Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 68 - Section 4 - Game 3
January 5, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 68 - Section 4 - Game 2
January 5, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 68 - Section 4 - Game 1
January 5, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 27 - Section 4 - Question 12
January 4, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 104 - Section 4 - Question 12
January 4, 2013Q: But any regulations that can potentially prevent money from being wasted are useful. If obeyed, the new safety regulations will prevent some accidents, and whenever there is an accident here at the laboratory, money is wasted even if no one is injured.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to P’s claim that complying with the new safety regulations is useless, Q concludes any regulations that potentially prevent money from being wasted are useful. As evidence, Q states that the new safety regulations would prevent some accidents, and money is wasted whenever there is an accident.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Q counters a position held by P. Q does this by expanding the scope of P’s argument. Instead of only narrowly considering whether the new safety regulations would have prevented last year’s fire, Q considers what effect the regulations could have upon all potential accidents.
A
extending the basis for assessing the utility of complying with the new regulations
P’s basis for assessing the utility of compliance is whether the new regulations would have prevented last year’s laboratory fire. Q extends this basis to assessing whether the new regulations would prevent some accidents.
B
citing additional evidence that undermines P’s assessment of the extent to which the new regulations would have prevented injuries in last year’s laboratory fire
Q does not state a position on whether he believes the new regulations would have prevented injuries in last year’s laboratory fire. Q’s argument addresses accidents generally.
C
giving examples to show that the uselessness of all regulations cannot validly be inferred from the uselessness of one particular set of regulations
P’s argument does not conclude that all regulations are useless. P only concludes that the new safety regulations are useless, and Q responds to this narrow conclusion.
D
showing that P’s argument depends on the false assumption that compliance with any regulations that would have prevented last year’s fire would be useful
Q does not point out any false assumptions in P’s argument. Moreover, Q does not state a position on whether he believes the new regulations would have prevented last year’s laboratory fire.
E
pointing out a crucial distinction, overlooked by P, between potential benefits and actual benefits
Q does not explicitly point out a distinction overlooked by P. Rather, Q expands the scope of argument to all regulations instead of just the new safety regulations.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 25 - Section 4 - Question 23
January 4, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 23
January 4, 2013
Summarize Argument
Premise 1:
Understand architecture of PC → computer scientist (”only” introduces necessary condition)
Premise 2:
Appreciate tech advances → understand architecture of PC (”only” introduces necessary condition)
Conclusion:
Computer scientist → Appreciate tech advances (”only” introduces necessary condition)
Identify and Describe Flaw
The premises allow us to conclude that appreciating tech advances requires that one be a computer scientist. But the author confuses sufficient and necessary conditions of this inference. The author mistakenly thinks that being a computer scientist requires appreciating the tech advances. This overlooks the possibility that there might be some computer scientists that don’t appreciate the tech advances.
(The conclusion would have been valid if it had said “only computer scientists appreciate the tech advances.”)
A
The argument contains no stated or implied relationship between computer scientists and those who appreciate the advances in technology in the last decade.
This is false. The argument allows us to infer that appreciating the advances requires being a computer scientist.
B
The argument ignores the fact that some computer scientists may not appreciate the advances in technology made in the last decade.
The possibility described in (B) undermines the argument by showing that one can be a computer scientists without needing to appreciate the tech advances; this shows why the conclusion doesn’t have to be true.
C
The argument ignores the fact that computer scientists may appreciate other things besides the advances in technology made in the last decade.
The author never argued that computer scientists never appreciate anything else besides technology advances. So the fact allegedly ignored has no impact on the reasoning.
D
The premises of the argument are stated in such a way that they exclude the possibility of drawing any logical conclusion.
We can draw a logical conclusion — appreciating the tech advances requires being a computer scientist. The flaw isn’t that the author drew a conclusion when he shouldn’t have drawn any conclusion, it’s that the author drew an improper conclusion.
E
The premises of the argument presuppose that everyone understands the architecture of personal computers.
The first premise states that only computer scientists understand the architecture of PCs. So the argument does not assume that “everyone” (including non-computer scientists) understands the architecture of PCs.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 25 - Section 4 - Question 19
January 4, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 19
January 4, 2013Anika: I disagree with your prediction. Our customers already are antiques experts. Furthermore, hiring professional appraisers would push up our costs considerably, thus forcing us to raise the prices on all our antiques.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Anika rejects inez’s prediction. As evidence, Anika points out customers are already antique experts and that hiring antique experts would cause prices to increase.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Anika counters the position held by Inez. She does this by predicting a cause-and-effect relationship: if professional appraisers were hired, this would cause the price of antiques to increase.
A
indicating that a particular plan would have an effect contrary to the anticipated effect
The anticipated effect Inez predicts is that people would be more willing to buy antiques. On the other hand, Anika claims that hiring professional appraisers would cause prices for antiques to increase and thus may not result in people being more willing to buy.
B
claiming that a particular plan should not be adopted because, while effective, it would have at least one undesirable consequence
Anika does not believe that Inez’s plan would be effective. Rather, she believes that Inez’s plan would have an effect directly contrary to the goal of selling antiques.
C
arguing that an alternative plan could achieve a desired result more easily than the plan originally proposed
Anika does not present an alternative plan. Rather, she only addresses the weakness of Inez’s plan.
D
questioning the assumption that authorities are available who have special knowledge of the problem under discussion
Anika does not question the existence of professional appraisers that could authenticate antiques. Rather, she questions the assumption why professional appraisers are needed given that customers are already experts.
E
offering a counterexample in order to show that a particular general claim is too broadly stated
Anika does not present a counterexample. Rather, she makes a general prediction about the unintended consequences of Inez’s plan.