Sections 4

LSAT 79 - Section 4 - Question 21

January 5, 2017

22 comments

LSAT 147 - Section 4 - Question 21

January 5, 2017

26 comments

LSAT 79 - Section 4 - Question 20

January 5, 2017

13 comments

LSAT 147 - Section 4 - Question 20

January 5, 2017

Edgar: Some of the pumps supplying water to our region have been ordered shut down in order to protect a species of small fish. But it is absurd to inconvenience thousands of people for the sake of something so inconsequential.

Rafaela: You’re missing the point. The threat to that fish species is a sign of a very serious threat to our water supply.

Speaker 1 Summary

Edgar asserts that we shouldn’t shut down pumps supplying water to our region simply because those pumps threaten a small species of fish. The shut down would cause too much inconvenience for so little benefit.

Speaker 2 Summary

Rafaela’s implicit conclusion is that the decision to shut down the water pumps is a good idea. This is because the threat to the fish species is a sign of a threat to the water supply.

Objective

We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree over whether shutting down the pumps is a good idea and about whether the decision to shut down the pumps is designed only to protect the fish species. Edgar thinks the decision is just about the fish. Rafaela thinks it’s also about the water supply.

A

shutting down the pumps will actually inconvenience a large number of people

Rafaela doesn’t express an opinion. She doesn’t comment on inconvenience or say anything suggesting an opinion about it.

B

the survival of the fish species is the only reason for shutting down the pumps

This is a point of disagreement. Edgar thinks the shutdown is only related to protecting the fish. Rafaela thinks it’s about protecting the water supply.

C

species of small fish are inconsequential

Rafaela doesn’t express an opinion. She doesn’t comment on whether protecting small fish is important or unimportant. Her point is that the shut down also helps protect the water supply.

D

the order to shut down the pumps was legal

Neither speaker expresses an opinion. They don’t comment on the legality of the shutdown.

E

shutting down the pumps will be sufficient to protect the fish species

Neither speaker expresses an opinion. They don’t comment on whether the shutdown will successfully protect the fish.

13 comments

LSAT 79 - Section 4 - Question 19

January 5, 2017

1 comment

LSAT 147 - Section 4 - Question 19

January 5, 2017

45 comments

LSAT 79 - Section 4 - Question 18

January 5, 2017

3 comments

LSAT 147 - Section 4 - Question 18

January 5, 2017

4 comments

LSAT 79 - Section 4 - Question 17

January 5, 2017

2 comments

LSAT 147 - Section 4 - Question 17

January 5, 2017

It is pointless to debate the truth of the law of noncontradiction, a fundamental logical principle according to which two statements that contradict each other cannot both be true. For a debate to be productive, participants must hold some basic principles in common. But the principles held in common in a debate over the law of noncontradiction would be much less certain than that law, so it matters little whether the law of noncontradiction can be defended on the basis of those principles.

Summarize Argument

The author states that there’s no point debating the truth of the law of noncontradiction, since a productive debate would require some agreement among the participants on basic principles. But since those common principles would be even less certain than the law of noncontradiction, it would be impossible to defend the law of noncontradiction using those principles.

Identify Conclusion

The conclusion is about the value of debating the law of noncontradiction: “It is pointless to debate the truth of the law of noncontradiction.”

A

It is pointless to debate the truth of the law of noncontradiction.

The author concludes that it’s pointless to debate the truth of the law of noncontradiction since a debate couldn’t be productive. The premises simply explain why this would be pointless.

B

Statements that contradict each other cannot both be true.

This is context about the law of noncontradiction. The rest of the author’s argument doesn’t support this statement.

C

The participants in a productive debate must hold at least some basic principles in common.

This is a premise that the author uses to demonstrate why debate would be pointless. Since the basic principles would be less certain than the law itself, no productive debate could ensue.

D

The law of noncontradiction is a principle that the participants in a productive debate must hold in common.

This doesn’t show up in the argument, and therefore can’t be the conclusion. This is a generalization about the law of noncontradiction that the author doesn’t make.

E

Any principles that could be used to defend the law of noncontradiction are less certain than it is.

This is a premise used to demonstrate the pointlessness of a debate about the truth of the law of noncontradiction. Since participants couldn’t adequately defend the principle with other shared principles, debate would be fruitless.

2 comments