Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 76 - Section 4 - Question 08

December 17, 2015

4 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 144 - Section 4 - Question 08

December 17, 2015

4 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 76 - Section 4 - Question 07

December 17, 2015

2 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 144 - Section 4 - Question 07

December 17, 2015

Dietitian: Eating fish can lower one’s cholesterol level. In a study of cholesterol levels and diet, two groups were studied. The first group ate a balanced diet including two servings of fish per week. The second group ate a very similar diet, but ate no fish. The first group showed lower cholesterol levels, on average, than the second group. The two groups had displayed similar average cholesterol levels prior to the study.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that eating fish can lower one’s cholesterol. This is based on a study comparing a group that ate fish and a group that didn’t eat fish. The fish-eating group ended up with lower cholesterol levels than the other group, even though the two groups started off with similar cholesterol levels.

Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is part of the support for the author’s conclusion. It helps to eliminate the possibility that the fish-group’s lower cholesterol is just a function of that group starting with lower cholesterol.

A
It is offered as an objection to the main conclusion of the argument.
The referenced text supports the conclusion.
B
It expresses the main conclusion of the argument.
The referenced text supports the conclusion, but it’s not the conclusion itself.
C
It rules out an alternative explanation of the data collected in the study.
This accurately describes the role of the referenced text. The fact the groups started with similar cholesterol levels eliminates the explanation that the fish-group just started out with lower cholesterol levels.
D
It provides background information on the purpose of the study.
The referenced text supports the conclusion. It’s not just background information.
E
It introduces an alternative explanation of the phenomenon described in the main conclusion.
The referenced text supports the author’s conclusion. It does not introduce an alternate explanation.

2 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 76 - Section 4 - Question 06

December 17, 2015

1 comment

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 144 - Section 4 - Question 06

December 17, 2015

1 comment

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 76 - Section 4 - Question 05

December 17, 2015

4 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 144 - Section 4 - Question 05

December 17, 2015

Scholar: Recently, some religions have updated the language of their traditional texts and replaced traditional rituals with more contemporary ones. These changes have been followed by increases in attendance at places of worship affiliated with these religions. This shows that any such modernization will result in increased numbers of worshipers.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that any religion that updates the language of their traditional texts and replaces traditional rituals with modern ones will have an increase in the number of worshipers. This is based on the fact that certain religions have made these changes and experienced greater attendance after those chancges.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the modernization that some religions have undertaken caused the increases in attendance after those changes. This overlooks the possibility that the increases in attendance might have nothing to do with the modernization changes those religions made.

A
not every religion can update its texts and replace its traditional rituals
The author doesn’t assume that every religion can modernize. The conclusion concerns what will happen IF a religion modernizes; this doesn’t imply every religion will be able to do so.
B
modernization of religious texts and rituals will not involve an alteration of their messages
The author doesn’t assume that modernization won’t change a religion’s message. The argument simply concerns whether modernization will increase attendance. Changes in messaging may or may not happen.
C
the modernization of the texts and rituals of some religions was the cause of their increases in attendance
The author assumes that the modernization that some religions did caused their increases in attendance. This is flawed because the increase in attendance could have been due to other things, in which case, we have no reason to think modernization will lead to attendance increase.
D
making texts and rituals more modern is the only way in which a religion could bring about an increase in attendance at places of worship
The conclusion doesn’t assert that modernization is necessary to increase attendance. It asserts that modernization is sufficient to increase attendance.
E
the growth in attendance at places of worship affiliated with religions that made their texts and rituals more modern is irreversible
The author doesn’t assert that grow in attendance is irreversible. Maybe in the future the attendance will not increase and will decline; this doesn’t impact the reasoning of the argument

5 comments

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 76 - Section 4 - Question 04

December 17, 2015

Comment on this

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 144 - Section 4 - Question 04

December 17, 2015

Annette: To persuade the town council to adopt your development plan, you should take them on a trip to visit other towns that have successfully implemented plans like yours.

Sefu: But I have a vested interest in their votes. If council members were to accept a trip from me, it would give the appearance of undue influence.

Speaker 1 Summary

Annette recommends that Sefu take the town council on a trip to other towns that have successfully implemented a development plan similar to the one Sefu wants to implement

Speaker 2 Summary

Sefu points out that taking the town council on a trip in the manner Annette recommends would give the appearance of undue influence. Sefu’s implicit conclusion is that Annette’s recommendation is a bad idea.

Objective

We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether Sefu should take the town council on a trip to other towns.

A
the council should adopt Sefu’s development plan

Not a point of disagreement. Annette recommends that Sefu take the town council on a trip, which arguably suggests Annette agrees that the council should adopt Sefu’s plan. Even if we don’t know that Annette supports Sefu’s plan, we would not know Annette’s opinion.

B
Sefu should take the council on a trip to visit other towns

This is a point of disagreement. Annette recommends Sefu take the council on a trip to other towns. Sefu’s implicit conclusion is that this is not a good idea.

C
Sefu has a vested interest in the council’s votes

Annette doesn’t express an opinion. She doesn’t refer to any interest Sefu has in the council’s votes or say anything suggesting an opinion about that issue.

D
other towns have successfully implemented similar development plans

Not a point of disagreement. Sefu doesn’t say anything suggesting a belief about other towns’ development plans. Even if you think Sefu has an opinion, it would agree with Annette’s.

E
the appearance of undue influence should be avoided

Annette doesn’t express an opinion. She doesn’t say anything suggesting an opinion about undue influence and whether it should be avoided.


Comment on this

«‹87888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107›»