Sections 4

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 67 - Section 4 - Question 14

November 14, 2012

12 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 67 - Section 4 - Question 15

November 14, 2012

3 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 67 - Section 4 - Question 16

November 14, 2012

22 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 67 - Section 4 - Question 17

November 14, 2012

1 comment

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 137 - Section 4 - Question 09

November 14, 2012

In a medical study of all of the residents of Groverhill, 35 people reported consulting their physician last year seeking relief from severe headaches. Those same physicians’ records, however, indicate that 105 consultations occurred last year with Groverhill patients seeking relief from severe headaches. Obviously, then, many residents who consulted physicians for this condition did not remember doing so.

Summarize Argument

The author claims that more than 35 people must have visited a doctor for headache treatment last year because there were 105 appointments of that kind in the same time period.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The argument is flawed because it assumes that the number of people who reported having a consultation should be expected to match the number of consultations that took place. However, it’s likely that some of the patients visited the doctor more than once, which would explain why there were more consultations than there were people who reported having one.

A

generalizes inappropriately from an unrepresentative sample of residents of Groverhill

The argument cites a study of “all of the residents of Groverhill”, so it certainly isn’t drawing on an unrepresentative sample.

B

fails to consider whether any residents of Groverhill visit physicians who are not located in Groverhill

More consultations occurring elsewhere would make the apparent discrepancy even larger. The flaw is failing to consider that this gap could be naturally explained by some patients visiting the doctor more than once.

C

overlooks the possibility that residents of Groverhill visited their physicians more than once during the year for the same condition

This describes the argument’s assumption. If any patients got more than one consultation, then the number of consultations would naturally be larger than the number of distinct patients.

D

fails to provide any evidence to support the claim that the residents of Groverhill have an unusually high occurrence of severe headaches

The author never claims that Groverhill residents have a higher rate of severe headaches, so there’s no need to provide evidence for it.

E

takes for granted that every resident of Groverhill who suffers from severe headaches would consult a physician about this condition

Whether or not there are people who won’t consult a doctor is irrelevant. The argument only makes a claim about patients who did consult a doctor.

4 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 137 - Section 4 - Question 10

November 14, 2012

Economist: In free market systems, the primary responsibility of corporate executives is to determine a nation’s industrial technology, the pattern of work organization, location of industry, and resource allocation. They also are the decision makers, though subject to significant consumer control, on what is to be produced and in what quantities. In short, a large category of major decisions is turned over to business executives. Thus, business executives have become public officials.

Summarize Argument

The economist concludes that business executives have become public officials. She supports this by saying that business executives are responsible for key decisions like industrial technology, work organization, industry location, and resource allocation. They also decide what and how much to produce, although consumers have some influence.

Notable Assumptions

In order for business executives to be considered public officials, the economist must assume that the “large category of major decisions” that they are responsible for is sufficient for making someone a public official. In other words, she must assume that, just because business executives make these decisions, they are public officials.

A

Most of the decisions made by business executives in free market systems are made by the government in countries with centrally planned economies.

The economist’s argument only addresses business executives in free market systems. So the decision-making in countries with centrally planned economies is not relevant.

B

Making decisions about patterns of work organization, resource allocation, and location of industry is not the core of a public official’s job.

This weakens the economist’s argument by pointing out her key assumption. She assumes that making the decisions mentioned is a sufficient reason to call someone a public official. But if these decisions aren’t the core of a public official’s job, her argument falls apart.

C

The salaries of business executives are commensurate with the salaries of high-ranking public officials.

It doesn’t matter that business executives and high-ranking public officials have similar salaries. We’re only concerned with the decisions made by business executives and whether those decisions make them public officials.

D

What a country produces and in what quantities is not always completely controlled by corporate executives.

We already know that decisions about a country’s production, though made by business executives, are “subject to significant consumer control.” The question is whether making decisions about these things means that business executives are public officials.

E

Public officials and business executives often cooperate in making decisions of national importance.

Whether public officials and business executives work together in making decisions is irrelevant. We need to know if making these decisions is enough reason to say that business executives are public officials.

12 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 137 - Section 4 - Question 11

November 14, 2012

20 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 137 - Section 4 - Question 12

November 14, 2012

Tamika: Many people have been duped by the claims of those who market certain questionable medical products. Their susceptibility is easy to explain: most people yearn for easy solutions to complex medical problems but don’t have the medical knowledge necessary to see through the sellers’ fraudulent claims. However, the same explanation cannot be given for a recent trend among medical professionals toward a susceptibility to fraudulent claims. They, of course, have no lack of medical knowledge.

Summarize Argument

Tamika implicitly concludes that there must be some other explanation for why medical professionals fall for fraudulent marketing claims about medical products. She supports this by saying that the explanation for why many people fall for such claims is that they lack necessary medical knowledge. However, this explanation doesn't apply to medical professionals because they have plenty of medical knowledge.

Describe Method of Reasoning

Tamika argues that one explanation— lacking medical knowledge— cannot be used to account for two groups’ similar behavior. As evidence, she points out that the two groups are dissimilar in relevant ways: while many people who believe fraudulent medical claims lack medical knowledge, medical professionals who fall for these claims have plenty of medical knowledge.

A

showing by analogy that medical professionals should not be susceptible to the fraudulent claims of those who market certain medical products

Tamika never suggests that medical professionals shouldn’t be susceptible to these fraudulent claims. She simply states that the explanation that people who fall for such claims lack medical knowledge does not account for the medical professionals’ susceptibility.

B

arguing against a hypothesis by showing that the hypothesis cannot account for the behavior of everyone

Tamika never argues against the hypothesis that people who fall for the fraudulent claims lack medical knowledge. She just argues that, while the hypothesis explains the susceptibility of many people to such claims, it doesn’t explain the susceptibility of medical professionals.

C

explaining the susceptibility of medical professionals to the fraudulent claims of those marketing certain medical products by casting doubt on the expertise of the professionals

Tamika doesn’t cast doubt on the expertise of the medical professionals. In fact, she explicitly says that they “have no lack of medical knowledge.”

D

arguing that since two groups are disanalogous in important respects, there must be different explanations for their similar behavior

Tamika argues that since two groups (”many people” and medical professionals) are disanalogous in important respects (one group lacks medical knowledge and the other has plenty), there must be different explanations for their similar susceptibility to fraudulent medical claims.

E

arguing that an explanation should be accepted in spite of apparent evidence against it

Tamika argues that the explanation that people lack medical knowledge “cannot be given” to account for medical professionals’ susceptibility to fraudulent claims. She argues that this explanation cannot be accepted because of clear evidence against it.

3 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 137 - Section 4 - Question 13

November 14, 2012

1 comment

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 137 - Section 4 - Question 14

November 14, 2012

Astronomer: Does a recent meteorite from Mars contain fossilized bacteria? Professor Tagar, a biologist, argues that the bacteria-like structures found in the meteorite cannot be fossilized bacteria, on the grounds that they are one-tenth of 1 percent the volume of the smallest earthly bacteria. However, Tagar’s view cannot be right. Tagar does not accept the views of biologists Swiderski and Terrada, who maintain that Martian bacteria would shrink to one-tenth of 1 percent of their normal volume when water or other nutrients were in short supply.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The astronomer concludes that the structures found in the meteorite could be bacteria, rejecting Tagar’s claim that they’re too small. The author rejects Tagar’s view because two other biologists hold a differing view that could explain the structures’ small size.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The problem with this argument is that the astronomer gives no reason for siding with Swiderski and Terrada instead of Tagar. In order to prove this conclusion, the argument would need to provide support for Swiderski and Terrada’s claim that bacteria would shrink, but since it doesn’t, the astronomer’s preference for their view is arbitrary. Tagar could have the correct position.

A

The argument presumes, without providing justification, that the authorities cited have always held the views attributed to them.

This is both irrelevant and descriptively inaccurate. The argument isn’t concerned with what the astronomers believed in the past; only their current views on this issue are referenced.

B

The argument provides no justification for giving preference to the views of one rather than the other of two competing sets of authorities.

This describes how the astronomer chooses to accept Swiderski and Terrada’s position over Tagar’s without providing any justification for doing so.

C

The argument takes for granted that the number of authorities supporting a particular hypothesis is an indication of how accurate that hypothesis is.

The astronomer never appeals to the number of experts who endorse a theory as evidence of its accuracy. We don’t know how many other authorities share either of the views discussed.

D

The argument appeals to views that contradict rather than support one another.

The astronomer only appeals to one view—Swiderski and Terrada’s—and assumes that it disproves Tagar’s. The flaw is failing to explain why it should be preferred over Tagar’s.

E

The argument presumes, without providing justification, that the opinions of all experts are equally justified.

The argument does the opposite of this, assuming that Swiderski and Terrada’s theory disproves Tagar’s. In doing so, it treats one opinion as more justified than another.

12 comments