Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 08
September 10, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 09
September 10, 2013Archaeologists are currently analyzing plant remains found at a site that was last occupied more than 10,000 years ago. If the plants were cultivated, then the people who occupied the site discovered agriculture thousands of years before any other people are known to have done so. On the other hand, if the plants were wild—that is, uncultivated—then the people who occupied the site ate a wider variety of wild plants than did any other people at the time.
Summary
Archaeologists are studying plant remains from a site that was last occupied over 10,000 years ago. If the plants were cultivated, the people there discovered agriculture much earlier than anyone else. If the plants were wild, those people ate more types of wild plants than any other people at that time.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Whether the plants were cultivated or wild, the people who lived at the site were using some plants differently than other people at that time.
The plant remains could provide insight into whether people at the site practiced farming or ate many types of wild plants.
If the plants are found to have been cultivated, it could challenge previous theories of when humans began cultivating plants.
A
The archaeologists analyzing the plant remains at the site will be able to determine whether the plants were cultivated or were wild.
Unsupported. We do not know if the archaeologists will be able to determine whether the plants were cultivated or wild. The stimulus does not give any information on this.
B
The people who occupied the site used some plants in ways that no other people did at that time.
Strongly supported. If the plants were cultivated, the people discovered agricultural long before other people. If the plants were wild, the people ate more types of wild plants than anyone else. So either way, these people were using some plants in ways that no other people did.
C
If the people who occupied the site had reached a more advanced stage in the use of wild plants than any other people at the time, then the plants found at the site were uncultivated.
Unsupported. The stimulus says nothing about whether these people are “advanced” in their use of wild plants. We also have no reason to believe that being more advanced in the use of wild plants means that these particular plants were uncultivated.
D
If the people who occupied the site discovered agriculture thousands of years before people anywhere else are known to have done so, then there are remains of cultivated plants at the site.
Unsupported. We know that if the plants at the site are cultivated, then the people discovered agriculture before anyone else. We do not know that if they discovered agriculture before anyone else, there must be remains of cultivated plants at the site.
E
It is more likely that the people who occupied the site discovered agriculture thousands of years before people anywhere else did than it is that they ate a wider variety of wild plants than any other people at the time.
Unsupported. The stimulus makes no claims about which scenario is more likely.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 10
September 10, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 11
September 10, 2013
A
treats something that is necessary to make a certification process very difficult as if it were sufficient by itself to make the process very difficult
B
takes for granted that plumbers are not qualified unless they complete some certification process
C
overlooks the possibility that plumbers at other firms in the region complete certification processes that are even easier than that completed by Plumb-Ace’s plumbers
D
infers that a claim is false on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been given for that claim
E
presumes that since one part of a whole lacks a certain characteristic, the whole must lack that characteristic as well
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 12
September 10, 2013
A
It is a conclusion purportedly justified by the argument’s appeal to the psychological effects of these structures on the Egyptian population.
B
It is offered in support of the claim that Egyptian pharaohs spent as much on ceremonial architecture as they did on roads and irrigation systems.
C
It is a premise given in support of the claim that the loyalty of people under a pharaoh’s rule was maintained over time without reliance on military force.
D
It is offered as an illustration of the principle that social and political stability do not depend ultimately on force.
E
It is a premise used to justify the pharaohs’ policy of spending scarce resources on structures that have only military utility.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 13
September 10, 2013Under current rules, research results can be published prior to a patent application.
Under the proposed change, research results would not be published prior to a patent application. This delays communications of discoveries.
A
The proposed change will encourage more patent applications to be filed.
B
Dramatic advances in scientific research have occurred while the current patent system has been in place.
C
Delays in the communication of discoveries will have a chilling effect on scientific research.
D
Most researchers oppose the proposed change to the patent system.
E
The current rules for patent applications facilitate progress in scientific research by rewarding the communication of discoveries.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 14
September 10, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 15
September 10, 2013Linguist: You philosophers say that we linguists do not have a deep understanding of language, but you have provided no evidence.
Philosopher: Well, you have said that you believe that “Joan and Ivan are siblings” is identical in meaning to “Ivan and Joan are siblings.” But this cannot be the case, for the sentences are physically different; yet for two things to be identical, they must have all the same attributes.
Summarize Argument
The philosopher concludes that it cannot be the case that the sentences “Joan and Ivan are siblings” and “Ivan and Joan are siblings” are identical in meaning. He supports this by saying that two things must have all the same attributes in order to be identical, yet these two sentences are physically different from one another.
Notable Assumptions
The philosopher assumes that two things being identical in meaning is equivalent to those two things being physically identical. His argument uses both meanings of the term “identical” interchangeably, overlooking the possibility that they might mean different things.
A
Two things can have a few minor differences and still be identical.
We don’t know exactly what it means for two things to “have a few minor differences,” or whether the two sentences in question can be considered to have a few minor differences. Either way, (A) fails to point out the philosopher’s ambiguous use of the word “identical.”
B
Two sentences can be identical physically, and yet, depending on the context in which they are uttered, not be identical in meaning.
This may be true, but the two sentences in question are not physically identical and the linguist argues that they are identical in meaning. So (B) doesn’t apply in the context of these two sentences.
C
It is necessarily true that Joan is Ivan’s sibling if Ivan is Joan’s sibling.
This may be true, but it doesn’t point out the weakness in the philosopher’s argument, which is that he equates “physically identical” with “identical in meaning.”
D
The issue is not whether the two sentences are completely identical, but whether they mean the same thing.
This weakens the philosopher’s argument by pointing out his assumption that two things being “identical in meaning” is the same as two things being “physically identical.” (D) argues that the two sentences can be identical in meaning without being completely physically identical.
E
A linguist has more experience with language than a philosopher, and so is in a better position to answer such questions.
The philosopher is not making a claim about who has more experience with language. Instead, his argument is about the identicalness of the two sentences in question.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 16
September 10, 2013