Cookie Cutter Review
Lawgic, formulaic
Most successful entrepreneurs don’t have leisure time.
A
Anyone who has no time for leisure activities works at least 18 hours a day.
B
Some entrepreneurs who work at least 18 hours a day are successful.
C
Some happy entrepreneurs are successful.
D
Some entrepreneurs who work at least 18 hours a day are happy.
E
Some successful entrepreneurs work less than 18 hours a day.
Cookie Cutter Review
(E) conflation of distinct ideas. Understanding that a phenomenon has property X doesn't mean that we should use reasoning with property X to understand that phenomenon.
Supplementary explanation
This is a very silly argument that reads like it's actually reasonable.
We're presented with a thing called nature. We're told that nature has certain properties, XYZ. Therefore, we're told, that the thinking used to understand nature should also have those properties, XYZ.
This argument is insane. It escapes our insanity detector only because the LSAT writers are clever and picked out the "XYZ" so as not to raise alarm. They wrote "organic, holistic, etc", which to us are familiar properties of thinking/reasoning.
But by that logic, I can say, "Hey look at that stupid bear over there, scratching his ass on that tree cause his stupid paws can't reach. The best way to understand the bear is as a hairy beast. Therefore, use we should use our hairy beastly thinking when trying to study and analyze the bear."
Can we all say in unison: "No, dumbass. Use Biology."
See how that didn't escape our insanity detector? That's because "hairy beastly thinking" is obviously not a thing whereas "organic holistic thinking" is.
(E) calls the argument out on its absurdity. Properties of the object to be studied shouldn't be projected onto the reasoning used to study that object.
(B) is having his own conversation over in the corner of the room by himself. It's saying that the structure of nature isn't identical to the structure of how people reason about nature. Okay, sure. Let's not even argue what the overall "structure" of nature is and just concede that it's "organic". So (B) is saying that that's not always identical to the structure of how people reason about nature. In other words, people don't always reason organically about it. Again, okay sure. So what? Is that a bad thing? Should people reason organically about it?
The argument isn't terrible because sometimes the structure of a phenomenon is not identical with the structure of reasoning people use to understand that phenomenon.
Environmentalist: Discarding old appliances can be dangerous: refrigerators contain chlorofluorocarbons; electronic circuit boards and cathode-ray tubes often contain heavy metals like lead; and old fluorescent bulbs contain mercury, another heavy metal. When landfills are operated properly, such materials pose no threat. However, when landfills are not operated properly, lead and mercury from them contaminate groundwater, for example. On the other hand, when trash is incinerated, heavy metals poison the ash and escape into the air.
Summary
Discarding old appliances can be dangerous because some contain harmful heavy metals. When landfills are operated properly, the heavy metals pose no threat. When landfills are not operated properly, lead and mercury can contaminate groundwater. When trash is burned, heavy metals poison the ash and are released into the air.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Old appliances that contain heavy metals should not be burned when discarded.
A
Old fluorescent bulbs should be recycled.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what “recycling” involves. We only know from the stimulus that old fluorescent bulbs should not be incinerated.
B
Appliances containing heavy metals should not be incinerated.
This answer is strongly supported. Since incineration causes heavy metals to poison the ash, these appliances should not be incinerated.
C
Chlorofluorocarbons are harmful to the atmosphere.
This answer is unsupported. We only know from the stimulus that heavy metals, when incinerated, are harmful to the atmosphere. It’s unclear from the stimulus whether chlorofluorocarbons are heavy metals.
D
Newer appliances are more dangerous to the environment than older ones.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is limited to older appliances. We don’t know anything about newer appliances in order to draw this comparison.
E
Appliances should be kept out of landfills.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is limited to older appliances. This answer applies to appliances generally and is therefore too strong.
Small amounts of sugar help the body absorb water.
Small amounts of sugar delay muscle fatigue by maintining body’s glucose level.
Large amounts of water take water from the blood to the stomach, which makes dehydration worse.
A
Glucose is not the only type of sugar whose absence or scarcity in one’s diet causes muscle fatigue.
B
Problems caused by dehydration are invariably exacerbated if substances that delay muscle fatigue are consumed.
C
Dehydrated athletes find beverages containing large amounts of sugar to be too sweet.
D
Some situations that exacerbate the problems caused by muscle fatigue do not exacerbate those caused by dehydration.
E
The rate at which the body absorbs water depends primarily on the amount of water already present in the blood.
Cookie Cutter Review
(B) conditional negation, just like question 10 from this section. Also uses abstract and referential phrasing typically found in flaw questions.