is motivated by status-enhancement rather than truth.

A

improperly infers that each and every scientist has a certain characteristic from the premise that most scientists have that characteristic

The philosopher does draw an improper inference from the premise that most scientists have a certain characteristic. But that inference is about the scientific community as a whole, not about “each and every scientist.”

B

improperly draws an inference about the scientific community as a whole from a premise about individual scientists

The philosopher improperly infers that the scientific community as a whole is motivated by status-enhancement rather than truth from a premise stating that most individual scientists are motivated by these things.

C

presumes, without giving justification, that the aim of personal career enhancement never advances the pursuit of truth

The author never assumes this. In fact, she allows for the possibility that the aim of career enhancement can advance the pursuit of truth by saying that scientific activities are directed “only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth.” She just claims that truth isn’t the goal.

D

illicitly takes advantage of an ambiguity in the meaning of “self-interested”

The author simply doesn’t make this mistake because she uses the term “self-interested” clearly in her premise about most scientists.

E

improperly draws an inference about a cause from premises about its effects

The philosopher doesn’t use causal reasoning in her argument; she never argues that one thing causes another. So (E) can’t describe her flaw.

37 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 35 - Section 4 - Question 17

July 15, 2015

64 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 17

July 15, 2015

Politician: All nations that place a high tax on income produce thereby a negative incentive for technological innovation, and all nations in which technological innovation is hampered inevitably fall behind in the international arms race. Those nations that, through historical accident or the foolishness of their political leadership, wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position are destined to lose their voice in world affairs. So if a nation wants to maintain its value system and way of life, it must not allow its highest tax bracket to exceed 30 percent of income.

Summarize Argument

The politician concludes that nations should tax income only at rates lower than 30 percent in order to maintain their value system and way of life. For support, he cites a general rule: a high income tax produces a negative incentive for innovation, which causes a country to fall behind in the arms race. This causes those nations to lose international power, a circumstance threatening their values and way of life.

Notable Assumptions

The politician makes many assumptions. He assumes an income tax bracket exceeding 30 percent is high enough to produce a negative incentive for innovation, that such an incentive always hampers innovation, that falling behind in the arms race means suffering a “strategically disadvantageous position,” and that a nation that loses power internationally is at risk of compromising its way of life and values.

A

The top level of taxation must reach 45 percent before taxation begins to deter inventors and industrialists from introducing new technologies and industries.

This disputes the assumption that any income tax bracket exceeding 30 percent is high enough to create a negative incentive for technological innovation.

B

Making a great deal of money is an insignificant factor in driving technological innovation.

This calls into question the general rule, critical to the politician’s argument, that a high income tax produces a negative incentive for innovation.

C

Falling behind in the international arms race does not necessarily lead to a strategically less advantageous position.

This refutes the assumption that nations who lag in the arms race must be strategically disadvantaged, and thus breaks a link in the politician’s chain of reasoning.

D

Those nations that lose influence in the world community do not necessarily suffer from a threat to their value system or way of life.

This disputes the assumption that nations that lose international power risk compromising their values or way of life, breaking a link in the politician’s chain of reasoning.

E

Allowing one’s country to lose its technological edge, especially as concerns weaponry, would be foolish rather than merely a historical accident.

This is consistent with the politician’s statements because he says that falling behind in the arms race will cause a country to lose its international power, even if it’s due to foolishness.

64 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 35 - Section 4 - Question 15

July 15, 2015

2 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 15

July 15, 2015

Geneticist: Ethicists have fears, many of them reasonable, about the prospect of cloning human beings, that is, producing exact genetic duplicates. But the horror-movie image of a wealthy person creating an army of exact duplicates is completely unrealistic. Clones must be raised and educated, a long-term process that could never produce adults identical to the original in terms of outlook, personality, or goals. More realistic is the possibility that wealthy individuals might use clones as living “organ banks.”

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The geneticist concludes that the “horror-movie image” of human cloning producing an army of duplicates for wealthy people is an unrealistic fear. To support this, she says that the long-term process of raising and educating clones would mean that adults produced by cloning would not have identical goals, outlook, or personality, so an “army of exact duplicates” could not be produced. Then, the geneticist raises another, more realistic, outcome: using clones as living “organ banks.”

Identify Argument Part

The claim in the question stem gives a reason that the fear of cloning producing an army of duplicates is an unrealistic fear.

A

It is a reason for dismissing the various fears raised by ethicists regarding the cloning of human beings.

The claim in the question stem is targeted specifically toward the fear of using cloning to create an army of duplicates, not the “various fears” of ethicists. Further, the argument does not dismiss “various fears,” just one specific fear.

B

It is evidence that genetic clones will never be produced successfully.

The argument does not claim that genetic duplicates will never be produced successfully; it just says that an army of exact duplicates is an unrealistic fear due to differences in outlook, personality, or goals.

C

It illustrates the claim that only wealthy people would be able to have genetic duplicates made of themselves.

The argument does not claim that only wealthy people would have this ability; rather, the argument just raises the possibility that wealthy people would do so.

D

It is evidence for the claim that wealthy people might use genetic duplicates of themselves as sources of compatible organs for transplantation.

The claim in the question stem is used to reject one possible fear, not as evidence to support another potential risk of human cloning.

E

It is a reason for discounting one possible fear concerning the cloning of human beings.

The claim in the question stem is a premise that supports the conclusion, which is that one possible fear of human cloning is unrealistic. The referenced text gives a reason to discount one possible fear, so this is the correct answer.

31 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 35 - Section 4 - Question 11

July 15, 2015

2 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 35 - Section 4 - Question 13

July 15, 2015

42 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 11

July 15, 2015

97 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 13

July 15, 2015

Mayor: The law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing against red lights serves no useful purpose. After all, in order to serve a useful purpose, a law must deter the kind of behavior it prohibits. But pedestrians who invariably violate this law are clearly not dissuaded by it; and those who comply with the law do not need it, since they would never cross against red lights even if there were no law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing against red lights.

Summarize Argument

The mayor concludes that the law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing against red lights is useless. He supports this with three premises:

(1) To be useful, a law must prevent the behavior that it bans.

(2) Pedestrians who always break this law are not dissuaded by it.

(3) Pedestrians who always follow the law don’t need it, because they wouldn’t cross on red even without the law.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “false dichotomy,” where the author falsely divides the world into two binary halves. In this case, the mayor divides the world into pedestrians who always break this law and pedestrians who never break it. He doesn’t consider that there might be other people who only sometimes break this law; how might the law affect them?

A

takes for granted that most automobile drivers will obey the law that prohibits them from driving through red lights

The mayor only addresses pedestrians and the law that prohibits them from crossing against red lights. Whether drivers obey the law that prohibits them from driving through red lights is irrelevant.

B

uses the word “law” in one sense in the premises and in another sense in the conclusion

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “equivocation.” The mayor doesn’t make this mistake because he uses the word “law” consistently throughout his argument.

C

ignores the possibility that a law might not serve a useful purpose even if it does deter the kind of behavior it prohibits

This may be true, but it isn’t a flaw in the mayor’s argument. He just claims that a law is only useful if it does deter the kind of behavior it prohibits.

D

fails to consider whether the law ever dissuades people who sometimes but not always cross against red lights

The mayor falsely divides the world into people who always cross against red lights and people who never cross against red lights. He doesn’t consider people who sometimes cross against red lights or how the law might affect them.

E

provides no evidence that crossing against red lights is more dangerous than crossing on green lights

It’s true that the major never provides evidence about the danger of crossing on red or green lights, but this isn’t a flaw because his argument is only about crossing against red lights. So (E) is irrelevant.

42 comments