Sections 4

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 143 - Section 4 - Question 19

May 13, 2012

Principle: When none of the fully qualified candidates for a new position at Arvue Corporation currently works for that company, it should hire the candidate who would be most productive in that position.

Application: Arvue should not hire Krall for the new position, because Delacruz is a candidate and is fully qualified.

Summary

The conclusion is that Arvue should not hire Krall for the new position.
Why? Because of the following:
Rule: If none of the fully qualified candidates for a new position currently works for Arvue, Arvue should hire the candidate who would be most productive in the position.
Delacruz is a candidate for the position and is fully qualified.

Missing Connection

We want to prove that Arvue should not hire Krall. The only way to do that with the given rule is to have the rule trigger, and then for Krall to NOT be the person who would be the most productive in the position.
To trigger the rule, we want to know that NONE of the fully qualified candidates (such as Delacruz), currently works for Arvue.
In addition, we want to know that someone else besides Arvue would be the most productive. This way, we can conclude the company should hire the other person instead of Arvue.

A

All of the candidates are fully qualified for the new position, but none already works for Arvue.

(A) establishes that the rule triggers, but we don’t know who is the most productive. Thus, (A) doesn’t prove that we shouldn’t hire Krall. Maybe Krall would be the most productive.

B

Of all the candidates who do not already work for Arvue, Delacruz would be the most productive in the new position.

(B) doesn’t establish that the rule triggers. We don’t know that none of the fully qualified candidates currently works for Arvue. It’s possible one of the candidates who’s fully qualified works for Arvue; in that case, the rule doesn’t apply, and we don’t have any basis to conclude that someone should or should not be hired.

C

Krall works for Arvue, but Delacruz is the candidate who would be most productive in the new position.

(C) doesn’t establish that the rule triggers. It’s possible one of the fully qualified candidates currently works for Arvue; in that case, the rule doesn’t apply, and we don’t have any basis to conclude that someone should or should not be hired.

D

Several candidates currently work for Arvue, but Krall and Delacruz do not.

(D) doesn’t establish that the rule triggers. It’s possible one of the fully qualified candidates currently works for Arvue; in that case, the rule doesn’t apply, and we don’t have any basis to conclude that someone should or should not be hired.

E

None of the candidates already works for Arvue, and Delacruz is the candidate who would be most productive in the new position.

(E) establishes that the rule triggers, because none of the candidates (including any fully qualified candidates) already works for Arvue. So Arvue should hire the most productive candidate, then. And since Delacruz is the most productive (which implies that Krall isn’t), that means Arvue should hire Delacruz and NOT Krall.

37 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 138 - Section 4 - Question 15

May 13, 2012

Camille: Manufacturers of water-saving faucets exaggerate the amount of money such faucets can save. Because the faucets handle such a low volume of water, people using them often let the water run longer than they would otherwise.

Rebecca: It is true that showering now takes longer. Nevertheless, I have had lower water bills since I installed a water-saving faucet. Thus, it is not true that the manufacturers’ claims are exaggerated.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Rebecca concludes that manufacturers don’t overestimate how much money their faucets save users because she’s paid less on her water bills since she started using one of their faucets.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The problem here is that we still don’t know what the manufacturers’ claims were. In order to conclude that their claims are not exaggerated, Rebecca would need to prove that she’s saved as much as they claimed she would, but they may have claimed that their faucets save significantly more money than Rebecca’s have. Her water costs decreasing by an unspecified amount does not prove that the manufacturers gave accurate savings estimates.

A

the cost of installing her water-saving faucet was less than her overall savings on her water bill

It’s irrelevant how her overall savings compare to the installation cost. All that matters is how her savings compare to the manufacturer’s claims.

B

she saved as much on her water bills as the manufacturers’ claims suggested she would

This describes Rebecca’s failure to establish how her savings compare to the manufacturers’ claims. Her argument fails if she’s saved less than the manufacturers claimed she would.

C

the manufacturers’ claims about the savings expected from the installation of water-saving faucets are consistent with one another

Rebecca assumes nothing about how the manufacturers’ estimates compare to each other. She assumes that their claims are consistent with how much she saved.

D

people who use water-saving faucets are satisfied with the low volume of water handled by such faucets

Rebecca’s argument is only concerned with the accuracy of the manufacturer’s savings estimates, not whether customers are satisfied or not.

E

installing more water-saving faucets in her house would increase her savings

Rebecca doesn’t make any claim about what would hypothetically happen if she installed more faucets. She only claims that the manufacturers didn’t exaggerate.

15 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 138 - Section 4 - Question 16

May 13, 2012

Company spokesperson: In lieu of redesigning our plants, our company recently launched an environmental protection campaign to buy and dispose of old cars, which are generally highly pollutive. Our plants account for just 4 percent of the local air pollution, while automobiles that predate 1980 account for 30 percent. Clearly, we will reduce air pollution more by buying old cars than we would by redesigning our plants.

Summarize Argument

The company spokesperson concludes that the company will reduce air pollution more by buying old cars than it would by redesigning its plants. She supports this by saying that, while the company’s plants account for 4% of local air pollution, automobiles from before 1980 account for 30%.

Notable Assumptions

The company spokesperson assumes a net benefit of disposing of old cars without considering any costs, like how car disposal methods might impact pollution. She also doesn’t consider other factors that might reduce the benefits of the plan, like how many old cars and what kinds of old cars must be disposed of to make a real impact. She also doesn’t address any long-term benefits of redesigning the plants, other than addressing 4% of local air pollution, that might outweigh the benefits of disposing of old cars.

A

Only 1 percent of the automobiles driven in the local area predate 1980.

We know that cars that predate 1980 account for 30% of local air pollution. Even if only 1% of local cars predate 1980, that 1% still accounts for 30% of local air pollution. Thus, (A) doesn’t point out an unaddressed factor that would reduce the benefit of car disposal.

B

It would cost the company over $3 million to reduce its plants’ toxic emissions, while its car-buying campaign will save the company money by providing it with reusable scrap metal.

The spokesperson’s conclusion is about how the company will most effectively reduce local air pollution. Whether the company also saves money in the process is irrelevant.

C

Because the company pays only scrap metal prices for used cars, almost none of the cars sold to the company still run.

This highlights an unaddressed factor that greatly reduces the benefit of the car disposal plan. Cars that aren't running don’t contribute to air pollution. So, if most of the cars the company buys aren't running, the company is not effectively reducing local air pollution.

D

Automobiles made after 1980 account for over 30 percent of local air pollution.

The spokesperson’s argument only addresses the pollution caused by cars made before 1980. The pollution caused by cars made after 1980 is irrelevant.

E

Since the company launched its car-buying campaign, the number of citizen groups filing complaints about pollution from the company’s plants has decreased.

Citizen complaints about pollution don’t necessarily reflect the actual amount of pollution. The spokesperson's argument is about which method will best reduce pollution, not which will best reduce citizen complaints.

34 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 138 - Section 4 - Question 17

May 13, 2012

36 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 138 - Section 4 - Question 18

May 13, 2012

9 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 138 - Section 4 - Question 20

May 13, 2012

38 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 138 - Section 4 - Question 21

May 13, 2012

28 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 138 - Section 4 - Question 22

May 13, 2012

61 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 138 - Section 4 - Question 23

May 13, 2012

40 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 138 - Section 4 - Question 24

May 13, 2012

Mammals cannot digest cellulose and therefore cannot directly obtain glucose from wood. Mushrooms can, however; and some mushrooms use cellulose to make highly branched polymers, the branches of which are a form of glucose called beta-glucans. Beta-glucan extracts from various types of mushrooms slow, reverse, or prevent the growth of cancerous tumors in mammals, and the antitumor activity of beta-glucans increases as the degree of branching increases. These extracts prevent tumor growth not by killing cancer cells directly but by increasing immune-cell activity.

Summary

Mammals cannot absorb glucose from wood because they cannot digest cellulose. However, mushrooms can digest cellulose and some mushrooms use it to make branches of polymers that form a type of glucose called beta-glucans. Beta-glucan extracts from some types of mushrooms prevent cancerous tumors from growing in mammals. This antitumor activity increases as the degree of branching increases. Beta-glucan extracts kill cancer cells by increasing immune-cell activity, not by killing cancer cells directly.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

The more branching that occurs in the production of beta-glucans, the stronger the effect of increasing immune-cell activity.

A

Mammals obtain no beneficial health effects from eating cellulose.

We don’t know if mammals receive no beneficial health effects from eating cellulose. We only know that mammals cannot digest cellulose.

B

If extracts from a type of mushroom slow, reverse, or prevent the growth of cancerous tumors in mammals, then the mushroom is capable of using cellulose to make beta-glucans.

We only know that the reverse of this relationship is true in some instances. It is possible that there is a type of mushroom that does not produce beta-glucans but also produces antitumor extracts.

C

The greater the degree of branching of beta-glucans, the greater the degree of immune-cell activity it triggers in mammals.

We know that the greater degree of branching, the greater degree of antitumor activity. Since antitumor activity is also strongly correlated with immune-cell activity, we can effectively say that the more branching, the more immune-cell activity.

D

Immune-cell activity in mammals does not prevent tumor growth by killing cancer cells.

We only know that beta-glucans do not kill cancer cells directly. It is possible that a mammal’s immune cells prevent tumors by killing cancer cells directly.

E

Any organism capable of obtaining glucose from wood can use cellulose to make beta-glucans.

We don’t know whether any organism could do this. We only know that mushrooms are one example of an organism capable of obtaining glucose from wood and then using cellulose to make beta-glucans.

26 comments