Sections 4

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 02

September 10, 2013

5 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 03

September 10, 2013

2 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 04

September 10, 2013

14 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 01

September 10, 2013

Scientists generally believe that no deep-sea creature can detect red light, but they need to reassess that view. Researchers recently discovered a foot-long deep-sea creature of the genus Erenna with bioluminescent red lights on some of its tentacles. These red lights, which are shaped like a common food source for small, deep-sea fish, probably function as lures to attract prey.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Scientists must reconsider the belief that no deep-sea creatures can detect red light since researchers recently found a deep-sea creature that uses glowing red lights to catch small fish. This large creature has glowing red lights on its tentacles, which resemble a common food source for small deep-sea fish and likely serve as bait to attract them as prey.

Identify Conclusion

Scientists must reassess the view that no deep-sea creature can detect red light.

A

Red lights on the tentacles of a newly discovered deep-sea creature probably function as lures.

This is a premise. The stimulus uses the claim that the red lights act as lures to support the conclusion that some deep-sea creatures can see red light. The fact that small deep-sea fish are attracted to the red lights on the creature's tentacles suggests they can see red light.

B

Red lights on the tentacles of a newly discovered deep-sea creature are shaped like a common food source for small, deep-sea fish.

This is a premise. The passage explains that the red lights are shaped like a common food source for small deep-sea fish, which is why they may attract the fish. If the lights resemble the fish's usual red food, the fish are likely responding to that resemblance and can see red.

C

A foot-long deep-sea creature of the genus Erenna has been discovered recently.

This is a premise. The passage notes this discovery to support its claim that some deep-sea creatures can see red light. This newly discovered deep-sea creature uses red light to hunt deep-sea prey, which supports the conclusion because its prey seems to react to the red light.

D

Scientists generally believe that deep-sea creatures cannot detect red light.

This is context and provides background information. The passage explains what most scientists believe to help us understand the author’s view, which disagrees with them. While scientists think no deep-sea creatures can see red light, the author argues that at least some can.

E

Scientists need to reconsider the belief that deep-sea creatures cannot detect red light.

This accurately captures the argument’s main conclusion. The author argues that scientists need to "reassess" or "reconsider" their belief that no deep-sea creature can see red light. The author thinks this belief is wrong since a creature uses red light to attract deep-sea prey.

Comment on this

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 02

September 10, 2013

For house painting, acrylic paints are an excellent choice. They provide everything that a good paint should provide: smooth and even coverage, quick drying time, durability, and easy cleanup. Even acrylics, however, cannot correct such surface defects as badly cracked paint. Such conditions indicate some underlying problem, such as water damage, that needs repair.

Summary

Acrylic paints are an excellent choice for house painting. This is because they provide smooth coverage, they dry quickly, they’re durable, and they’re easy to clean up. However, acrylic paint can’t fix surface defects such as cracked paint. These defects indicate an underlying problem like water damage that needs to be repaired.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Because acrylic paints are excellent house paints even though they cannot fix surface defects, house paints do not need to be able to fix surface defects.

Not all excellent paints can fix surface defects such as badly cracked paint.

A

Badly cracked paint is not a result of harsh weather conditions.

Unsupported. The stimulus only says that badly cracked paint could be the result of water damage. Otherwise, we do not know what does and does not cause badly cracked paint.

B

Acrylics are the only paints that provide everything that most homeowners need from a paint.

Unsupported. “Acrylic paints are an excellent choice for house painting” and “they provide everything that a good paint should provide,” but this does not mean that they provide everything that a homeowner needs or that they are the only good paint.

C

Acrylics should not be used to paint over other types of house paint.

Unsupported. Acrylic paints are not able to fix surface defects like badly cracked paint, but this is not enough information to say that they shouldn’t ever be used for painting over other kinds of house paint.

D

It is not a requirement of house paints that they correct surface defects such as badly cracked paint.

Strongly supported. Acrylic paint is an excellent choice for house paint even though it cannot correct surface defects such as badly cracked paint. Thus it is not a requirement of house paints that they correct such defects.

E

Acrylic paints come in as wide a range of colors as do any other paints.

Unsupported. We are given no information about the available colors of acrylic paints or any other kinds of paints.

5 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 03

September 10, 2013

Letter to the editor: You have asserted that philanthropists want to make the nonprofit sector as efficient as private business in this country. Philanthropists want no such thing, of course. Why would anyone want to make nonprofits as inefficient as Byworks Corporation, which has posted huge losses for years?

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The author denies the claim that philanthropists want to make nonprofits as efficient as businesses, offering an example of an inefficient business that no one would want to emulate.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The argument is flawed because it presumes that the Byworks Corporation is representative of the country’s private sector. The position that the author responds to claimed that philanthropists want to be as efficient as private businesses in general. If other businesses are more efficient than the Byworks Corporation—and we’re given no reason to believe this isn’t the case—then the argument fails.

A

draws a conclusion about what ought to be the case from premises that are entirely about what is the case

This is descriptively inaccurate. The author makes a claim as to what the motivations of philanthropists are, not what they should or shouldn’t do.

B

takes the condition of one member of a category to be representative of the category in general

This describes how the argument presumes that other businesses are as inefficient as the Byworks Corporation. It’s entirely possible that philanthropists seek to emulate other, more efficient businesses.

C

rejects a claim by attacking the proponent of the claim rather than addressing the claim itself

This is descriptively inaccurate. The author responds to the other conclusion by citing an example of an inefficient business, not by attacking the arguer as a person.

D

concludes that a claim must be false because of the mere absence of evidence in its favor

This is descriptively inaccurate. The argument never addresses whether the opposing claim does or does not have evidence; it just provides one example of a business which it presumes is representative of the entire private sector.

E

concludes that a phenomenon will have a certain property merely because the phenomenon’s cause has that property

This is descriptively inaccurate. The argument doesn’t presume that an effect has the same trait as its cause; it presumes that one business is representative of businesses in general.

2 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 04

September 10, 2013

Statistical records of crime rates probably often reflect as much about the motives and methods of those who compile or cite them as they do about the actual incidence of crime. The police may underreport crime in order to convey the impression of their own success or overreport crime to make the case for a budget increase. Politicians may magnify crime rates to get elected or minimize them to remain in office. Newspapers, of course, often sensationalize crime statistics to increase readership.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that crime statistics likely reveal as much about the motives of those who report them as they do about actual crime rates. She supports this with three examples: police may underreport or overreport crime to influence their image or budget; politicians may exaggerate or downplay crime to help their campaigns; and newspapers may sensationalize crime to boost readership.

Describe Method of Reasoning

The author supports her conclusion by providing three examples that demonstrate its truth.

A

evaluating evidence for and against its conclusion

The author only presents evidence for her conclusion; she doesn’t evaluate evidence against it.

B

citing examples in support of its conclusion

The author cites three examples to support her conclusion. She cites police, politicians, and newspapers as examples of groups that may overreport or underreport crime statistics for their own purposes.

C

deriving implications of a generalization that it assumes to be true

The author’s three examples— police, politicians, and newspapers who may manipulate crime statistics— are not necessary implications of an assumed generalization. Instead, they’re examples that serve as evidence to support the author’s conclusion.

D

enumerating problems for which it proposes a general solution

The author never proposes a general solution, nor does she claim that the manipulation of crime statistics is a problem in the first place. She simply states her conclusion and gives examples to back it up.

E

showing how evidence that apparently contradicts its conclusion actually supports that conclusion

The author’s evidence never appears to contradict her conclusion. It supports her conclusion by providing three examples that demonstrate it.

14 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 27 - Section 4 - Question 07

August 30, 2013

29 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 104 - Section 4 - Question 07

August 30, 2013

If you know a lot about history, it will be easy for you to impress people who are intellectuals. But unfortunately, you will not know much about history if you have not, for example, read a large number of history books. Therefore, if you are not well versed in history due to a lack of reading, it will not be easy for you to impress people who are intellectuals.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The author’s conditional conclusion is that if you’re not widely read—and therefore don’t know a lot about history—then it won’t be easy to impress intellectuals. As premises, he gives two conditional claims:

(1) If you know a lot about history, it’s easy to impress intellectuals.

(2) If you’re not well-read on history, you won’t know a lot about history (or, taking the contrapositive, to know a lot about history, you must be well-read on history).

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking sufficiency for necessity. The author treats “know history” as necessary for “impress.” But “know history” is sufficient, not necessary. So negating “know history” tells us nothing about “impress.”

In other words, the argument overlooks the possibility that one can not know a lot about history and yet still easily impress intellectuals.

A

many intellectuals are not widely read in history

This wouldn’t damage the argument, so overlooking it can’t be a flaw. The author argues that knowing a lot about history is necessary to easily impress intellectuals, but he makes no assumptions about those intellectuals’ own knowledge or reading of history.

B

there are people who learn about history who do not impress intellectuals

This wouldn’t damage the argument, so overlooking it can’t be a flaw. The author argues that knowing a lot about history is necessary to easily impress. The possibility that learning something about history isn’t sufficient to impress is entirely consistent with his argument.

C

it is more important to impress people who are not intellectuals than people who are intellectuals

This wouldn’t damage the argument, so overlooking it can’t be a flaw. The argument is simply about whether one can, or cannot, easily impress intellectuals. How important it might be to impress them, or to impress anyone else, is irrelevant.

D

there are other easy ways to impress intellectuals that do not involve knowing history

This means that knowing a lot about history isn’t necessary to easily impress intellectuals. This is exactly what the argument overlooks. The conclusion mistakenly treats “know history” as a necessary condition, while in the premises, “know history” is merely sufficient.

E

people who are not intellectuals can be impressed more easily than people who are intellectuals

This wouldn’t damage the argument, so overlooking it can’t be a flaw. The argument is about whether one can, or cannot, easily impress intellectuals. How easy it is to impress anyone else is irrelevant.

32 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 25 - Section 4 - Question 06

August 30, 2013

61 comments