Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 54 - Section 4 - Question 21
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 54 - Section 4 - Question 22
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 54 - Section 4 - Question 23
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 54 - Section 4 - Question 24
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 54 - Section 4 - Question 25
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 125 - Section 4 - Question 16
April 21, 2012
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Moon colonies will almost certainly be built, which will relieve overcrowding on Earth. This is based on the fact that as the human population goes up and the space available for housing on Earth goes down, the economic incentive to make Moon colonies will grow.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that if the economic incentive for Moon colonies grows, then Moon colonies will be built. This overlooks the possibility that Moon colonies might not be built, even if there’s a growing economic incentive to build them. Having an incentive to do something merely means that you have a reason to do it. Even if that reason becomes more compelling, that doesn’t guarantee you’ll take the action.
A
It takes for granted that the economic incentive to construct colonies on the Moon will grow sufficiently to cause such a costly project to be undertaken.
If the incentive does not grow enough to cause the Moon colonies to be built, then that shows we cannot conclude the colonies will be built simply based on the incentive. So, the author does have to assume what (A) describes in order for the premise to support the conclusion.
B
It takes for granted that the only way of relieving severe overcrowding on Earth is the construction of colonies on the Moon.
The author does not assume there are no other ways to relieve overcrowding on Earth. The author’s position is simply that Moon colonies will be among the methods used to relieve overcrowding, not that other methods won’t be tried.
C
It overlooks the possibility that colonies will be built on the Moon regardless of any economic incentive to construct such colonies to house some of the population.
The conclusion is that the colonies will be built, so agreeing that they’ll be built doesn’t hurt the argument. (C) could be correct if the conclusion were that the colonies will be built because of the incentive. But, the incentive part is in the premise, not the conclusion.
D
It overlooks the possibility that colonies on the Moon might themselves quickly become overcrowded.
This possibility doen’t undermine the argument, becaue the conclusion only concerns overcrowding on Earth. Even if the Moon becomes overcrowded, there would still be at least some relief from overcrowding on Earth due to the Moon colonies.
E
It takes for granted that none of the human population would prefer to live on the Moon unless Earth were seriously overcrowded.
The argument doesn’t assume anything about people’s preferences. There might be some people who prefer to live on the Moon right now, even when Earth isn’t overcrowded. That wouldn’t impact the relationship between an economic incentive and the building of the colonies.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 125 - Section 4 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 125 - Section 4 - Question 18
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 125 - Section 4 - Question 19
April 21, 2012
A
having exceptional lung capacity and an exceptionally powerful heart is an advantage in cycling
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument’s reasoning. The author may agree that these qualities give one an advantage in cycling.
B
some winners of the Tour de France have neither exceptional lung capacity nor exceptionally powerful hearts
This possibility, if true, shows that last year’s winner doesn’t have to have an exceptional lung capacity. It’s possible that they had neither an exceptionally powerful heart nor exceptional lung capacity.
C
cyclists with normal lung capacity rarely have exceptionally powerful hearts
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument, because it doesn’t relate to whether someone without an exceptionally powerful heart will have an exceptional lung capacity.
D
the exceptional lung capacity and exceptionally powerful hearts of Tour de France winners are due to training
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument. The author could agree that these features are due to training.
E
the notions of exceptional lung capacity and exceptional heart function are relative to the physiology of most cyclists
The author concludes that last year’s winner has exceptional lung capacity. Whether this is relative to most cyclists doesn’t change the fact that the author still believes last year’s winner has exceptional lung capacity, because they don’t have an exceptionally powerful heart.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 125 - Section 4 - Question 20
April 21, 2012
Summarize Argument
The meteorologist concludes that his station’s weather predictions are better than its competitors. This is because the majority of times they predicted rain, it rained. The station’s competitors have not been accurate most of the time.
Notable Assumptions
The meteorologist assumes that prediction accuracy is an effective indicator of usefulness and reliability. For example, it could be that the meteorologist's station has only predicted it would rain three times in a given year and it rained two out of those three times, while the competitors predicted it would rain 100 times and it rained 49 out of those 100 times. While the meteorologist’s station may be more accurate, it is not more useful or reliable. The author also assumes a conclusion about weather forecasts broadly using facts about rain—maybe people also care about whether it will snow.
A
The meteorologist’s station forecast rain more often than did the most popular news station in the area.
This strengthens the argument by addressing a potential weakness. It provides additional information that reinforces the meteorologist's assumption that the proportions he compares are comparable, as his station is more accurate even with a larger number of predictions.
B
The less popular of the competing stations does not employ any full-time meteorologists.
This does not affect the argument. How many meteorologists a station employs and their status of employment (i.e., whether they’re full-time, part-time, etc.) does not provide us with information about how reliable or useful their station is in predicting the weather.
C
The most popular news station in the area is popular because of its investigative news reports.
This does not affect the argument. A station being able to put on a good investigative news report doesn’t tell us anything about its weather prediction abilities.
D
The meteorologist’s station has a policy of not making weather forecasts more than three days in advance.
This does not affect the argument. We don’t know if this policy affects the station’s accuracy, and we have no reason to believe that all its competitors don’t share this policy.
E
On most of the occasions when the meteorologist’s station forecast that it would not rain, at least one of its competitors also forecast that it would not rain.
This does not affect the argument. It could be that on all the days the station predicted it would not rain its competitors predicted the same—but still, the station has a higher accuracy of predicting rain on the days it rained. This doesn’t change anything for the argument.