LSAT 77 - Section 4 - Question 03

January 31, 2016

2 comments

LSAT 145 - Section 4 - Question 03

January 31, 2016

Researchers have found that the percentage of people who start new businesses is much higher in countries with high per capita income than in countries with moderate per capita income. This is to be expected since most entrepreneurs in high- and middle-income countries start businesses to take advantage of perceived business opportunities, and there are more such opportunities in high-income countries. Surprisingly, however, the researchers also found that the percentage of people who start businesses is even higher in low-income countries than in high-income ones.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Why is the percentage of people starting businesses higher in low-income countries than in high-income ones, even though there are more perceived business opportunities in high-income countries, where entrepreneurs often start businesses to take advantage of these opportunities?

Objective

The correct answer will be a hypothesis explaining the difference in motivations for starting a business in high- versus low-income countries. While entrepreneurs in high-income countries often start businesses take advantage of abundant perceived business opportunities, entrepreneurs in low-income countries must have a different motivation.

A
In both high- and low-income countries, well over half of new businesses expect to provide jobs for no more than one or two people.

This does not provide a difference between the reasons for starting a business in high-income countries versus in low-income countries. Instead, it gives us a similarity in the expected job creation of new business in both high- and low-income countries.

B
Many governments of high-income countries provide assistance to individuals who want to start businesses, but very few governments of low-income countries do so.

This adds confusion by suggesting why people in low-income countries would be less likely to start a business, instead of explaining why they are actually more likely to do so than those in high-income countries.

C
The percentage of new businesses that fail within a few years of being founded is generally no higher in low-income countries than in high-income countries.

We need a difference in the reasons for starting a business in low-income versus high-income countries. Instead, (C) gives us a similarity in the failure rates of business in low- and high-income countries.

D
In high-income countries, many entrepreneurs who start businesses to take advantage of perceived business opportunities soon discover that the opportunities were illusory.

Whether the perceived business opportunities in high-income countries are illusory does not explain why the percentage of people starting businesses is higher in low-income countries. We need an alternate reason for starting a business in low-income countries.

E
In low-income countries, most entrepreneurs start businesses because all other employment options are either absent or unsatisfactory.

This explains why more people start businesses in low-income countries than in high-income ones: in low-income countries, entrepreneurs often start businesses due to limited job options, rather than because of abundant business opportunities.


2 comments

LSAT 77 - Section 4 - Question 02

January 31, 2016

1 comment

LSAT 145 - Section 4 - Question 02

January 31, 2016

Albert: Swenson’s popular book, which argues that sun exposure does not harm skin cells, is a model of poor scholarship. Nonetheless, it is valuable because it has stimulated new research on sun exposure.

Yvonne: You’re kidding me! You might as well say that a virus is valuable because it stimulates epidemiologists.

Speaker 1 Summary
Albert claims that Swenson’s book is valuable, despite its major scientific flaws. Why could that be? Because the problems with the book have led to new, useful research about sun exposure.

Speaker 2 Summary
Yvonne thinks that that stimulating new research is not enough to make Swenson’s book valuable (although this conclusion is implied, not explicit). To support this point, Yvonne uses an analogy: it would be ridiculous to say that a virus is valuable because it leads to new epidemiology research. Swenson’s book is held to be analogous to the virus, so stimulating research alone doesn’t make it valuable.

Objective
We need to find a point of disagreement. Albert and Yvonne disagree about whether stimulating new research makes Swenson’s book valuable.

A
sun exposure harms skin cells
Both speakers almost certainly agree with this claim. Albert calls Swenson’s claim that sun exposure doesn’t harm skin cells “a model of poor scholarship,” and Yvonne seems even more critical of Swenson than Albert does.
B
Swenson’s book is a model of poor scholarship
Albert agrees with this, and Yvonne almost certainly does as well. Yvonne compares Swenson’s book to a virus and argues against recognizing any value in it, which is very consistent with this statement.
C
Swenson’s book should be considered valuable
Albert agrees with this, and Yvonne disagrees. This is the point at issue. Albert’s conclusion is that the book has some value, if only due to stimulating other research. Yvonne argues that stimulating research doesn’t make the book valuable, leaving it with no value at all.
D
Swenson’s book has stimulated new research on sun exposure
Albert agrees with this, and Yvonne likely does as well. Albert states this as a fact, and Yvonne appears to take it for granted. The disagreement is just about whether stimulating new research makes the book valuable.
E
something that does not stimulate new research can have value
Neither speaker talks about this. The argument is about whether or not a book that has stimulated new research is valuable; the issue of what else is valuable and why is never brought up.

1 comment

LSAT 77 - Section 4 - Question 01

January 31, 2016

Comment on this

LSAT 145 - Section 4 - Question 01

January 31, 2016

Comment on this

LSAT 76 - Section 4 - Question 25

December 17, 2015

16 comments

LSAT 144 - Section 4 - Question 25

December 17, 2015

Many bird and reptile species use hissing as a threat device against potential predators. The way these species produce hissing sounds is similar enough that it is likely that this behavior developed in an early common ancestor. At the time this common ancestor would have lived, however, none of its potential predators would have yet acquired the anatomy necessary to hear hissing sounds.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Even though some bird and reptile species’ use of hissing as a threat device is likely to have developed in an early common ancestor, that common ancestor’s predators would not have been able to hear such hissing sounds.

Objective
The right answer will provide an alternate explanation for the common ancestor’s hissing. It will be a hypothesis that explains how the common ancestor’s hissing might have been useful as a threat device against potential predators, even though those predators could not hear the hissing.

A
Like its potential predators, the common ancestor of bird and reptile species would have lacked the anatomy necessary to hear hissing sounds.
The common ancestor’s inability to hear its own hissing does not provide any explanation for why it would have developed hissing in the first place. We need an answer that explains why hissing was advantageous for the common ancestor, even though its predators couldn’t hear it.
B
The common ancestor of bird and reptile species would probably have employed multiple threat devices against potential predators.
Even if the common ancestor defended itself in other ways, we still need an explanation for why the common ancestor developed hissing as a threat device even though its predators could not hear it. There must be some other reason for using hissing as a threat device.
C
The production of a hissing sound would have increased the apparent body size of the common ancestor of bird and reptile species.
This gives a reason why the common ancestor’s hissing might have been useful against predators: it made the animal seem larger. This explains why it developed hissing sounds, even though its predators couldn’t hear them.
D
The use of hissing as a threat device would have been less energetically costly than other threat behaviors available to the common ancestor of bird and reptile species.
Whether hissing was energetically costly does not explain why the common ancestor used it as a threat device even though predators couldn’t hear it. We need an answer that gives a different reason for using hissing as a threat device.
E
Unlike most modern bird and reptile species, the common ancestor of these species would have had few predators.
Even if the common ancestor had few predators, it would still have needed to defend itself against those predators. So, we still need an alternate reason that explains why the common ancestor developed hissing as a threat device.

17 comments

LSAT 76 - Section 4 - Question 24

December 17, 2015

1 comment

LSAT 144 - Section 4 - Question 24

December 17, 2015

13 comments

«‹8384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103›»