Section Types Logical Reasoning

LSAT 147 - Section 4 - Question 21

January 5, 2017

LSAT 79 - Section 4 - Question 20

January 5, 2017

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

Archaeologist: Neanderthals, a human-like species living 60,000 years ago, probably preserved meat by smoking it. Burnt lichen and grass have been found in many Neanderthal fireplaces. A fire of lichen and grass produces a lot of smoke but does not produce nearly as much heat or light as a wood fire.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The author hypothesizes that Neanderthals probably smoked their meat. This is based on the fact that burnt lichen and grass have been found in many Neanderthal fireplaces, and fire made from lichen and grass produces lots of smoke, but not as much heat or light as a fire from wood.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that the Neanderthals did not burn the lichen and grass for heat, light, or other purposes besides smoking. The author also assumes that Neanderthals would not have used lichen/grass for heat/light if there existed a better material for that purpose.

A

In close proximity to the fireplaces with lichen and grass are other fireplaces that, evidence suggests, burned material that produced more heat than smoke.

This could strengthen the argument by showing that Neanderthals burned other material for heat, which suggests lichen and grass were not being burned for heat.

B

In the region containing the Neanderthal fireplaces in which lichen and grass were burnt, no plants that could be burned more effectively to produce heat or light were available 60,000 years ago.

This raises the possibility that Neanderthals burned lichen/grass for heat/light. Although wood can produce more heat/light, (B) tells us the Neanderthals didn’t have access to it. So, they might have used lichen/grass for heat/light because it was the best available material.

C

Some of the fireplaces containing burnt lichen are in regions in which lichen is not believed to have been plentiful and so would have had to have been brought in from some distance.

This suggests lichen was brought long distances. This is consistent with the theory that it was burned for its smoke.

D

There is clear evidence that at least some groups of Neanderthals living more recently than 60,000 years ago developed methods of preserving meat other than smoking it.

This concerns other groups living more recently that developed other methods of preserving meat. But the argument is about what conclusions we can draw about the Neanderthals who used the fireplaces around which burnt lichen and grass have been found.

E

The ability to preserve meat through smoking would have made the Neanderthal humans less vulnerable to poor periods of hunting.

If anything, this strengthens the argument by suggesting Neanderthals had a strong reason to preserve meat by smoking.

46 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

LSAT 79 - Section 4 - Question 16

January 5, 2017

Comment on this