Sections 4

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 20

September 10, 2013

This question is very hard. It's hard because the information is presented to you in a mess, kind of like how Logic Games present information to you. I cleaned up the information a bit, starting from the first cause going through to the last effect. The LSAT writers, in their never ending quest to torment, presented the information backwards, of course.

Many scientists believe that air pollution causes global warming.

Many scientists believe that global warming enhanced the strength of the El Niño.

In 1997, an unusually strong El Niño caused widespread drought.

In 1997, widespread drought caused the tropics to be susceptible to fire.

In 1997, unusually large and intense forest fires swept the tropics.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Let's consider each answer choice.

(A) Air pollution was largely responsible for the size and intensity of the forest fires that swept the tropics in 1997. Really? Come on. We don't even know if air pollution was even the slightest bit responsible, not to mention "largely" responsible. The link between air pollution and El Niño owes to what "many scientists believe." Those scientists could just be wrong.

(B) If the El Niño in 1997 had not been unusually strong, few if any large and intense forest fires would have swept the tropics in that year. I will not yell at you as loudly if you chose this answer choice. This one is tempting. We know that the strong El Niño was a causal component that contributed to the usually large and intense forest fires. But, that doesn't mean that if it wasn't present, the fires wouldn't have happened anyway. Who's to say what would have happened if the El Niño wasn't unusually strong? Maybe volcanos would have erupted setting the forests ablaze. Maybe a pyromanic on a scale never before known to the world would have run rampant through the forests of the tropics. Counterfactuals are notoriously speculative. So, MAYBE this will pass as a MSS answer choice, but definitely not an MBT answer choice.

(C) Forest fires in the tropics are generally larger and more intense than usual during a strong El Niño. NOOOOOO! WROOOOONG! One instance in 1997 doesn't prove shit. You know what else happened in 1997? It became really popular for Hanson to make an mmmbop noise with their mouths over and over and over. Imagine if that meant that "song" would be generally popular going forward for all time...

(D) At least some scientists believe that air pollution was responsible for the size and intensity of the forest fires that swept the tropics in 1997. Also very tempting and therefore forgivable if you chose this one. What do we know about what some scientists believe? Only that global warming, caused by air pollution, enhanced the strength of the El Niño. So they do believe that air pollution was responsible for the El Niño. Do they also believe "in 1997, an unusually strong El Niño caused widespread drought"? We don't know. Okay so there's a break in logic. But even if you argument that it's incredibly reasonable to assume that the particular scientist that we're talking about in this answer choice believes that "in 1997, an unusually strong El Niño caused widespread drought", it only gets us to the following: "that scientist believes that air pollution was responsible for the drought." Drought makes the forests susceptible to fire, but that's very different from being responsible for the fire.

(E) If air pollution enhanced the strength of the El Niño in 1997, then it also contributed to the widespread drought in that year. This is just perfect. It takes the statement that some scientists believe and turns it into fact. Then it connects up the causal chain. It's even worded correctly saying "contributed" and not "was the single most important factor".

23 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 21

September 10, 2013

This question is difficult because of the obscuring of the premises and conclusion. Here's the premises and conclusion distilled, utilizing the skills we learned in our grammar lessons.

published --> prof. N promise to urge dean to promote S --> prof. N urge dean to promote S --> S promoted
_____________
import & well written --> S promoted

Reducing it, the argument goes:

published --> S promoted
_____________
import & well written --> S promoted

Formulaically, we want to supply the missing premise: import & well written --> published

But, the LSAC did something new this time. They gave us: import --> published

That actually works!

To see why, let's think about an analogous argument.

If you buy milk, then you will use cash. Therefore, if you go to store & gas station, you will use cash.

Formulaically, we want to supply the missing premise: if you go to store & gas station, you will buy milk. But, doesn't that feel a little redundant? What if I just said "if you go to store, you will buy milk."

That also allows us to validly draw the conclusion that "if you go to store & gas station, you will use cash."

In fact, it'll even allow us to validly draw the conclusion that "if you go to store & gas station & mars & russia, you will use cash."

Very clever, those LSAT writers

1 comment

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 22

September 10, 2013

3 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 23

September 10, 2013

20 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 24

September 10, 2013

12 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 25

September 10, 2013

1 comment

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 17

September 10, 2013

21 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 18

September 10, 2013

Computer store manager: Last year we made an average of 13 percent profit on the high-end computer models—those priced over $1,000—that we sold, while low-end models—those priced below $1,000—typically returned at least 25 percent profit. Since there is a limit to how many models we can display and sell, we should sell only low-end models. This would maximize our profits, since we would probably sell as many low-end models if that is all we sold as we would sell both kinds combined if we continued to sell both.

Summarize Argument

The manager concludes that the store should only sell low-end computers because they bring in more money as a percentage of their price and the total number of units sold would likely remain the same.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The problem with this argument is that it only establishes the models’ profit percentages and not the total earnings from the sales. If the high-end models are significantly more expensive, then a lower percentage margin would still earn the store significantly more money per sale. For example, 13% of a $1,000 model ($130) is far more than 25% of a $100 one ($25).

A

The argument fails to consider the possibility that the money earned on each high-end computer is significantly higher than the money earned on each low-end computer.

This describes the problem with the argument failing to establish the total earnings from each sale. Even if the profit margin is smaller, an expensive item can still generate a much higher profit than a cheap one.

B

The argument fails to address the possibility that, despite the price differential, the store sold as many high-end models as low-end models last year.

The number of sales last year are irrelevant because the manager predicts that they would sell the same number of models if they sold the low-end ones exclusively.

C

The argument ignores the possibility that some customers who come into a computer store expecting to purchase a low-end model end up purchasing a high-end model.

This is irrelevant. It only matters what customers actually purchase, not what they expect to purchase.

D

The argument presumes, without providing justification, that the sole objective in managing the computer store should be maximizing profits.

This is descriptively inaccurate. The manager seems to believe that maximizing profits is a sufficient reason to sell certain products, but not that it should be the store’s sole objective.

E

The argument fails to recognize that future sales of low-end computers may not be the same as past sales.

This is irrelevant. The manager establishes that they would probably sell as many models if they sold low-end computers exclusively. The flaw is failing to consider that each cheaper model may generate far smaller profits than the pricier ones.

16 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 19

September 10, 2013

Professor: Economists argue that buying lottery tickets is an unwise use of resources, because the average payoff for the tickets sold in a lottery is much lower than the cost of a ticket. But this reasoning is faulty. The average amount paid out on individual insurance policies is much lower than the average cost of a policy, yet nobody would argue that purchasing insurance is an unwise use of resources.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that the fact the average payoff for a lottery ticket is much lower than the cost of a ticket does not prove that buying lottery tickets is unwise. The author supports this conclusion by comparing lottery tickets to insurance policies. The average amount paid on these policies is much lower than the average cost of a policy, but people don’t think buying insurance is unwise.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that buying an insurance policy is relevantly similar to buying a lottery ticket.

A

Individuals spend, on average, much more on insurance than on lottery tickets.

If anything, this answer helps defend the argument from the possibility that the amounts spent on lottery tickets might be so large as to involve far more risk than that involved with insurance policies. (A) says this isn’t true.

B

Insurance companies generally retain a higher proportion of total revenue than do organizations that sponsor lotteries.

The argument is about what is unwise for the purchaser. Whether the seller of lottery ticket benefits has no bearing on whether the purchaser is making a wise decision.

C

Taking small financial risks can often greatly increase one’s chances of obtaining much larger benefits.

This doesn’t undermine the author’s analogy. (C) simply describes the risk/reward aspect of a lottery ticket. But we’re interested in weakening the author’s analogy to insurance policies.

D

In general, the odds of winning the grand prize in a lottery are significantly lower than the odds of collecting a settlement from a typical insurance policy.

The comparative odds of winning a ticket vs. collecting on an insurance policy aren’t relevant, because we already know that the average payout on a lottery ticket and an insurance policy is lower than the average cost.

E

The protection against loss that insurance provides is more important to one’s well-being than is the possibility of a windfall gain.

This points out a difference that affects the analogy. If the benefit of insurance is more important than the benefit of a lottery ticket, then the fact people don’t think insurance is unwise may not be as relevant concerning an evaluation of whether lottery tickets are unwise.

40 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 20

September 10, 2013

Unusually large and intense forest fires swept the tropics in 1997. The tropics were quite susceptible to fire at that time because of the widespread drought caused by an unusually strong El Niño, an occasional global weather phenomenon. Many scientists believe the strength of the El Niño was enhanced by the global warming caused by air pollution.

Summary

Unusually large/intense forest fires occurred in the tropics in 1997.
That year, the tropics were susceptible to fire because of a drought caused by an unusually strong El Nino.
Many scientists think the strength of El Nino that year was enhanced by global warming caused by air pollution.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions

The unusually strong El Nino in 1997 caused a drought, which made the tropics susceptible to fire, which contributed to unusually large/intense fires in the tropics.
Note that we cannot infer that the El Nino was unusually strong because of global warming from air pollution. We’re told that many scientists “believe” that this is the case, but this doesn’t establish that this belief is true.

A

Air pollution was largely responsible for the size and intensity of the forest fires that swept the tropics in 1997.

We know many scientists believe that air pollution enhanced the strength of El Nino. But we don’t know that this belief is true. So we cannot infer (A).

B

If the El Niño in 1997 had not been unusually strong, few if any large and intense forest fires would have swept the tropics in that year.

We know that fires were unusually large and intense due to the unusually strong El Nino. This doesn’t imply that if the El Nino weren’t as strong, there would only be “few” large/intense forest fires. Perhaps there would not be as many, or the fires would be less large/intense; this doesn’t imply there would only be “few,” however.

C

Forest fires in the tropics are generally larger and more intense than usual during a strong El Niño.

We only have evidence concerning large/intense fires in a single year — 1997. This doesn’t support a claim about what is “generally” the case concerning forest fires during a strong El Nino.

D

At least some scientists believe that air pollution was responsible for the size and intensity of the forest fires that swept the tropics in 1997.

We know that some scientists believe air pollution contributed to the strength of El Nino in 1997. But we’re not told anything about what scientists believe concerning the fires. So we can’t infer that scientists hold a belief about the fires.

E

If air pollution enhanced the strength of the El Niño in 1997, then it also contributed to the widespread drought in that year.

We know that the strength of El Nino in 1997 caused a drought. So, if air pollution strengthened the El Nino, that implies that air pollution also played a causal role in the drought. Note that (E) doesn’t assert that air pollution in fact strengthened El Nino; it merely asserts what would be true IF air pollution strengthened El Nino.

This question is very hard. It's hard because the information is presented to you in a mess, kind of like how Logic Games present information to you. I cleaned up the information a bit, starting from the first cause going through to the last effect. The LSAT writers, in their never ending quest to torment, presented the information backwards, of course.

Many scientists believe that air pollution causes global warming.

Many scientists believe that global warming enhanced the strength of the El Niño.

In 1997, an unusually strong El Niño caused widespread drought.

In 1997, widespread drought caused the tropics to be susceptible to fire.

In 1997, unusually large and intense forest fires swept the tropics.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Let's consider each answer choice.

(A) Air pollution was largely responsible for the size and intensity of the forest fires that swept the tropics in 1997. Really? Come on. We don't even know if air pollution was even the slightest bit responsible, not to mention "largely" responsible. The link between air pollution and El Niño owes to what "many scientists believe." Those scientists could just be wrong.

(B) If the El Niño in 1997 had not been unusually strong, few if any large and intense forest fires would have swept the tropics in that year. I will not yell at you as loudly if you chose this answer choice. This one is tempting. We know that the strong El Niño was a causal component that contributed to the usually large and intense forest fires. But, that doesn't mean that if it wasn't present, the fires wouldn't have happened anyway. Who's to say what would have happened if the El Niño wasn't unusually strong? Maybe volcanos would have erupted setting the forests ablaze. Maybe a pyromanic on a scale never before known to the world would have run rampant through the forests of the tropics. Counterfactuals are notoriously speculative. So, MAYBE this will pass as a MSS answer choice, but definitely not an MBT answer choice.

(C) Forest fires in the tropics are generally larger and more intense than usual during a strong El Niño. NOOOOOO! WROOOOONG! One instance in 1997 doesn't prove shit. You know what else happened in 1997? It became really popular for Hanson to make an mmmbop noise with their mouths over and over and over. Imagine if that meant that "song" would be generally popular going forward for all time...

(D) At least some scientists believe that air pollution was responsible for the size and intensity of the forest fires that swept the tropics in 1997. Also very tempting and therefore forgivable if you chose this one. What do we know about what some scientists believe? Only that global warming, caused by air pollution, enhanced the strength of the El Niño. So they do believe that air pollution was responsible for the El Niño. Do they also believe "in 1997, an unusually strong El Niño caused widespread drought"? We don't know. Okay so there's a break in logic. But even if you argument that it's incredibly reasonable to assume that the particular scientist that we're talking about in this answer choice believes that "in 1997, an unusually strong El Niño caused widespread drought", it only gets us to the following: "that scientist believes that air pollution was responsible for the drought." Drought makes the forests susceptible to fire, but that's very different from being responsible for the fire.

(E) If air pollution enhanced the strength of the El Niño in 1997, then it also contributed to the widespread drought in that year. This is just perfect. It takes the statement that some scientists believe and turns it into fact. Then it connects up the causal chain. It's even worded correctly saying "contributed" and not "was the single most important factor".

26 comments