Sections 4

LSAT 139 - 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

54 comments

LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 22

September 10, 2013

3 comments

LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 23

September 10, 2013

20 comments

LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 24

September 10, 2013

Parents who consistently laud their children for every attempt to accomplish something, whether successful or not, actually erode the youngsters’ sense of self-esteem. Children require commendation for their achievements, but if uniformly praised for both what they have accomplished and what they have merely attempted, they will eventually discount all words of commendation. In effect, such children never hear any praise at all.

Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation

Parents who always praise their children for every effort, whether successful or not, can actually hurt their children’s self-esteem. If parents praise their kids for both what they achieve and what they just try, the kids will start to ignore all praise. In the end, it’s like they don’t hear any praise at all.

Identify Conclusion

Parents who constantly praise their children for every effort, whether it succeeds or not, actually harm their children’s self-esteem.

A

Parents should praise their children for their achievements.

The stimulus doesn’t make this argument. It talks about the harmful effects of overpraising kids but doesn’t express an opinion on whether parents should praise their kids for achievements. Moreover, if anything, the passage suggests that parents should praise less.

B

Children whose actions are praised undeservedly eventually learn to discount all words of praise.

This is a premise. The stimulus explains that when kids get too much praise, they start to ignore it. This claim supports the main conclusion that overpraising kids can actually hurt their self-esteem. Since this claim supports the argument, it isn’t the main conclusion.

C

Parents need to distinguish between their own expectations for their children and what their children are actually capable of accomplishing.

The stimulus doesn’t make this claim. It doesn’t tell parents what they should or shouldn’t do. It simply states that a certain behavior can lead to an unwanted outcome. If anything, the passage merely suggests that parents should praise their children less.

D

Children’s self-esteem will suffer if their parents uniformly praise their attempts to accomplish things regardless of their success or failure.

This accurately captures the stimulus’s main conclusion. The stimulus argues that parents who consistently laud or “uniformly praise” their children’s attempts to accomplish something will eventually harm (or “erode”) their children’s self-esteem, causing it to “suffer.”

E

Children will develop low self-esteem if their parents do not praise them when they succeed.

The stimulus does not make this claim. It argues that too much praise harms children's self-esteem, not that too little praise causes low self-esteem. Also, the passage says too much praise lowers self-esteem but does not necessarily mean it leads to "low" self-esteem.

12 comments

LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 25

September 10, 2013

Pauline: Some environmentalists claim that for the salmon to be saved, the hydroelectric dams on the river must be breached. But if the dams are breached, given the region’s growing population and booming industry, electrical costs will skyrocket.

Roger: The dams are already producing electricity at optimal capacity. So regardless of whether they are breached, we will have to find additional energy sources for the region.

Speaker 1 Summary

Pauline concludes that if the dams are breached, electrical costs will skyrocket. This is because the region has a growing population and a booming industry. (The phrase “given the region’s growing population and booming industry” is a premise.)

Speaker 2 Summary

Roger concludes that whether or not the dams are breached, we will have to find additional sources of energy for the region. This is because the dams are already producing electricity at the optimal capacity.

Objective

We’re looking for a point of agreement. The speakers agree that there will likely be growing demand for electricity in the region.

A

production from other energy sources cannot be increased in the near future to compensate for electricity production lost by breaching the dams

Roger doesn’t express an opinion. He says we will need to find additional sources. But he doesn’t say anything suggesting an opinion about whether we can or cannot find an alternative energy source in the near future.

B

there will be no significant decrease in demand for electricity in the region in the near future

This is a point of agreement. Pauline believes electrical costs will skyrocket if the dams are breached. Roger believes we’ll have to find additional energy sources. This suggests they don’t think electricity demand will decrease significantly in the near future.

C

if the dams remain in service but do not operate at optimal capacity, electrical costs in the region will rise

Not a point of agreement. Pauline doesn’t comment on what will happen if dams are not at optimal service. If dams are breached, electric costs will rise. But if dams are not breached, but still in service, we don’t know Pauline’s opinion.

D

some environmentalists who advocate saving the salmon believe that that goal overrides concerns about electrical costs

Roger doesn’t express an opinion. He doesn’t comment on environmentalists and their view concerning saving the salmon.

E

finding additional energy sources will not decrease the electrical costs in the region

Pauline doesn’t express an opinion. She doesn’t discuss finding additional energy sources and what that will do to electrical costs. She acknowledges electrical costs will skyrocket if the dam is breached. But that doesn’t indicate an opinion on other energy sources.

6 comments

LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 21

LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 22

LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 23

LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 24

LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 25

LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 05

LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 06

LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 07

LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 08

LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 09