Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 76 - Section 4 - Question 13
December 17, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 144 - Section 4 - Question 13
December 17, 2015
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the Andersen family’s real income must have increased over the last 5 years. This is based on the fact that the real average income for families has risen over the last five years, and this year the Andersen family’s income is average for families.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that the Andersen family’s income hasn’t changed in five years. Although they are at the average for family’s this year, that doesn’t mean they experienced an increase in income from previous years. They might have been above average in previous years, and the nation’s average income for families has simply caught up to their income.
A
ambiguously uses the term “average” in two different senses
“Average” in “average income for families” means the same thing as “average” in “income is average for families.” It refers to the figure taken by adding up the total income for all families and dividing the figure by the number of families.
B
fails to take into account inflation with respect to the Andersen family’s income
The argument concerns “real” income, which is defined as income that is “adjusted for inflation.” So the argument already takes into account inflation.
C
overlooks the possibility that most families’ incomes are below average
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument, because the author never assumed that most families incomes are not below average. The argument is based on the average income for families. Reliance on that average doesn’t imply a belief about “most” families’ income.
D
fails to consider the possibility that the Andersen family’s real income was above average in the recent past
This shows why the Andersens’ income might not have increased. They are at the average for today, but that doesn’t imply they had a lower income in the past. They might have been above average in the past, and the average income has increased to their level.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that the government makes no errors in gathering accurate estimates of family income
The author doesn’t assume that the government never makes errors in gathering estimates for family income. Maybe, for example, the data for one family was reported incorrectly. That wouldn’t necessarily have significant impacts on the overall average income calculation.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 76 - Section 4 - Question 12
December 17, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 144 - Section 4 - Question 12
December 17, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 76 - Section 4 - Question 11
December 17, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 144 - Section 4 - Question 11
December 17, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 76 - Section 4 - Question 10
December 17, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 144 - Section 4 - Question 10
December 17, 2015Jung-Su: Although artists, like musicians, may reject literal representation, makers of abstract art choose to represent the purely formal features of objects, which are discovered only when everyday perspectives are rejected. Thus, whatever others might come to say, abstract art is part of the artistic mainstream.
Speaker 1 Summary
Abstract art will eventually been seen as an aberration. Why? Because abstract art does not represent. Representation is necessary for art.
Speaker 2 Summary
Abstract art is art. Why? Because it represents purely formal features of objects.
Objective
We need a statement that Richard and Jung-Su disagree on. They disagree on whether abstract art is representational. Richard thinks abstract art is not representational. Jung-Su thinks that abstract art is representational because it represents formal features of objects.
A
makers of abstract art reject literal representation
Both speakers agree with this statement. Richard thinks this is the reason why abstract art will eventually be seen as an aberration. Jung-Su concedes that abstract art doesn’t literally represent objects, but represents purely formal features.
B
the fundamental requirement of art is that it represent
Jung-Su does not express an opinion on this statement. Jung-Su does not counter Richard’s claim that art must represent something.
C
musicians may reject literal representation
Richard does not express an opinion on this statement. Richard’s comments are limited to abstract art.
D
abstract art will be seen as an aberration
Jung-Su does not express an opinion on this statement. Jung-Su does not comment on the future viewpoint surrounding abstract art. Her comments are limited to how abstract art could be viewed now.
E
abstract art is representational
Richard and Jung-Su disagree on this statement. Richard disagrees and thinks that abstract art is not art because it lacks the representation requirement of art. Jung-Su thinks abstract art satisfies the representation requirement by representing formal features.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 76 - Section 4 - Question 09
December 17, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 144 - Section 4 - Question 09
December 17, 2015
Summary
A manager can’t make employees perform their best by threatening to fire them or offering them money for being productive. Instead, employees must want to do a good job for the sake of doing a good job. One way to achieve this is by giving employees responsibility, especially for decisions that the manager used to make.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
In some situations, some external motivators are less effective than some internal motivators.
In some situations, a manager can give up some of her own responsibilities and control in order to more effectively motivate her employees.
Delegating responsibility to employees can lead them to develop a desire to do a good job, which can lead them to perform better at work.
In some situations, a manager can give up some of her own responsibilities and control in order to more effectively motivate her employees.
Delegating responsibility to employees can lead them to develop a desire to do a good job, which can lead them to perform better at work.
A
Increased responsibility can improve a person’s sense of how power should be used.
Unsupported. Increased responsibility may cause employees to want to do a good job for the sake of doing a good job, but we have no information as to how this might relate to a person’s “sense of how power should be used.”
B
It is often the case that the desire for prestige is more powerful than the desire for job security.
Unsupported. The stimulus says that threatening employees with termination is not an effective way of making them perform well. But it does not compare this to an employee’s desire for prestige or discuss whether the desire for job security or prestige is more powerful.
C
In some cases one’s effectiveness in a particular role can be enhanced by a partial relinquishing of control.
Strongly supported. This is illustrated by the situation in the passage: In this case, the manager’s effectiveness in making employees want to do a good job is enhanced by giving those employees responsibility that used to belong to the manager (i.e. relinquishing some control).
D
People who carry out decisions are in the best position to determine what those decisions should be.
Unsupported. We do not know who is being referred to as the “people who carry out decisions” here or which decisions are being referenced. This is too vague to be an example of something that is illustrated by the passage.
E
Business works best by harnessing the self-interest of individuals to benefit the company as a whole.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t discuss which methods make business “work best.” It only talks about one of the best methods to get employees to want to do a good job for its own sake. Also, we don’t know that anyone is motivated by self-interest in the situation described.