Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 132 - Section 4 - Question 09
May 13, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 132 - Section 4 - Question 10
May 13, 2012
Summarize Argument
The science journalist concludes that life has likely evolved on Europa, a moon of Jupiter. This is based on the claim that there is probably liquid water on Europa, and liquid water is necessary for life to evolve.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The science journalist confuses necessary and sufficient conditions, a cookie-cutter flaw. If liquid water is present on Europa, that would fulfill a necessary condition for life to evolve. However, liquid water might not be sufficient for life to evolve. Other factors might also be necessary, like the right temperature or geological conditions.
A
takes for granted that if a condition would be necessary for the evolution of life as we know it, then such life could not have evolved anywhere that this condition does not hold
This is an accurate description of the meaning of a “necessary condition,” and doesn’t constitute a flaw in the argument.
B
fails to address adequately the possibility that there are conditions necessary for the evolution of life in addition to the presence of liquid water
The argument takes the likely presence of one necessary condition (water) as making it likely that life has evolved on Europa. This overlooks the possibility that other factors are also necessary, and water, while necessary for life, is not sufficient.
C
takes for granted that life is likely to be present on Europa if, but only if, life evolved on Europa
The journalist is only talking about the likelihood of life evolving on Europa, not claiming that this is the only way for life to be present on Europa (for example, life could have migrated from somewhere else).
D
overlooks the possibility that there could be unfamiliar forms of life that have evolved without the presence of liquid water
The journalist isn’t claiming that the evolution of some unknown form of life on Europa would be impossible without water, only that water is necessary for “life as we know it.”
E
takes for granted that no conditions on Europa other than the supposed presence of liquid water could have accounted for the data transmitted by the spacecraft
The journalist isn’t claiming that liquid water is definitely present on Europa, only that it is the most likely explanation for the transmitted data.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 132 - Section 4 - Question 11
May 13, 2012
Summary
A bacterial species will develop greater resistance within a few years to any antibiotics used against it. The only exception to this inevitable development of greater resistance is when the antibiotics eliminates the bacterial species completely. But, no single antibiotic now on the market can eliminate bacterial species X completely.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If any single antibiotic currently on the market is used against bacterial species X, the species will develop greater resistance against that antibiotic.
A
It is unlikely that any antibiotic can be developed that will completely eliminate bacterial species X.
Unsupported. The stimulus tells us about antibiotics currently on the market. We don’t know about future antibiotics and their ability to kill bacterial species X completely.
B
If any antibiotic now on the market is used against bacterial species X, that species will develop greater resistance to it within a few years.
Strongly supported. We know no antibiotic currently on the market can kill X completely. So, if used against X, X will develop a resistance against that currently-on-the-market antibiotic.
C
The only way of completely eliminating bacterial species X is by a combination of two or more antibiotics now on the market.
Unsupported. We don’t know that this is the only way. Maybe another way is to develop a new antibiotic that can kill X completely. The stimulus doesn’t suggest this can’t be done.
D
Bacterial species X will inevitably become more virulent in the course of time.
Unsupported. The stimulus allows us to conclude that X will develop greater resistance to any currently-on-the-market antibiotic used against it. This doesn’t imply anything about the level of danger or harm (virulence) posed by X and whether it will change.
E
Bacterial species X is more resistant to at least some antibiotics that have been used against it than it was before those antibiotics were used against it.
Unsupported. We don’t know whether any antibiotics have ever been tried against X.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 132 - Section 4 - Question 12
May 13, 2012
Summarize Argument
Criticism by politicians that their opponents’ ideas are incomprehensible is insincere. Incomprehensible political agendas will not be realized because political mobilization requires many people to work with a common purpose. Every politician knows this. This implies that any politician would not actually promote their ideas incomprehensibly, making the criticism insincere.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s claim about criticizing political opponents for incomprehensible messaging: “Such criticism, however, is never sincere.”
A
People who promote political agendas in an incomprehensible manner should be regarded as insincere.
This misrepresents the argument. The criticism is what the political scientist calls insincere, not those who promote agendas incomprehensibly.
B
Sincere critics of the proponents of a political agenda should not focus their criticisms on the manner in which that agenda is promoted.
The author makes no claims about what sincere critics do. Additionally, the author only claims that criticisms about incomprehensibility are insincere. There could be other valid criticisms on the manner of promotion.
C
The ineffectiveness of a confusingly promoted political agenda is a reason for refraining from, rather than engaging in, criticism of those who are promoting it.
The political scientist simply claims that the criticism is insincere. He does not make claims about reasons to refrain or engage in the criticism.
D
A politician criticizing his or her political opponents for presenting their political agendas in an incomprehensible manner is being insincere.
This accurately paraphrases the conclusion. The political scientist says this type of criticism is insincere, therefore a politician who engages in it is being insincere.
E
To mobilize large numbers of people in support of a political agenda, that political agenda must be presented in such a way that it cannot be misunderstood.
This is support for why criticism about incomprehensibility is insincere. Political messaging must necessarily be understandable.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 132 - Section 4 - Question 13
May 13, 2012
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The argument concludes that organic factors which affect the symptoms of mental illnesses are not evenly distributed around the world. This is based on the claim that symptoms of mental illness that are known to be affected by organic factors vary greatly in different places around the world.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The argument overlooks alternative explanations for the variation of mental illness symptoms, other than uneven distribution of organic factors. Other environmental or systemic causes, like climate, culture, or healthcare, could also affect mental illness symptoms. Differences in these alternative factors could explain the global variation of symptoms.
A
does not say how many different mental illnesses are being discussed
There’s no need to specify how many different mental illnesses are being discussed in order to draw conclusions about the variation of certain symptoms of mental illness.
B
neglects the possibility that nutritional factors that contribute to deficiencies in compounds in the brain vary from culture to culture
This possibility is not neglected by the argument. It’s consistent with the argument’s conclusion that organic factors—such as deficiencies in compounds in the brain—vary across the globe.
C
fails to consider the possibility that cultural factors significantly affect how mental illnesses manifest themselves in symptoms
The argument fails to consider any explanations for the variation of mental illness symptoms around the world, other than uneven distribution of organic factors. Cultural factors that affect the manifestation of mental illness would be one plausible alternative.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that any change in brain chemistry manifests itself as a change in mental condition
The argument simply doesn’t claim that any change in brain chemistry manifests as a change in mental condition.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that mental phenomena are only manifestations of physical phenomena
The argument doesn’t claim that mental phenomena are only manifestations of physical phenomena, just that some mental phenomena (mental illness symptoms) are at least in part affected by certain physical phenomena (organic factors).
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 132 - Section 4 - Question 14
May 13, 2012
Summarize Argument
The politician concludes that privatizing national parks will benefit visitors. She reaches this conclusion by analogy: a privatization project in telecommunications benefited consumers.
Notable Assumptions
By appealing to the privatization of telecommunications, the politician assumes that there are no relevant difference between telecommunications and national parks. She also assumes that there’s some relevant analog to competition among telecommunications providers for national parks.
A
It would not be politically expedient to privatize the national parks even if doing so would, in the long run, improve service and reduce the fees charged to visitors.
It doesn’t matter what would be politically expedient. We care about whether or not it would benefit visitors.
B
The privatization of the telecommunications industry has been problematic in that it has led to significantly increased unemployment and economic instability in that industry.
Even if that’s true, it still benefited consumers. The politician concludes about how privatizing national parks would benefit visitors, so we don’t care about other problems privatization may cause.
C
The vast majority of people visiting the national parks are unaware of proposals to privatize the management of those parks.
We don’t care whether the visitors know the parks might be privatized. We care whether privatization would benefit them.
D
Privatizing the national parks would benefit a much smaller number of consumers to a much smaller extent than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.
It would still benefit visitors. This agrees with the politician’s conclusion.
E
The privatization of the national parks would produce much less competition between different companies than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.
Privatizing telecommunications benefitted consumers through increased competition, but that wouldn’t happen with national parks since there’s so little competition in the industry. Thus, the politician’s appeal to a supposedly analogous case isn’t valid.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 132 - Section 4 - Question 15
May 13, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 132 - Section 4 - Question 16
May 13, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 132 - Section 4 - Question 17
May 13, 2012
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did people who ate lots of beta-carotene in their food avoid deadly cancer and heart disease when people taking beta-carotene supplements experienced no changes to their health?
Objective
The correct answer must fail to explain why people in the two studies experienced such different health outcomes. Every wrong answer, meanwhile, will state a flaw in the studies’ designs or explain why people who eat foods rich in beta-carotene are less likely to die from cancer and heart disease than those who take a supplement.
A
The human body processes the beta-carotene present in foods much more efficiently than it does beta-carotene supplements.
This would explain the discrepancy. People who eat foods rich in beta-carotene process more of it than those who only take supplements.
B
Beta-carotene must be taken for longer than 12 years to have any cancer-preventive effects.
This would explain why people in the first study showed benefits while people in the second study did not. Those in the second study did not consume high levels of beta-carotene over a long enough period to achieve health benefits.
C
Foods rich in beta-carotene also tend to contain other nutrients that assist in the human body’s absorption of beta-carotene.
This would explain the discrepancy. People who eat foods rich in beta-carotene eat food also rich in other nutrients, and those nutrients cause the lower risk of deadly cancer and heart disease.
D
In the 12-year study, half of the subjects were given beta-carotene supplements and half were given a placebo.
This does not explain the discrepancy. The author states that people who took the supplements experienced no health benefits, regardless of the placebo group.
E
In the 24-year study, the percentage of the subjects who had a high intake of beta-carotene-rich foods who smoked cigarettes was much smaller than the percentage of the subjects with a low intake of beta-carotene-rich foods who smoked.
This would explain the discrepancy. People in the first study were less likely to die of cancer and heart disease because they were less likely to smoke cigarettes.