Sections 4

LSAT 152 - Section 4 - Question 20

January 13, 2019

Coming up with secure passwords for confidential computer files is difficult. Users prefer passwords that are easy to remember, such as birth dates or relatives’ names. Unfortunately, these are the easiest to guess for an outsider who wants to gain access to valuable information. Random configurations of letters and numbers are the hardest to guess, but these are also the easiest for legitimate users to forget. Users who forget their passwords use up the system administrator’s time; furthermore, passwords that are very difficult to remember are generally written down by users, and hence pose the greatest security threat of all.

Summary

Creating secure passwords for confidential computer files is difficult. Users prefer passwords that are easy to remember. Unfortunately, these passwords are the easiest to guess for an outsider. Random configurations of letters and numbers are the hardest for an outsider to guess, but also the easiest for a legitimate user to forget. Furthermore, passwords that are very difficult to remember are generally written down, and hence pose the greatest security threat of all.

Notable Valid Inferences

Passwords that are easy for an outsider to guess have less of a security threat than passwords that are very difficult to remember.

A

Computer users should not write down their passwords even if the passwords are hard to remember.

Could be false. The stimulus does not state a value judgement about what users should not do. We know that written passwords pose the greatest security threat, but it is possible there are other reasons to write passwords that outweigh these risks.

B

It is expensive to have system administrators constantly resetting forgetful users’ passwords.

Could be false. The stimulus tells us that users who forget their passwords use up the administrator’s time, but we don’t have any information about how much this costs. It is possible that a system administrator’s time is not expensive.

C

Passwords that are very easy to guess pose less of a security threat than passwords that are very difficult to remember.

Must be true. The stimulus tells us that very difficult passwords to remember are usually written down, a practice that poses the greatest security threat. If this practice poses the greatest threat, then the threat associated with passwords that are easy to guess is less.

D

Passwords that are random configurations of letters and numbers are the least likely to result in security breaches.

Could be false. The stimulus tells us that these passwords are the easiest for legitimate users to forget. If they are the hardest to remember, then they may usually be written down and therefore pose the greatest security threat.

E

The easier a password is to remember, the more secure the computer account.

Could be false. The stimulus does not describe a correlation between security risk and the ease of remembering a password. It is possible that there is a point where the security level maximizes even though the password could change to become easier to remember.

27 comments

LSAT 86 - Section 4 - Question 19

January 13, 2019

13 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 4 - Question 19

January 13, 2019

European wood ants incorporate large quantities of solidified conifer resin into their nests. Conifer resin is a natural disinfectant that has been shown to kill strains of bacteria that can cause disease in wood ants. Thus, the wood ants’ use of conifer resin probably came about as a disease-protection measure.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The author hypothesizes that wood ants use conifer resin in their nests to protect against disease. This is because conifer resin kills bacteria that can harm wood ants.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes a causal relationship from a correlation. In other words, the author assumes that just because the resin has disinfectant properties, these properties are the reason why wood ants use it in their nests, instead of some other reason—maybe the resin helps make a strong nest, or the ants just like the smell of it.

A

whether conifer resin retains its disinfectant properties over very long periods of time

Irrelevant—we have no reason to believe the resin’s disinfectant properties would need to last a long time for the ants to use it for disease-protection measures. Maybe the resin doesn’t retain its disinfectant properties for long, and the ants just replace it periodically.

B

whether the nests of European wood ants generally contain more conifer resin at some times of the year than at others

Irrelevant—we don’t know anything about how the time of year could affect why the ants use the resin. We’d have to make way too many assumptions for this to be useful.I

C

whether any ant species other than European wood ants use conifer resin in their nests

Irrelevant—the argument is solely about European wood ants. What other ants use in their nests is not relevant to the author’s conclusion.

D

whether the use of conifer resin affords structural benefits to European wood ants’ nests

This is useful—if the answer is yes, we have another use for the resin. This weakens the author’s conclusion that the ants use it for its disinfectant properties. If no, the author’s argument is strengthened, as a potential alternative explanation is eliminated.

E

whether the disinfectant properties of conifer resin evolved as a disease-protection measure for conifer trees

Irrelevant—how other organisms use conifer resin, or how it developed its disinfectant properties, are not relevant to the argument, which is about how and why the ants use the resin.

13 comments

LSAT 86 - Section 4 - Question 18

January 13, 2019

One of the hardest yet most helpful practices during Blind Review is to create your own analogous arguments. Consider the following analogy which should demonstrate the issue of smuggling facts of the world which you believe into other people's minds.

Oranges contain vitamin C which is an essential vitamin. (This is a fact. You just read it so even if you didn't already believe it before, you certainly believe it now.)

Many people criticize oranges because they believe that the fruit has no health benefits. These same people believe that vitamin C has health benefits.

Here's the entire content of those people's beliefs:
b1 - Oranges have no health benefits.
b2 - Vitamin C has health benefits.

Can we say that these people hold contradictory beliefs about oranges? No, we cannot. Look again at b1 and b2. There is no contradiction. You're tempted to say yes because you know that oranges contain vitamin C and you think to yourself surely they must believe this too. This is the trap that (A) lays out.

But, what we can say for sure is that these people's b1 is just wrong. They're just wrong about oranges' health benefits. Because b1 contradicts a fact of the world. This is (C), the correct answer.

37 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 4 - Question 18

January 13, 2019

Etiquette helps people to get along with each other. For example, it prevents people from inadvertently offending one another. While many people criticize etiquette because they believe it has no beneficial effects for society, these same people think that kindness and social harmony are good.

Summary

Etiquette helps people get along with each other. Some people criticize etiquette because they believe it has no beneficial effects for society. However, these same people also believe that social harmony is good.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Some people who criticize etiquette mistakenly believe that it has no beneficial effects for society.

A

Many people who criticize etiquette have contradictory views about etiquette.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know whether the people who think that etiquette helps people get along are also the same people who think etiquette has no beneficial effects for society. These are two different viewpoints embedded within the stimulus.

B

Many people have respect for etiquette even though they criticize it.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know whether the people who have respect for etiquette are the same people who criticize etiquette. These are two different viewpoints embedded within the stimulus.

C

Many people who criticize etiquette are mistaken about its beneficial effects for society.

This answer is strongly supported. Some people who criticize etiquette are mistaken about its beneficial effects because these same people think social harmony is beneficial.

D

If people were more considerate there would be no need for etiquette.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what would cause the need for etiquette to decrease.

E

Kindness and social harmony are highly beneficial to society.

This answer is unsupported. To say that these factors are “highly” beneficial is too strong. They may be beneficial to some degree, but that degree is undetermined by the stimulus.

41 comments

LSAT 86 - Section 4 - Question 17

January 13, 2019

8 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 4 - Question 17

January 13, 2019

10 comments

LSAT 86 - Section 4 - Question 15

January 13, 2019

In the video, I showed one way in which a small increase in average could have resulted in a large increase in the proportion of obese children. There are other ways too.

Here's one of those ways. Even if everyone gained exactly one pound, it may be the case that there were so many previously-almost-obese-children (within 1lb of obesity) or so few previously-obese children that the one pound gain increases the obese proportion dramatically.

Here's another. A lot of kids could have lost weight. To compensate for those kids losing weight, we'd have to have a lot of kids gaining weight to increase the total average by 1lb. Those kids that gain weight could be the large increase in obese children. If you're statistically inclined, think of it this way. Assume weight is normally distributed. Flatten the curve in the middle and shift the entire curve 1lb to the right. You would get substantially more obese children with a substantial flattening of the curve.

7 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 4 - Question 15

January 13, 2019

In the video, I showed one way in which a small increase in average could have resulted in a large increase in the proportion of obese children. There are other ways too.

Here's one of those ways. Even if everyone gained exactly one pound, it may be the case that there were so many previously-almost-obese-children (within 1lb of obesity) or so few previously-obese children that the one pound gain increases the obese proportion dramatically.

Here's another. A lot of kids could have lost weight. To compensate for those kids losing weight, we'd have to have a lot of kids gaining weight to increase the total average by 1lb. Those kids that gain weight could be the large increase in obese children. If you're statistically inclined, think of it this way. Assume weight is normally distributed. Flatten the curve in the middle and shift the entire curve 1lb to the right. You would get substantially more obese children with a substantial flattening of the curve.

7 comments

LSAT 86 - Section 4 - Question 04

January 13, 2019

3 comments