Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 14
August 9, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 27 - Section 4 - Question 18
August 8, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 104 - Section 4 - Question 18
August 8, 2012
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that today, more than in the past, publishers are even more interested in making money than in publishing books demonstrating intrinsic merit. This is because there’s been a decline in the number of books of intrinsic merit that are published.
Notable Assumptions
There’s no other explanation for the decline in the number of books of intrinsic merit being published aside from an increase in the publishers’ interest in making money.
A
Book publishers have always been very interested in making money.
The author never denied that publishers were very interested in making money in the past. The author’s point is just that their desire for money has increased.
B
There has been a notable decline in the quality of books written in recent years.
This provides an alternate explanation for the decline in publication of books of intrinsic merits. If there’s been a decline in the quality of books written, that could reasonably mean there are fewer books of intrinsic merit available for publication.
C
In the past, often books of intrinsic value would unexpectedly make a sizable profit.
If the profits were “unexpected,” the publishers didn’t know which books of intrinsic merit would lead to profits. So, we can’t read (C) as suggesting that the past publication of books of intrinsic merit was due to a desire to make profit.
D
There have always been authors unwilling to be published unless a profit is guaranteed.
This answer doesn’t suggest any reason to think there’s been an increase in the number of authors unwilling to publish. So, this doesn’t explain a decrease in the number of books of intrinsic merit being published.
E
In recent years, profits in the book publishing industry have been declining.
This doesn’t provide an alternate explanation for a decline in the publication of books of intrinsic merit. If anything, it could support the author’s theory by suggesting that declining profits might have lead publishers to become more competitve and more concerned about money.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 27 - Section 4 - Question 25
August 7, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 104 - Section 4 - Question 25
August 7, 2012
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that some reporter can scoop all of the other reporters. This is based on the following:
All that any reporter knows about the accident is what the press agent said.
If the agent told every reporter everything, then each reporter knows the same amount as every other reporter.
If each reporter knows the same amount as every other reporter, a scoop is not possible.
But, the press agent did not tell every reporter everything.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that if the agent did not tell every reporter everything, that at least one reporter knows more than every other reporter. This assumption is faulty because it’s possible each reporter still knows the same amount as every other reporter, even if the agent withheld some information.
A
The press agent did not tell everything about the accident to any reporter.
This possibility doesn’t show why the reasoning is flawed. One reporter can still know more than all others, even if nobody knows everything. So this doesn’t show why a reporter might not be able to scoop the others.
B
Even if some reporter knows more about the accident than all of the other reporters, that reporter need not scoop any other reporter.
Whether a reporter “needs” to or will scoop others is irrelevant. The argument concerns whether at least one reporter “can,” meaning has the ability to, scoop other reporters. A reporter might have the ability to scoop others, even if they don’t actually scoop the others.
C
Some reporter may have been told something about the accident that the reporter tells all of the other reporters.
This possibility does not show why the argument is flawed. If one reporter shares something they were told to all other reporters, it’s still possible for one reporter to know more than all the others. So (C) doesn’t show why scooping might not be possible.
D
The press agent may not know any more about the accident than the most knowledgeable reporter.
This possibility does not show why the argument is flawed. One reporter can still know more than all others, even if that reporter doesn’t know more than the press agent. So (D) doesn’t show why scooping might not be possible.
E
No reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter.
If this possibility were true, then it’s impossible for one reporter to scoop another, because each reporter would know the same amount as every other reporter. The agent might not have told everything, but the reporters can still end up knowing the same information.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 27 - Section 4 - Question 24
August 6, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 104 - Section 4 - Question 24
August 6, 2012
Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
Scientists are super confused about penicillin-resistant bacteria in patients who don’t use penicillin. (Their confusion implies that resistance normally only occurs when people use penicillin.) However, the scientists have a solution: the bacteria are being naturally selected by mercury instead. This is supported by the bacteria being immune to mercury poisoning. We also learn that mercury-resistance genes are related to penicillin-resistance genes. Finally, the patients in question have mercury in their cavity fillings, giving us a source of mercury exposure.
Identify Argument Part
The assumption that some patients who take penicillin develop bacteria with an immunity to penicillin is part of what makes penicillin resistance without exposure to penicillin confusing.
A
It is a hypothesis that is taken by the scientists to be conclusively proven by the findings described in the passage.
Nothing in the argument is taken to prove a hypothesis that penicillin use can lead to penicillin-resistant bacteria. It’s also not a hypothesis at all, it’s an assumption that’s taken for granted and treated as a fact.
B
It is a generalization that, if true, rules out the possibility that some people who do not take penicillin develop bacteria resistant to it.
The scientists do not believe that penicillin leading to resistance would mean that penicillin is the only way to create resistance. The entire argument is based on the belief that some other factor could lead to resistance, and the scientists just have to figure out what.
C
It is a point that, in conjunction with the fact that some patients who do not take penicillin develop penicillin-resistant bacteria, generates the problem that prompted the research described in the passage.
This is exactly what the assumption about penicillin causing resistance does in the argument. It’s the reason that resistance in the absence of penicillin is confusing, leading to the scientists doing this research in the first place.
D
It is the tentative conclusion of previous research that appears to be falsified by the scientists’ discovery of the mechanism by which bacteria become resistant to mercury poisoning.
Nothing in this argument falsifies anything else. Mercury causing penicillin resistance doesn’t mean that penicillin can’t also cause penicillin resistance. Both are treated as compatible.
E
It is a generalization assumed by the scientists to conclusively prove that the explanation of their problem case must involve reference to the genetic makeup of the penicillin-resistant bacteria.
This is a trap; complicated does not mean correct. The assumption that penicillin can cause resistance doesn’t prove anything. It’s context for why the scientists are confused to start with.