Please note that the question stem does not stipulate that the three authors are the only authors who could be included. Therefore, we must not presume that there are no other authors.
We’ve got an MBT question here, which we can tell based on the question stem: If the statements above are true, which one of the following must be true?
We’ve got a stimulus here that almost reads like a set of logic games rules. We know that we’ve got a textbook that will have essays written by some combination of Lind, Knight, and Jones, but not all three. We also know that if the book has an essay by Knight, it will also contain an essay by Jones (so K→J).
So what are our possible sets of authors: Well what do we know? KJ is definitely a possibility. We could also always have a book that only features one author ( assuming that author isn’t K because of the aforementioned rule), so we can add “J” and “L” to our list. And then of course we could have a combination of J and L. So all the possible options of authors should look like this:
J
L
KJ
JL
This synthesizes all the rules we’ve been given, so let’s move on to the answer choices:
Correct Answer Choice (A) This fits with what we’ve determined. There is only one possible set that contains Knight: KJ. Therefore, this is correct.
Answer Choice (B) This is incorrect. We have two possible sets that contain two authors.
Answer Choice (C) This is incorrect. We have one possible combination in our list that includes Knight.
Answer Choice (D) This is incorrect. It is possible for Lind to appear on their own (i.e. without Jones).
Answer Choice (E) This is incorrect. We have two possible sets that do not include Lind.
We’ve got an MSS question here which we can identify from the question stem: The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?
Our author starts with a sentence that is way too long: they tell us that a certain group of people (who are opposed to a proposed waste storage site based on extremely implausible scenarios in which the proposed site fails to contain waste) are overlooking the massive risks that would arise from waiting to move the waste from its current site.
You might notice that I put some of that information in parentheses. This is a tool that writers use in normal writing to make sentences more easily digestible and understandable. We separate bits of modifying information and context away from the core sentence so that readers can better understand the meaning of the text. The LSAT doesn’t do that here because the goal is to confuse you. Nonetheless, the information that I’ve offset with parentheses is an extremely long phrase that is modifying the word “people.” We have a set of people who object to a new waste storage site based on an implausible scenario in which the site fails to contain the waste. What these people fail to realize is that there’s a risk to just leaving this waste where it is.
In the next sentence we’re told that if we wait to move the waste until we find the perfect site, it’s going to stay where it is for the foreseeable future because it’s impossible to guarantee that there’s a site that meets all the necessary criterion. The author then explains that leaving the waste where it is “for that long” creates “unacceptable risks.”
It’s easy to get lost in the big picture of this stimulus, but if we break it down into bite sized chunks, it’s much more manageable. We’ve worked through the stimulus methodically, so hopefully we all have a good grasp of the information as we move into the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) We don’t have any information about where the waste should have been stored in the past. We only have information about the relative risks of keeping the waste in its current location at this moment in time.
Answer Choice (B) This runs contrary to what our stimulus tells us in the second sentence. We’re told that it’s unclear that we’ll find a site that matches all of our criteria for an ideal site. The stimulus is arguing that we need to commit to the current proposal immediately instead of waiting to find the best possible option.
Correct Answer Choice (C) The author has argued that the current proposal is much better than nothing and has claimed that there are substantial risks that stem from leaving the waste in its current location. Our stimulus supports the notion that there is greater risk presented by the current site than by the proposed new site, so this answer choice is supported.
Answer Choice (D) This is too broad. We know that in this specific case time is of the essence because there are risks associated with waiting to find a better site. We don’t have any information to support the idea that this is a broad principle that should be applied every time people are locating alternative waste sites. What if the waste is in a relatively good location with moderate risk and all the alternatives present much higher risks? That would be a hypothetical in which it would be advantageous to wait until we find a better site.
Answer Choice (E) Again, this is too broad. The stimulus clearly argues for one specific site. We don’t have anything that supports the idea that any site is better than the current site.
We’ve got an RRE Except question which we can identify from the question stem: Each of the following, if true, helps to resolve the survey’s apparently paradoxical results EXCEPT:
Let’s start by identifying the apparent paradox. The average number of books read annually per capita (i.e. per person) has gone down every year for three years. Bookstores, however, have increased their profits over that time period.
Any hypothetical resolutions? Well what if books now cost more? So people are reading less but the profit margins for bookstores are higher. What if a lot more people now live in the region we are surveying? Maybe the same number of people are reading the same (or more) books annually, but there are simply more non-readers in the population. This would mean the profits might not take a hit, but the average books read annually would decrease because we have added more non-readers to the pool. What if a bunch of bookstores closed over the past three years? So the amount of books that people are reading has gone down, but the business is now consolidated into a few bookstores who are now getting more business than before.
There are a ton of potential ways to reconcile this info. Which is great because this is an “except” question, meaning we are going to be given 4 answer choices that do reconcile the paradox, and only one that doesn’t. Our job is to find the latter.
Let’s move on to the answer choices:
Answer Choice (A) At first glance it is hard to see what this is doing for us. Libraries are purchasing fewer contemporary novels. Doesn’t that mean less books are being purchased, and isn’t that a fact that we already know about? Well, let’s take a step back. We know that fewer books are being read, but bookstores are making more money. This is giving us a reason why a certain segment of the population might be bringing new business to bookstores. It’s reasonable to assume that frequent library goers who prefer contemporary novels may now be forced to buy these books from bookstores where once they would have borrowed them from libraries. Therefore, even though our per capita rate of books read per year might go down, we have a fact that would lead to profits for bookstores increasing. This is reconciling our discrepancy, but remember, this is an except question–so this AC is wrong!
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is correct! It does absolutely nothing for our paradox! Shoplifting is affecting other businesses but not bookstores. That would give us a reason why profits for bookstores might be better compared to other businesses–but does it give us a reason why profits for bookstores would have gone up? We are told that the increase in shoplifting is recent. Therefore, it’s not like shoplifters were ravaging bookstores and shrinking their profit margins until bookstores got their act together recently and installed security systems. No! The scourge of shoplifting has only affected retail recently. Therefore, we don’t have anything here that would lead to an increase in profits. We just have a reason why profits might not be decreasing at the same rate as other businesses that are more affected by shoplifting. But that’s not a paradox that we care about. This is completely irrelevant to our stimulus, and because this question is an except question, it’s the right answer!
Answer Choice (C) This is great! It gives us an alternative revenue source that can account for the increased profits of bookstores, even if people are buying less books! Therefore, it is unfortunately incorrect since this question is an except question!
Answer Choice (D) This is telling us that people are spending more per book than they used to. This might mean that even if they are buying fewer books, bookstores are making higher profits. Since (D) helps resolve the discrepancy in the stimulus, (D) is wrong!
Answer Choice (E) Just like (C), this is giving us an alternative revenue source besides books. So people are reading fewer books, but they’re buying more magazines! Therefore, it’s quite possible that bookstores are making more money. It’s resolving the paradox in the stimulus, and therefore wrong.
The question stem reads: The reasoning in which of the following is most similar to that in the naturalist's argument? This is a Parallel question.
The naturalist begins by claiming that a species can survive the change in an environment as long as the change is not too rapid. The naturalist has provided a general rule saying that the change can be ok for a species, with the caveat that the change does not occur too rapidly. The naturalist concludes that the threats humans create to woodland species arise not from cutting down trees but from the rate at which we are cutting down trees. The naturalist has applied the universal rule about species to the specific example of woodland species. So the problem is not that change we are creating by cutting down trees, but the because we are causing the change too rapidly.
When evaluating an answer choice, we need a universal rule with a caveat. The correct AC will apply that universal rule to a specific example and say that the specific example is failing to satisfy the caveat.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect. (A) does not provide a universal rule; it only gives a specific rule about fossil fuels. Additionally, (A) 's rule about fossil fuels lacks the caveat we are looking for.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect. We can quickly eliminate (B) because of the word "many." Remember, we need a universal rule, so if (B) was right, it would begin with "all people." Additionally, (B) 's rule lacks the caveat we are looking for, nor does (B) apply its rule to a specific example.
Answer Choice (C) is incorrect. Similar to (B), we can eliminate (C) because it says "some" when we are looking for a universal rule. Additionally, (C) also lacks the caveat, nor does (C) apply the rule to a specific example.
Correct Answer Choice (D) matches the stimulus. (D) provides a general rule that "people do not fear change," under the caveat people know what the change will bring. (D) then applies that rule to the specific example of the author's company's employees. The company's employees' fears arise from the fact the company is changing, but because they do not know what the change will bring (the caveat is not satisfied).
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect. (E) does not provide a general rule, so we can eliminate it.
A
It is unlikely that brain-scanning technology will ever enable researchers to understand how the brain enables us to think.
B
There is no way that researchers can know for certain that subjects whose brains are being scanned are accurately reporting what they are thinking.
C
Because subjects whose brains are being scanned may not accurately report what they are thinking, the results of brain-scanning research should be regarded with great skepticism.
D
Brain scans can provide information about the accuracy of the verbal reports of subjects whose brains are being scanned.
E
Information from brain scans can help researchers understand how the brain enables us to think only if the verbal reports of those whose brains are being scanned are accurate.
The question stem reads: The reasoning in the ornithologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument… This is a Flaw question.
The ornithologist begins by stating how a particular bird species (we will call this bird "X") diet is believed to consist primarily of vegetation (plants). However, the ornithologist concludes that belief is wrong. In other words, The ornithologist argues that "X" birds' diets are mostly not plants. As evidence, he describes how he camouflaged himself and watched hundreds of "X" birds every morning for a month. During his morning observations, he estimates that over half of what "X" birds ate were insects and animal food resources (not plants). This line of reasoning is flawed because the ornithologist only observed birds during the morning. Let's say I hypothesized that the belief humans frequently drink coffee is wrong. To prove my theory, I hid in people's closets for many months and watched their bedtime routines. During my observations, I noticed very few people drank coffee. Hypothesis proven, right? No! The problem is that I only observed people at night when they were unlikely to drink coffee. The other problem is that I shouldn't hide in people's closets. An ideal experiment has a representative sample.
Similarly, the ornithologist has only observed what "X" birds eat in the morning. However, what "X" birds eat in the morning might be unrepresentative of their diet on the whole. Now that we have identified our flaw let's move to the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) is wrong. The ornithologist says he camouflaged himself. You might argue that perhaps his camouflage was ineffective. However, our job LSAT flaw questions in the reasoning, not to question the truth of the premises. Even if he did camouflage himself well, his argument is still problematic (he was only watching "X" birds in the morning!).
Answer Choice (B) is wrong. The ornithologist does not need to describe exactly what kinds of food "X" birds ate. He needs to say that plants accounted for 50% or less of their diet. So if it was true that most of "X" birds' diets were insect and animal food sources, that would imply 50% or less of "X" birds' diet was plants.
Answer Choice (C) is wrong. The author does not adopt the widespread belief. The author rejects the widespread idea that "X" birds' diet is mostly plants.
Correct Answer Choice (D) is what we discussed. If it was confirmed that "X" birds have different feeding patterns throughout the day, the ornithologist made an error by taking an unrepresentative sample of the birds' diet.
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect. Mapping on the stimulus to (E), we would get: fails to consider the possibility that "X" birds diet has changed since the earlier belief that "X" birds mostly ate plants was formed. Even if it was true that the popular belief was formed when "X" birds used to mostly eat plants, what matters is what the birds eat now. If "X" birds mostly eat insects and animals, then the popular belief is wrong. Being right in the past doesn't make you any less wrong in the present.
Educator: Only those students who are genuinely curious about a topic can successfully learn about that topic. They find the satisfaction of their curiosity intrinsically gratifying, and appreciate the inherent rewards of the learning process itself. However, almost no child enters the classroom with sufficient curiosity to learn successfully all that the teacher must instill. A teacher’s job, therefore, _______.
Summary
For students to successfully learn about a topic, they must be genuinely curious about that topic. These students find satisfaction of curiosity gratifying. However, almost no child enters the classroom with sufficient curiosity to successfully learn all that must be taught.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
A teacher’s job, therefore, requires stimulating and satisfying a student’s curiosity.
A
requires for the fulfillment of its goals the stimulation as well as the satisfaction of curiosity
This answer is strongly supported. Curiosity is a necessary condition for students to successfully learn a topic.
B
necessitates the creative use of rewards that are not inherent in the learning process itself
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the use of rewards is necessary for stimulating curiosity or successfully learning a topic.
C
is to focus primarily on those topics that do not initially interest the students
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not suggest what topics teachers should or should not focus on.
D
is facilitated by students’ taking responsibility for their own learning
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not suggest whether students have any responsibility for their own learning.
E
becomes easier if students realize that some learning is not necessarily enjoyable
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not suggest at what point a teacher’s job becomes easier.