Sections 4

LSAT 77 - Section 4 - Question 23

January 31, 2016

2 comments

LSAT 145 - Section 4 - Question 23

January 31, 2016

2 comments

LSAT 77 - Section 4 - Question 22

January 31, 2016

11 comments

LSAT 145 - Section 4 - Question 22

January 31, 2016

Theorist: Hatred and anger, grief and despair, love and joy are pairs of emotions that consist of the same core feeling and are distinguishable from each other only in terms of the social conditions that cause them and the behavior they in turn cause. So even if the meaning of a given piece of music is the emotion it elicits, this can mean only that music produces the core of a given emotion, for music is merely sound and, therefore, by itself creates neither social conditions nor human behavior.

Summarize Argument

The theorist argues that even emotional music can only produce the “core” of a particular emotion, not the entire emotion. What the theorist means by the core of an emotion is that certain emotions involve the same basic feeling, or “core,” but are distinguished by social conditions and behavior associated with the emotion. The theorist also claims that “music is only sound,” so it can’t be responsible for the social conditions and behaviors that define certain emotions. Together, these two premises lead to the conclusion that music can’t be responsible for the entirety of an emotion, just its core.

Identify Argument Part

The claim that music is only sound (which cannot create social conditions or behavior) is one of two premises which work together to support the conclusion.

A

It is a generalization a particular instance of which is cited by the argument in order to undermine the viewpoint that the argument is attacking.

Firstly, the argument isn’t attacking any particular viewpoint. Secondly, the theorist never cites a particular instance of music being just sound. Thirdly, the claim that music is only sound doesn’t undermine anything.

B

It is a portion of the conclusion drawn in the argument.

No other claim supports the idea that music is only sound, so it can’t be the conclusion. Instead, the conclusion is that music can only produce emotional “cores,” not full emotions.

C

It is a claim that is offered as partial support for the argument’s conclusion.

This accurately identifies that the claim that music is only sound is one of two premises which together support the conclusion. This is a premise, each of which provides partial support.

D

It is a generalization the truth of which is claimed to be necessary to establish the conclusion of the argument.

The theorist doesn’t claim that music being sound is necessary to the argument. Just because it supports the conclusion, doesn’t mean it must be true for the conclusion to be true.

E

It is a hypothesis that must be rejected, according to the argument, because it is inconsistent with certain evidence.

The theorist never argues that any claim should be rejected, nor is evidence cited as a reason for rejecting any claim.

12 comments

LSAT 77 - Section 4 - Question 21

January 31, 2016

1 comment

LSAT 145 - Section 4 - Question 21

January 31, 2016

In a recent study, researchers collected current prices for the 300 most common pharmaceutical drugs from the leading wholesalers specializing in bulk sales. It was found that these prices average 60 to 80 percent below the suggested wholesale prices listed for the same drugs in the current annual edition of a widely used, independently published pharmaceutical price guidebook.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Why were the current prices for the 300 most common drugs from top wholesalers 60-80% lower than the suggested wholesale prices in a popular, independent pharmaceutical price guide?

Objective

Four of the answer choices will provide a hypothesis that helps to explain the difference between the actual drug prices and the suggested drug prices in the study.

Note that we are looking for the answer choice that does not help to explain this difference.

A

A price war wherein pharmaceutical drug wholesalers tried to undercut each others’ prices began shortly before the study was conducted.

This helps to explain why drug prices from top wholesalers were lower than the suggested wholesale prices in the guidebook. If a price war among drug wholesalers began shortly before the study was conducted, it could have caused the studied prices to be lower than usual.

B

Suggested wholesale prices for the most common pharmaceutical drugs tend to be less than those for less common pharmaceutical drugs.

This does not help to explain why prices for the 300 most common drugs were lower than the suggested prices in the guidebook. Since we're only talking about these 300 drugs, it doesn't matter if suggested prices for less common drugs are usually higher.

C

Wholesale prices for pharmaceutical drugs often fluctuate dramatically from one month to the next.

This helps to explain why drug prices from top wholesalers were lower than the suggested wholesale prices in the guidebook. If wholesale drug prices fluctuate significantly each month, it makes sense that the annual guidebook might not reflect the prices for any given month.

D

Wholesale prices suggested by the independently published pharmaceutical price guidebook are calculated to allow every pharmaceutical wholesaler to make substantial profits.

This helps explain the difference in the actual and suggested prices. The guidebook prices allow wholesalers to make a profit, so they can still profit by charging 60-80% of the suggested price. Wholesalers might want to charge less to stay competitive or reduce consumer costs.

E

The prices suggested by the independently published pharmaceutical price guidebook are for sales of relatively small quantities of pharmaceutical drugs to individual doctors.

This helps to explain why drug prices from top wholesalers were lower than the suggested wholesale prices in the guidebook. If the suggested prices are for smaller sales to individual doctors, these wholesalers who specialize in bulk sales might charge less for bulk purchases.

9 comments

LSAT 77 - Section 4 - Question 20

January 31, 2016

3 comments

LSAT 145 - Section 4 - Question 20

January 31, 2016

66 comments

LSAT 77 - Section 4 - Question 19

January 31, 2016

Cookie Cutters
73.4.03
68.3.01
64.1.13
57.3.18
55.3.09
39.2.05
25.4.24

20 comments

LSAT 145 - Section 4 - Question 19

January 31, 2016

Cookie Cutters
73.4.03
68.3.01
64.1.13
57.3.18
55.3.09
39.2.05
25.4.24

Studies have shown that pedestrians are struck by cars when crossing streets in crosswalks more often than they are struck when crossing outside of crosswalks. This is because crosswalks give many pedestrians an overly strong sense of security that oncoming cars will follow the signals, and these pedestrians are less likely to look both ways before crossing the street.

Summarize Argument

Pedestrians are more often struck by cars when crossing streets with crosswalks rather than without crosswalks. This is because crosswalks make pedestrians feel safe, which in turn makes them less likely to look both ways before crossing.

Notable Assumptions

Based on a mere correlation, the author concludes that the effects of crossing in crosswalks—less attention to traffic, feelings of safety— cause pedestrians to be struck by cars more often than when they’re crossing without crosswalks. This means the author doesn’t believe that crosswalks are in inherently more dangerous places (i.e. roads with high traffic and blind spots), or that crosswalks cause drivers to drive more dangerously than they would otherwise. The author also assumes an equal distribution of pedestrians crossing with crosswalks versus without crosswalks.

A

The overwhelming majority of pedestrians in high-traffic areas cross streets in crosswalks.

The author confuses “more likely” with “more often.” Of course pedestrians are “more often” struck when crossing in crosswalks. That’s how the vast majority of pedestrians cross streets in high-traffic areas.

B

The number of pedestrians struck by cars has increased in recent years.

We don’t care about how things have changed over time. We care about why pedestrians are more often struck in crosswalks.

C

Pedestrians tend to underestimate the chances that the signals at a crosswalk will malfunction.

We have no idea how often this happens, or what the safety effects of this are. Perhaps this only causes a negligible uptick in pedestrians being struck by cars.

D

Drivers are generally most alert to pedestrians who are in or near crosswalks.

Given that cars are driving more attentively than usual, suggests pedestrians are being careless as the author claims.

E

Measures intended to promote safety tend to make people less cautious.

Crosswalks are one such measure. This supports the author’s argument.

24 comments