Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 49 - Section 4 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 122 - Section 4 - Question 01
April 21, 2012
A
presumes, without providing justification, that the government is at least partly responsible for the improvement in the employment situation
The author never makes any claims or assumptions about whether the government is responsible for the improvement in unemployment. In fact, she doesn’t say anything about the government at all.
B
relies on data from a period that is too short to justify an inference about a general trend
The author relies on data from a two-year period to support her conclusion about that same two-year period. She doesn’t use it to justify an overly broad conclusion.
C
fails to take into account the possibility that many unemployed workers who still desire jobs may have stopped looking for jobs
This points out an alternative explanation for the decrease in the number of unemployed people actively looking for jobs. Perhaps there are still many unemployed people who want jobs, they just stopped actively looking.
D
fails to take into account that the sorts of governmental efforts that reduce unemployment may not be effective in creating more high-paying jobs
The argument doesn’t address governmental efforts at all, nor does it address whether certain jobs are high-paying.
E
ignores other economic indicators, which may not have improved during the past two years
The author may not discuss other economic indicators, but her conclusion is specifically about unemployment in the city, not about the economy in general. (E) fails to address why the author’s cited study doesn’t support the conclusion that unemployment is improving.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 122 - Section 4 - Question 02
April 21, 2012
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that eating garlic reduces cholesterol and triglycerides in the blood, thus reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. As evidence, she cites a study showing that people who took a garlic tablet had a larger reduction in cholesterol and triglycerides than people who took a medically inert tablet.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that cholesterol and triglycerides levels in the blood are causally related to the risk of cardiovascular disease. She also assumes that the people who took the garlic tablet derived some benefit from the garlic rather than from the fact they knew they were taking a medication, which itself relies on the assumption the other group knew they were taking a medically inert tablet. Finally, the author assumes garlic and not some third factor caused the reduction in cholesterol and triglycerides levels.
A
whether the garlic tablets are readily available to the public
We don’t care if most people are able to easily access garlic tablets. We care about the link between garlic and a reduction in cholesterol and triglycerides levels in the blood.
B
what the diets of the two groups were during the period
If the two groups ate similar diets, that would strengthen the author’s argument by ruling out a possible cause of the reduction in cholesterol and triglycerides levels. If not, then perhaps the garlic-tablet group was eating something that lowered those levels.
C
what effect taking the garlic tablets each day for a period of less than four months had on the levels of cholesterol and triglycerides
Even if the effects of garlic don’t kick in until four months, those effects still exist and can contribute to a reduction in the risk of heart disease. The author never claims those effects have to be immediate.
D
whether large amounts of garlic are well tolerated by all patients
The author isn’t recommending garlic for all patients. She’s simply claiming a causal connection between garlic and lower cholesterol and triglycerides levels in the blood.
E
whether the manufacturer of the garlic tablets cites the study in its advertising
Irrelevant. Even if they cite the study, that study may still be accurate.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 122 - Section 4 - Question 03
April 21, 2012Educator: If there is a crisis in education today, it is one of maintaining quality. People love to reduce serious learning to degrees and certificates. But one also can obtain these credentials by plodding through courses without ever learning much of value. When that happens, the credentials one receives are almost meaningless.
Summary
Crisis in education today→ crisis of maintaining quality
People love to reduce serious learning to degrees and certificates
It is possible to obtain degrees and certificates without learning much of value.
Earned certificates or degrees by plodding through courses without learning→ those credentials or degrees are almost meaningless.
Notable Valid Inferences
It is possible to obtain degrees and certificates without learning much of value.
A
Increasingly, institutions are granting meaningless degrees and certificates.
This could be false. We are given criteria to describe meaningless credentials; we don’t know how many meaningless credentials are granted or if the rate of granting meaningless credentials is increasing.
B
It has become easier for students to complete their coursework without learning anything of importance.
This could be false. It is possible that plodding through courses is difficult––the stimulus gives no information on how easy something is.
C
Educational institutions should cease to grant degrees and certificates.
This could be false. The stimulus does not contain any recommendation for the actions that educational institutions should take.
D
Degrees and certificates do not guarantee that a person has acquired much worthwhile knowledge.
This must be true. From the stimulus, we know that it is possible to obtain degrees and certificates without learning much of value.
E
A person benefits from an education only to the extent that he or she invests effort in it.
This could be false. The stimulus does not specify under what conditions one benefits from an education.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 122 - Section 4 - Question 04
April 21, 2012
Summarize Argument
The essayist concludes that the press should stop writing about politicians’ private lives. This is for three reasons: no one wants their private lives to be published, the threat of an exposed private life makes politics as a career unattractive, and the practice makes reporters behave poorly. These reasons support the sub-conclusion that politicians deserve protection from intrusive media.
Notable Assumptions
The essayist assumes that there are no benefits to an intrusive press that would be lost if this intrusiveness was stopped—maybe the threat of an intrusive press weeds out candidates who aren’t serious about the job. Furthermore, the essayist assumes that a politician’s personal life can be separated from his professional life enough to report on the latter without discussing the former.
A
The press is unusually inaccurate when it reports on people’s private lives.
This strengthens the argument by offering an additional premise: that the press publishes false information about candidates’ personal lives. This strengthens the conclusion that the practice of publishing this kind of news should be stopped.
B
Reporting on politicians’ private lives distracts voters from more important issues in a campaign.
This strengthens the argument by offering an additional premise: not only is this type of publishing harmful to politicians, it is also harmful to voters and presumably, democracy.
C
Much writing on politicians’ private lives consists of rumors circulated by opposing candidates.
This strengthens the argument by introducing the idea that this form of news is weaponized by opposing candidates for political purposes. This strengthens the conclusion that it should be stopped.
D
In recent elections, the best local politicians have refused to run for national office because of the intrusiveness of press coverage.
This strengthens the argument. It reinforces the essayist’s premise that talented people are dissuaded from running for politics because of the threat the media poses to their private lives.
E
Politicians’ personality flaws often ultimately affect their performance on the job.
This weakens the argument. It attacks the essayist’s assumption that the private lives of politicians—which include their character flaws—do not affect, and are separable from, their professional lives.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 122 - Section 4 - Question 05
April 21, 2012
Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
If someone is seriously interested in the biological sciences and does not have a special love for animals, then they are not a prominent veterinarian.
Some people with a devoted interest in biology chose their profession primarily because of love for animals.
Some people with a devoted interest in biology chose their profession primarily because of love for animals.
A
Some veterinarians have a greater love for biological science than for individual animals.
This could be true. The stimulus does not provide any information that compares how much veterinarians love these two things.
B
Most veterinarians love animals and have an interest in biological science.
This could be true. We do know that some veterinarians love animals and are interested in biology; it could be true that this is the case for most veterinarians.
C
Prominent veterinarians at some veterinary research centers are intensely devoted to the biological sciences but do not feel any pronounced affection for animals.
This must be false. We know that if someone doesn’t love animals and is intensely interested in biology, then they are not a prominent veterinarian.
D
Few veterinarians at university research centers chose their profession primarily because they love animals.
This could be true. We know that most veterinarians as a whole chose their profession primarily because they love animals, but we don’t know the quantity of veterinarians at university research centers who did so.
E
Most veterinarians who are not prominent regard an understanding of the biological sciences as the most important quality for success in their profession.
This could be true. The stimulus does not talk about what anyone considers the most important quality for success in their profession.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 122 - Section 4 - Question 06
April 21, 2012
A
fails to show that the mythical creature mentioned represents the horse in people’s minds
This highlights the assumption that the violence of centaurs represents horses, not humans. But since centaurs are half horse, half human, their violence might actually represent humans. This is even supported by “the nobility and gentleness traditionally ascribed to the horse.”
B
fails to consider that people might have good reason to fear horses
The author doesn’t fail to consider this. The claim that centaurs reflect an unconscious fear of horses doesn’t mean that people didn’t still have good reasons for their unconscious fear.
C
confuses the expression of unconscious thoughts with the suppression of them
The author argues that the centaur myth was an expression of people’s unconscious fear of horses. She doesn’t talk about the suppression of unconscious thoughts.
D
fails to demonstrate that the myth was not borrowed from one of the cultures by the others
The argument says that the centaur myth appeared apparently independently across cultures. But even if the myth was borrowed from one culture by the others, it wouldn’t affect the argument that it represents an unconscious fear of horses.
E
fails to explain why people use myth for the expression of unconscious thoughts
The author doesn’t explain why people use myth to express unconscious thoughts, but she doesn’t need to explain it and it wouldn’t affect her argument anyway.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 122 - Section 4 - Question 07
April 21, 2012
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The editorialist concludes that we should investigate the safety of the chemicals used to treat lumber. The editorialist concedes that it may seem like potential harms of these chemicals would be reduced by the fact that lumber is used outside where fumes cannot accumulate. However, to support his claim, the editorialist references two examples where consumers may ingest the chemicals: when children play on playgrounds, and when the lumber is used to contain soil in gardens. In these cases, there is a risk that chemicals could be ingested, which supports the editorialist’s conclusion that these chemicals’ risks should be studied.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that the risks of chemicals used to treat lumber should be investigated: “Immediate steps should be taken to determine the safety of these chemicals since consumers could ingest them.
A
The chemicals used in treated lumber are apparently not dangerous to the consumer.
This is context for the argument, not the main conclusion. The editorialist argues that despite the apparent lack of danger, we should research these chemicals.
B
Treated lumber is as dangerous when used outdoors as it is when used indoors.
This kind of comparative statement is not supported by the argument, so this is not the main conclusion.
C
The effects on humans from the chemicals in treated lumber should be studied.
This is the main conclusion. The editorialist’s claim is a recommendation to study the chemicals used to treat lumber; the two examples given act as support for this claim.
D
Parents should not allow children to put their mouths on playground equipment.
While this may be supported by the argument, the editorialist is not making recommendations for parents. This is not the main conclusion. The purpose of the example about children was to illustrate a potential danger of the chemicals.
E
Treated lumber is more dangerous than was once believed.
The editorialist is not making a claim on the danger of treated lumber; he is just addressing a possibility of danger that should be investigated further.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 122 - Section 4 - Question 08
April 21, 2012
Summarize Argument
The author argues that pollen analysis can help determine which geographical regions ancient relics moved through. This is because relics can be linked to certain regions due to having pollen traces from plants unique to those regions.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that if pollen on the surface of a relic signifies a certain geographical region, then the relic in question has passed through that region at some point. This means the author assumes there’s no other way for a relic to collect pollen samples than by passing through a region. It also means the author assumes that there’s no way for pollen unique to one area to be collected in a different region.
A
Pollens are often transported from one region to another by wind or human movement.
Since pollens unique to one region often end up in another, it would be tough to tell which regions a relic has passed through based on the pollen that clings to its surface. This weakens the author’s contention that pollen is generally a useful clue.
B
There are several less complicated methods of determining the history of the movement of an object than the analysis and identification of pollen.
Even if the pollen method is complicated, it may still be useful. We need something that tells us it either isn’t useful, or that it’s usefulness is seriously limited.
C
Many types of pollen were common to several geographical regions in the ancient world.
The stimulus deals with pollen types unique to certain regions. We don’t care about ones common to several geographical regions.
D
Data are scarce as to the geographical distribution of the pollens of many ancient plants.
This casts some doubt on the author’s argument. However, “many” is too weak to say the pollen analysis technique wouldn’t nevertheless be helpful for assessing the regions some ancient relics moved through, even if the data on pollen distribution isn’t entirely complete.
E
Pollen analysis is a painstaking process that is also expensive to conduct.
We don’t care how feasible pollen analysis is. We’re concerned with whether or not we can draw certain conclusions from its results.