Sections 4

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 113 - Section 4 - Question 17

March 16, 2013

A year ago the government reduced the highway speed limit, and in the year since, there have been significantly fewer highway fatalities than there were in the previous year. Therefore, speed limit reduction can reduce traffic fatalities.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The author concludes that a speed limit reduction can reduce traffic fatalities. This is based on the fact that a year ago, the government reduced the highway speed limit, and in the year since that reduction, there have been fewer highway deaths than there were in the previous year.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author assumes that the reduction in highway speed limit caused the decrease in highway fatalities. This overlooks the possibility that there are other explanations for the decrease in highway fatalities in the year following the speed limit reduction.

A

highway traffic has not increased over the past year

The negation of (A) doesn’t undermine the argument. If traffic has increased over the past year, that might strengthen the argument, because we’d expect to see more fatalities. Since the negation doesn’t hurt the argument, the author doesn’t have to assume (A).

B

the majority of drivers obeyed the new speed limit

The author doesn’t have to assume that most drivers obeyed the speed limit, because a speed limit reduction can still affect driving behavior even if most people don’t follow the speed limit. For example, the new limit can cause people to drive slower.

C

there is a relation between driving speed and the number of automobile accidents

The author’s conclusion concerns the number of highway deaths. This doesn’t commit the author to any belief about the number of accidents, which is different from the number of deaths.

D

the new speed limit was more strictly enforced than the old

If anything, the author assumes that the new speed limit was not more strictly enforced. More strict enforcement could have been an alternate explanation for the decline in fatalities. So the author assumes this didn’t happen, not that it did happen.

E

the number of traffic fatalities the year before the new speed limit was introduced was not abnormally high

This must be assumed because if the number of fatalities the year before the new limit was abnormally high, then that suggests the decrease in fatalities after the speed limit might just be a coincidence. It might be a return to the normal fatality rate.

104 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 25 - Section 4 - Question 12

March 9, 2013

50 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 12

March 9, 2013

50 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 44 - Section 4 - Question 20

March 9, 2013

47 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 117 - Section 4 - Question 20

March 9, 2013

Advertisement: Each of the Economic Merit Prize winners from the past 25 years is covered by the Acme retirement plan. Since the winners of the nation’s most prestigious award for economists have thus clearly recognized that the Acme plan offers them a financially secure future, it is probably a good plan for anyone with retirement needs similar to theirs.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that the Acme retirement plan is probably a good plan for anyone with retirement needs similar to the Economic Merit Prize winners. This is based on the fact that each of the winners from the past 25 years is covered by the Acme retirement plan. The author interprets this fact as showing that the prize-winners have recognized that the plan is a good one for them.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author assumes that the reason the winners have the Acme plan is that they believe the plan is a good one for them. This overlooks the possibility that they have the plan for some other reason unrelated to their perception of the plan’s quality. The author also assumes that if the winners believe the Acme plan is good for them, then that constitutes evidence that the plan actually is good for people with similar retirement needs.

A

It ignores the possibility that the majority of Economic Merit Prize winners from previous years used a retirement plan other than the Acme plan.

This possibility does not undermine the argument because prize-winners with other plans might simply have different retirement needs from the prize-winners the author cites to. Also, the author does not assert that the Acme plan is the best, or that it is the only good plan.

B

It fails to address adequately the possibility that any of several retirement plans would be good enough for, and offer a financially secure future to, Economic Merit Prize winners.

This possibility does not undermine the argument because the author does not assume that the Acme plan is the best. He states only that the prize-winners recognize that the Acme plan is “probably a good plan” for people wit similar needs. But there can be other good plans, too.

C

It appeals to the fact that supposed experts have endorsed the argument’s main conclusion, rather than appealing to direct evidence for that conclusion.

The main concluson is that the Acme plan is probably a good plan for anyone with retirement needs similar to those of the prize-winners. The author does not state or assume that the prize-winners endorse that specific conclusion.

D

It takes for granted that some winners of the Economic Merit Prize have deliberately selected the Acme retirement plan, rather than having had it chosen for them by their employers.

The author assumes that the reason some prize-winners have the Acme plan is that they perceive it to be good for them. This requires that the plan was not forced upon them. If it was, then the the fact some of them have the Acme plan does not tell us about their perception of it.

E

It presumes, without providing justification, that each of the Economic Merit Prize winners has retirement plan needs that are identical to the advertisement’s intended audience’s retirement plan needs.

The author’s conclusion is limited to “anyone with retirement needs similar to [the prize-winners’].” This acknowledges that some people might not have identical retirement needs.

53 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 44 - Section 4 - Question 14

March 9, 2013

10 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 117 - Section 4 - Question 14

March 9, 2013

Scientists hypothesize that a particular type of fat known as “P-fat” is required for the development of eyesight. Researchers were led to this hypothesis by observing that babies who are fed formulas low in P-fat tend to have worse eyesight than babies fed mother’s milk, which is high in P-fat. It has also been shown that babies that are five to six weeks premature tend to have worse eyesight than babies carried to term.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

Scientists hypothesize that P-fat is necessary for developing eyesight. This is because babies fed formulas low in P-fat have worse eyesight than babies fed mother’s milk, which is high in P-fat. Moreover, premature babies have worse eyesight than babies carried to term.

Notable Assumptions

The scientists assume that P-fat is the only relevant difference between formulas and mother’s milk. If there was some other difference, then that difference could just as well account for the difference in eyesight. The scientists also assume that babies carried to term receive more P-fat than those born prematurely.

A

Adults whose diets lack P-fat tend to have worse eyesight than those whose diets are high in P-fat.

We’re talking about developing eyesight. We don’t care about maintaining eyesight.

B

A fetus typically receives high levels of P-fat from the mother during only the last four weeks of pregnancy.

Premature babies have worse eyesight than babies carried to term because they miss out on a critical fetus stage: the last four weeks, where fetuses receive high levels of P-fat. This strengthens the connection between P-fat and developing eyesight.

C

Babies whose mothers have poor eyesight do not tend to have poor eyesight themselves.

The scientists agree eyesight isn’t totally genetic. However, we’re specifically trying to strengthen the connection between P-fat and eyesight. This doesn’t do that for us.

D

Babies generally prefer mother’s milk to formulas low in P-fat.

We don’t care what babies prefer.

E

The eyesight of a fetus develops during the last trimester of pregnancy.

This weakens the scientists’ hypothesis. If eyesight develops during the last trimester, then the postnatal difference between formula and mother’s milk wouldn’t be relevant.

13 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 113 - Section 4 - Question 17

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 25 - Section 4 - Question 12

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 12

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 44 - Section 4 - Question 20

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 117 - Section 4 - Question 20

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 44 - Section 4 - Question 14

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 117 - Section 4 - Question 14

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT June 2007 - Section 4 - Passage 2 - Questions

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 123 - Section 4 - Passage 2 - Questions

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT June 2007 - Section 4 - Passage 2 - Passage