Sections 4

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 04

August 16, 2012

Muriel: I admire Favilla’s novels, but she does not deserve to be considered a great writer. The point is that, no matter how distinctive her style may be, her subject matter is simply not varied enough.

John: I think you are wrong to use that criterion. A great writer does not need any diversity in subject matter; however, a great writer must at least have the ability to explore a particular theme deeply.

Summary

Muriel believes that Favilla is not a great writer, because her subject matter isn’t varied enough.

John states that having varied subject matter is not required to be a great writer. Rather, a great writer must have the ability to explore a theme deeply.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions

Favilla might be a great writer, even if her subject matter isn’t varied.

A

Even if the subject matter in Favilla’s writings is not particularly varied, she should not thereby be excluded from being considered a great writer.

Strongly supported, because John states that varied subject matter is not a requirement for being a great writer. So one can be a great writer even if one’s subject matter is not varied.

B

Even if Favilla cannot explore any particular theme deeply in her writings, she should not thereby be excluded from being considered a great writer.

This is anti-supported, because John states that ability to explore themes deeply is a requirement for being a great writer.

C

If Favilla has explored some particular theme exceptionally deeply in her writings, she deserves to be considered a great writer.

John doesn’t state what is sufficient to consider someone a great writer. He describes one necessary condition for being a great writer, but this doesn’t support a claim that someone deserves to be considered a great writer.

D

If the subject matter in Favilla’s writings were exceptionally varied, she would not deserve to be considered a great writer.

John does not state that having exceptionally varied subject matter prevents one from being a great writer.

E

If Favilla’s writings show no evidence of a distinctive style, she does not deserve to be considered a great writer.

John does not state that having a distinctive style is a requirement for being considered a great writer.

47 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 22 - Section 4 - Question 25

August 16, 2012

35 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 25

August 16, 2012

Essayist: Every contract negotiator has been lied to by someone or other, and whoever lies to anyone is practicing deception. But, of course, anyone who has been lied to has also lied to someone or other.

Summary

The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:

Notable Valid Inferences

Every contract negotiator has lied to someone, and therefore practiced deception. If a person has not practiced deception, they are not a contract negotiator.

A

Every contract negotiator has practiced deception.

This must be true. As shown below, by chaining the conditional claims, we see that all contract negotiators must have lied to someone and, in extension, have practiced deception.

B

Not everyone who practices deception is lying to someone.

This could be false. Practicing deception is not a sufficient condition for anything in our stimulus, which means there are no implications from knowing someone practices deception.

C

Not everyone who lies to someone is practicing deception.

This must be false. Whoever lies to anyone is practicing deception.

D

Whoever lies to a contract negotiator has been lied to by a contract negotiator.

This could be false. No information in the stimulus suggests that if someone lies to a contract negotiator they have been lied to by one in the past.

E

Whoever lies to anyone is lied to by someone.

This could be false. We know that anyone who has been lied to has lied to someone, but we don’t know if this conditional relationship goes both ways, as (E) suggests.

38 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 24 - Section 4 - Game 1

August 16, 2012

If you had trouble with this game, you should practice the other Games that are similar to this one (listed below). That way, you'll learn to see how the Logic Games really are all the same. That's how high scorers see them and that's how you can improve your speed, accuracy, and score.

Start with the Games in the same set as this Game. Then, work on the Games in the other sets.

The Basic In/Out Games Set
PT33-Game2 | PT40-Game4 | PT45-Game3 | PT58-Game2

The Basic+ In/Out Games Set
PT34-Game4 | PT41-Game3

The Medium In/Out Games Set
PT20-Game2 | PT39-Game4 | PT47-Game2 | PT58-Game4 | PT59-Game3

The Difficult In/Out Games Set
PT31-Game2 | PT32-Game2 | PT49-Game3

157 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 24 - Section 4 - Game 2

August 16, 2012

75 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 24 - Section 4 - Game 3

August 16, 2012

252 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 24 - Section 4 - Game 4

August 16, 2012

153 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 22 - Section 4 - Question 13

August 14, 2012

69 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 13

August 14, 2012

Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted. My support of this bill is motivated by a concern for public safety. Using a car phone seriously distracts the driver, which in turn poses a threat to safe driving. People would be deterred from using their car phones while driving if it were illegal to do so.

Summary

The author concludes that the bill should be adopted. This is because the bill would deter people from doing something that poses a threat to safe driving.

Missing Connection

We don’t have any premise that tells us when a bill should be adopted. So we want to get from what we learn in the existing premise — that the bill deters people from doing something that poses a threat to safe driving — to the idea that a bill should be adopted.

A

The more attention one pays to driving, the safer a driver one is.

(A) doesn’t establish when a bill should be adopted. So it can’t establish the conclusion.

B

The only way to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones is through legislation.

(B) establishes that SOME KIND of legislation is required in order to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones. But it doesn’t establish that THE SPECIFIC BILL referenced in the conclusion SHOULD be adopted. Just because legislation is required doesn’t mean THIS bill is required. And even if this bill were required, we still wouldn’t know that it SHOULD be adopted, because we don’t know that reducing threats to public safety are things that we should do.

C

Some distractions interfere with one’s ability to safely operate an automobile.

(C) doesn’t establish when a bill should be adopted. So it can’t establish the conclusion. (Don’t pick this answer just because you think it’s supported by the stimulus. This is not a Must Be True or Most Strongly Supported question.)

D

Any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted.

(D) establishes that if a proposed law (bill) would reduce a threat to public safety, then it should be adopted. We know from the premises that the bill referenced in the conclusion reduces a threat to public safety because it deters people from doing something that poses a threat (using car phones while driving). Based on (D) this bill should be adopted.

E

Car phone use by passengers does not distract the driver of the car.

(E) doesn’t establish when a bill should be adopted. So it can’t establish the conclusion.

73 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 35 - Section 4 - Question 14

August 9, 2012

36 comments