Sections 4

Inez: The book we are reading, The Nature of Matter, is mistitled. A title should summarize the content of the whole book, but nearly half of this book is devoted to discussing a different, albeit closely related subject: energy.

Antonio: I do not think that the author erred; according to modern physics, matter and energy are two facets of the same phenomenon.

Summary

Inez says that the book The Nature of Matter should have a different title. Why? Because almost half the book is about energy, and Inez thinks a title should summarize the entire book.

Antonio thinks that the title The Nature of Matter is actually fine, because modern physics considers matter and energy to be part of the same phenomenon.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

The conversation supports these inferences:

Inez thinks that the book’s title doesn’t summarize the entire book.

Inez thinks that if the book’s title mentions matter, it should also mention energy.

Antonio either thinks that the book’s title does summarize the entire book, or that summarizing the entire book is not necessary for a good book title.

Inez and Antonio disagree about whether the book is correctly titled.

A

Inez believes that the book should be called The Nature of Energy.

This is not supported. Inez says that a book’s title should summarize the entire book, but more than half of this book is about matter. Thus, replacing “Matter” with “Energy” in the title would just make the problem worse—then it would summarize less than half of the book.

B

Antonio believes that there are no differences between matter and energy.

This is not supported. Antonio calls matter and energy “two facets of the same phenomenon,” which indicates that they are different: they’re different facets. Just because they’re part of the same phenomenon, doesn’t mean they have no differences.

C

Inez and Antonio disagree on whether matter and energy are related.

This is not supported. Inez and Antonio both feel that matter and energy are related. Inez calls them “closely related,” while Antonio explains that they’re two parts of the same phenomenon—meaning they must be related.

D

Inez and Antonio disagree about the overall value of the book.

This is not supported. Neither Inez nor Antonio actually indicates their thoughts on the overall value of the book. They’re just discussing whether or not they like the title.

E

Inez believes that the book’s title should not mention matter without mentioning energy.

This is strongly supported. Inez’s complaint is that the book’s title doesn’t summarize the book’s whole contents: the book discusses both matter and energy, while the title only mentions matter. Including matter but not energy is what makes it an insufficient summary.

11 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 42 - Section 4 - Question 22

March 1, 2013

13 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 42 - Section 4 - Question 25

March 1, 2013

1 comment

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 126 - Section 4 - Question 15

March 1, 2013

Technological innovation rarely serves the interests of society as a whole. This can be seen from the fact that those responsible for technological advances are almost without exception motivated by considerations of personal gain rather than societal benefit in that they strive to develop commercially viable technology.

A

contains a premise that cannot possibly be true

There’s nothing about the premise that cannot be true. People responsible for tec. advances can be motivated by considerations of personal gain rather than societal benefit.

B

takes for granted that technology beneficial to society as a whole cannot be commercially viable

The author assumes that tech. that’s beneficial to society as a whole cannot be made for the PURPOSE of personal gain. But that doesn’t mean the tech. can’t be commercially viable. It can be, as long as the PURPOSE was not to produce something commercialy viable.

C

fails to consider the possibility that actions motivated by a desire for personal gain often do not result in personal gain

Whether anyone actually gets personal gain is not relevant. The issue is whether someone who invents stuff for the PURPOSE of personal gain can make things that help society as a whole.

D

takes for granted that an action is unlikely to produce a certain outcome unless it is motivated by a desire to produce that outcome

The author assumes that an action (tech. advance) is unlikely to proudce a certain outcome (societal benefit) unless it’s motivated by a desire to produce that outcome. This captures the assumption that tech. advances made for personal gain can’t help society as a whole.

E

draws a conclusion about the practical consequences of people’s actions on the basis of theoretical views about what people should or should not do

The conc. isn’t based on “theoretical views about what people should or should not do.” The premise doesn’t describe what anyone should or shouldn’t do.

31 comments