LSAT 152 - Section 4 - Question 07

January 22, 2019

Nutritionist: Contrary to popular belief, a high-calcium diet does not prevent osteoporosis (decrease in bone density). Rather, a low-protein diet with an abundance of fruits and vegetables and a minimum quantity of meat and dairy products is essential for the prevention of the condition. Weight-bearing exercise, such as walking or climbing stairs, is also essential, since bones thicken when they withstand regular resistance.

Summarize Argument

The nutritionist claims—with no support—that a high-calcium diet doesn’t prevent osteoporosis but a low-protein, low-meat, low-dairy, high-fruit-and-vegetable diet is essential for preventing it. She also claims that weight-bearing exercise is essential for the prevention of osteoporosis, and cites support: regular resistance causes bones to thicken.

Notable Assumptions

The nutritionist assumes weight-bearing exercise provides regular resistance not provided by non-weight-bearing exercise. Every incorrect answer will strengthen that assumption or offer support for her other claims—that a high-calcium diet doesn’t prevent osteoporosis, and that a low-protein, low-meat, low-dairy, high-fruit-and-vegetable diet is essential for preventing osteoporosis.

A
Astronauts who have lived in the weightless environment of space have exhibited decreases in bone density despite vigorous physical activity.

This supports the nutritionist’s assumption that weight-bearing exercise offers more regular resistance than non-weight-bearing exercise. It points out a group that exercised in a non-weight-bearing way and suffered high rates of osteoporosis.

B
Certain medical therapies that do not involve special diets can be effective means of preventing osteoporosis.

This implies a low-meat-and-dairy, high-fruit-and-vegetable diet isn’t actually necessary for preventing osteoporosis. It casts doubt on the nutritionist’s claim that such a diet is essential.

C
Populations in countries with the lowest per capita rates of protein consumption have some of the lowest incidences of osteoporosis.

This supports the nutritionist’s claim that low-protein diets are essential for preventing osteoporosis by pointing out a correlation between low protein intake and low rates of osteoporosis.

D
Arctic peoples, who consume large amounts of calcium, exhibit one of the highest rates of osteoporosis in the world.

This supports the nutritionist’s claim that high-calcium diets are not essential for preventing osteoporosis by pointing out a counterexample: one population with both high calcium consumption and high rates of osteoporosis.

E
The incidence of osteoporosis is unusually low among strict vegetarians with low-protein diets.

This supports the nutritionist’s claim that low-protein, low-meat diets are essential for preventing osteoporosis by pointing to an example: low-protein vegetarians, who suffer osteoporosis at low rates.


25 comments

LSAT 86 - Section 4 - Question 25

January 17, 2019

18 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 4 - Question 25

January 17, 2019

Editorial: Any democratic society is endangered by segmentation into classes of widely differing incomes between which there is little mobility. Such class divisions strengthen divisive political factions that stand in the way of good governance. Since economic expansion gives people more opportunities to improve their economic standing, democratic societies should adopt policies that ensure constant economic expansion.

Summarize Argument
The editorial concludes democracies should work to ensure constant economic expansion. Why? Because expansion gives people the opportunity to improve their economic standing, and economic classes that prevent people from improving their standing strengthen political divisions in democratic societies, making government worse.

Notable Assumptions
The editorial assumes a democracy is less likely to be segmented into classes if its people have better chances to improve their economic position. It also assumes that divisive political groups are less likely to stand in the way of good government if they’re weak, and that constant economic expansion wouldn’t create any new issues for good governance that outweigh its advantages.

A
Discord within a society tends to increase inequities in the distribution of wealth.
This doesn’t say eliminating discord reduces those inequities. In addition, the editorial doesn’t claim constant economic expansion will reduce the total amount of discord in a society—just that a failure to expand will cause divisive political factions to become stronger.
B
Political factions are sometimes willing to overlook their differences to back policies that are conducive to economic expansion.
This exception to the rule doesn’t disprove the rule. It doesn’t change the editorial’s premise that divisive political factions make good governance harder to achieve.
C
Economic expansion results in a proportionally greater increase in earnings for people at low income levels than for people at other income levels.
This strengthens the editorial’s assumption that improved economic mobility will make class divisions less stark. It rules out a damaging possibility: that economic expansion mostly helps higher-income people, making class divisions greater.
D
Economic expansion cannot occur unless there is significant financial investment in the economy by people at the highest income levels.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests that economic growth may be self-defeating in the long run, since reducing class divisions may reduce the number of very wealthy people willing to invest.
E
The presence of divisive political factions can be an obstacle to economic expansion.
This doesn’t address the editorial’s primary assumption: that improved economic mobility decreases class divisions. It suggests that failure to expand the economy is self-reinforcing, not that it leads to bad governance.

20 comments

LSAT 86 - Section 4 - Question 24

January 17, 2019

22 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 4 - Question 24

January 17, 2019

26 comments

LSAT 86 - Section 4 - Question 13

January 17, 2019

16 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 4 - Question 13

January 17, 2019

25 comments

LSAT 86 - Section 4 - Question 12

January 17, 2019

11 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 4 - Question 12

January 17, 2019

The Amazon River flows eastward into the Atlantic Ocean from its source in the western part of South America. The land through which the Amazon flows is now cut off from the Pacific Ocean to the west by the Andes Mountains. Yet certain freshwater fish that inhabit the Amazon are descended from now-extinct saltwater fish known to have inhabited the Pacific Ocean but not the Atlantic. For this reason, some scientists hypothesize that the Amazon River once flowed into the Pacific Ocean.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
Some scientists hypothesize that the Amazon River previously flowed into the Pacific Ocean, not the Atlantic Ocean. Why? Because some freshwater fish in the Amazon are descended from saltwater fish that lived in the Pacific but not the Atlantic, and the Andes Mountains currently separate the Amazon from the Pacific.

Notable Assumptions
The scientists assume some Amazon fish are descended from Pacific Ocean fish because the Amazon used to flow into the Pacific, and not for some other reason. This means assuming ancestors of the freshwater fish entered the Amazon when it flowed into the Pacific. It also means assuming the Andes Mountains prevent any fish from traveling from the Pacific Ocean to the Amazon River on its current route.

A
In many cases, species of freshwater and saltwater fish that share certain characteristics do not in fact share a common ancestor.
Since the Amazon fish are known to have descended from the Pacific-dwelling species, this is irrelevant. It doesn’t provide any new information suggesting the Amazon was once connected to the Pacific.
B
Most of the fossilized remains of the now-extinct saltwater fish from the Pacific Ocean date to a period prior to the formation of the Andes Mountains.
This confirms that the Pacific-dwelling species lived before the Andes separated the Amazon from the Pacific. It rules out the possibility that the Pacific-dwelling fish emerged when the Amazon was already inaccessible from the Pacific because of the Andes Mountains.
C
Many species of fish that inhabit the Atlantic Ocean are related to fish species that are known to inhabit the Pacific Ocean.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests an alternative hypothesis: that an intermediate descendant of the Pacific-dwelling species lived in the Atlantic, and served as an ancestor for the current freshwater species in the Amazon.
D
The Andes Mountains extend from the northernmost to the southernmost extremes of the South American continent.
This is irrelevant. It’s important only that the Andes cut off the Pacific from the Amazon—their precise geographical span doesn’t affect the argument.
E
There are very few fish species that are known to be able to survive in both fresh and salt water.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests it’s unlikely that saltwater fish from the Pacific entered the Amazon directly and descended into the present-day freshwater species.

11 comments

LSAT 86 - Section 4 - Question 11

January 17, 2019

15 comments

«‹535455565758596061626364656667686970717273›»