Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 122 - Section 4 - Question 10
April 21, 2012
Summary
If an artwork is great, it must express a deep emotion.
If an artwork expresses an emotion, that artwork’s creator must be capable of experiencing the emotion in question.
If an artwork expresses an emotion, that artwork’s creator must be capable of experiencing the emotion in question.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
If an artwork is great, its creator must be able to experience at least one emotion.
A
A computer can create an artwork that expresses sorrow or love only if it has actually experienced such an emotion.
Unsupported. We know that in order to create an artwork that expresses sorrow or love, a computer must be capable of experiencing that emotion. However, that doesn’t mean the computer needs to have actually experienced it.
B
The greatest art is produced by those who have experienced the deepest emotions.
Unsupported. Creators of great art must be able to experience deep emotion, but that doesn’t mean that the art’s level of greatness correlates with the depth of the creator’s emotions.
C
An artwork that expresses a deep emotion of its creator is a great artwork.
Unsupported. “Expresses deep emotion” is a necessary condition of “great artwork”, but it is not a sufficient condition. While every great artwork expresses deep emotion, that doesn’t mean that every artwork that expresses deep emotion is great.
D
As long as computers are constructed so as to be incapable of experiencing emotions they will not create great artworks.
Very strongly supported. As shown in the stimulus diagram, we can chain the conditional claims to see that “can experience emotion” is a necessary condition of “great artwork.” In other words, computers can only create great artwork if they’re able to experience emotion.
E
Only artworks that succeed in expressing deep emotions are the products of great artists.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t rule out the possibility that great artists sometimes produce unemotional (and therefore not great) artworks!
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 122 - Section 4 - Question 11
April 21, 2012Consumer activist: When antilock brakes were first introduced, it was claimed that they would significantly reduce the incidence of multiple-car collisions, thereby saving lives. Indeed, antilock brakes have reduced the incidence of multiple-car collisions. I maintain, however, that to save lives, automobile manufacturers ought to stop equipping cars with them.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
If antilock brakes have reduced the incidence of multiple-car collisions, why does the consumer activist maintain that, to save lives, automobile manufacturers ought to stop equipping cars with antilock brakes?
Objective
The correct answer must identify how manufacturing cars without antilock brakes could directly or indirectly save more lives than manufacturing cars with antilock brakes even though antilock brakes have reduced the occurrence of multiple-car collisions.
A
Drivers and passengers in automobiles with antilock brakes feel less vulnerable, and are thus less likely to wear seat belts.
If fewer people wear seat belts while driving with antilock brakes than without, the lack of seatbelt usage could cause more lost lives than the number of lives saved from the reduction in multiple-car collisions because of antilock brakes.
B
Under some circumstances, automobiles with traditional brakes stop just as quickly as do automobiles with antilock brakes.
The stimulus tells us that antilock brakes have led to a decrease in multiple-car collisions, so this is irrelevant.
C
For inexperienced drivers, antilock brakes are easier to use correctly than are traditional brakes.
The level of difficulty of correctly using antilock brakes doesn’t matter. We want to know why the consumer activist advises that, to save lives, automobile manufacturers ought to stop equipping cars with antilock brakes.
D
Antilock brakes are considerably more expensive to manufacture than are traditional brakes.
The cost of manufacturing antilock brakes is irrelevant. We need an answer that helps explain how producing cars without antilock brakes could save more lives than producing cars with antilock brakes.
E
Antilock brakes are no more effective in preventing multiple-car accidents than in preventing other kinds of traffic accidents.
The stimulus tells us that antilock brakes have led to a reduction in multiple-car accidents, so (E) doesn’t matter.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 122 - Section 4 - Question 12
April 21, 2012
A
fails to justify its presumption that profits sufficient to motivate very risky investments must be the highest among all industries
The author assumes that “sufficient profits” must be the “highest profits.” But perhaps oil profits are sufficient to motivate risky investments, even though they’re not the highest among all industries.
B
attacks the character of the oil companies rather than the substance of their conduct
The politician never attacks the character of oil companies, nor does she attack the substance of their conduct. She just argues that regulations don’t need to be tightened because oil companies’ profits aren’t high enough.
C
fails to justify its presumption that two events that are correlated must also be causally related
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing correlation for causation. The politician doesn’t make this mistake. Instead of a causal assumption, she makes a conditional assumption that is not supported in her argument.
D
treats the absence of evidence that the oil industry has the highest profits among all industries as proof that the oil industry does not have the highest profits among all industries
The politician does provide evidence in the form of “recent data” to support her claim that the oil industry does not have the highest profits among all industries.
E
illicitly draws a general conclusion from a specific example that there is reason to think is atypical
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization. The politician doesn’t make this mistake. She draws a specific conclusion about oil industry regulations based on evidence that is also about the oil industry.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 122 - Section 4 - Question 13
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 122 - Section 4 - Question 14
April 21, 2012
Summary
In older commercial airplanes, flight crew members could immediately see changes made in the plane’s flight control panel. However, in newer airplanes these changes are harder for crew members to see, therefore eliminating a means for cross-checks. As a result, flight crews operating newer airplanes must verbally inform each other about control panel changes much more often.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The frequency flight crew members must talk to each other about changes to a plane’s flight controls depends on what other means for communicating these changes are available.
A
How frequently an airplane’s flight crew members will inform each other verbally about flight control changes depends in large part on how long it takes to perform those changes.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus how long it takes for crew members to make any changes to a flight’s control.
B
In recently manufactured aircraft, the most valuable means available for performing cross-checks involves frequent verbal exchanges of information among the flight crew members.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the crew talking amongst themselves is “the most valuable means available” to them. There could exist other methods that weren’t mentioned and are more valuable.
C
In older commercial airplanes, in contrast to recently manufactured airplanes, flight crew members have no need to exchange information verbally about flight control changes.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know that crew members had no need to talk to each other in older airplanes. We only know from the stimulus that in newer airplanes, crew members must talk to each other more often.
D
The flight crew members operating a recently manufactured airplane cannot observe the flight control changes made by other crew members by viewing the control panel.
This answer is unsupported. We only know from the stimulus that, in newer airplanes, changes to the control panel are harder for crew members to see. Harder to see does not imply that these changes are impossible to see.
E
How often flight crew members must share information verbally about flight control changes depends in part on what other means for performing cross-checks are available to the crew.
This answer is strongly supported. The change in crew member’s ability to directly see changes in a flight’s control panel caused the crew members to talk with each other more frequently.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 122 - Section 4 - Question 15
April 21, 2012
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that an automobile-manufacturing factory could not postpone safety inspections under a proposed Act. This is because the Act would require all automobile-manufacturing factories to register as a class B factories. Furthermore, under the Act, a class B factory may not postpone inspections.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author draws a conclusion by combining two premises given by the Act. If a type of factory must be registered in a general class, then a given rule of that general class—in this case, punctual safety inspections—must apply to that type of factory.
A
pointing out how two provisions of the proposed Factory Safety Act jointly entail the unacceptability of a certain state of affairs
The author points out how two provisions—the classification of automobile manufacturers as class B factories, and the rule of timely inspections for class B factories—jointly entail the unacceptability of automobile manufacturers postponing inspections.
B
considering two possible interpretations of a proposed legal regulation and eliminating the less plausible one
The author does not consider different interpretations of the Act, but instead draws a definitive conclusion based on a single interpretation of the Act.
C
showing that the terms of the proposed Factory Safety Act are incompatible with existing legislation
The author doesn’t address any existing legislation other than the proposed Act.
D
showing that two different provisions of the proposed Factory Safety Act conflict and thus cannot apply to a particular situation
The author doesn’t show that two provisions of the Act conflict, but rather draws a conclusion based on how two compatible provisions interact.
E
pointing out that if a provision applies in a specific situation, it must apply in any analogous situation
The author doesn’t address any analogous situations, only specifically dealing with the timing of safety inspections for automobile manufacturers under the proposed Act.