(A) is a difficult answer choice to parse. What's "not significantly more"? Certainly less --> not significantly more. Same --> not significantly more. Slightly more --> not significantly more.

It's only the last group "slightly more" that gives us some trouble. We would need to presume that "slightly more" is not already more 5%, which I think is reasonable. Of course, the LSAT thinks that's reasonable too.


33 comments

Contrary to recent speculations, no hardware store will be opening in the shopping plaza. If somebody were going to open a store there, they would already have started publicizing it. But there has been no such publicity.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author disputes a position others hold and explains why it is wrong. Despite what others claim, no hardware store is opening in the shopping plaza. If there was such a store opening, there would have been publicity. There has been no publicity (so the condition for a hardware store opening was not met).

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is a claim about what will occur: “no hardware store will be opening in the shopping plaza.”

A
Some people have surmised that a hardware store will be opening in the shopping plaza.
This is context that sets up a position the author argues against.
B
A hardware store will not be opening in the shopping plaza.
This directly rephrases the author’s main claim about what will occur at the shopping plaza.
C
If somebody were going to open a hardware store in the shopping plaza, that person would already have started publicizing it.
This is support for why no hardware store will be opening.
D
It would be unwise to open a hardware store in the shopping plaza.
No information about what is wise is contained in the stimulus.
E
There has been no publicity concerning the opening of a hardware store in the shopping plaza.
This is additional support for why no hardware store will be opening.

3 comments

Ethicist: Although science is frequently said to be morally neutral, it has a traditional value system of its own. For example, scientists sometimes foresee that a line of theoretical research they are pursuing will yield applications that could seriously harm people, animals, or the environment. Yet, according to science’s traditional value system, such consequences do not have to be considered in deciding whether to pursue that research. Ordinary morality, in contrast, requires that we take the foreseeable consequences of our actions into account whenever we are deciding what to do.

Summary

Science has a traditional value system of its own. For example, scientists sometimes foresee research yielding harmful consequences. However, according to scientist’s traditional value system, these consequences do not have to be considered when deciding what to research. In contrast, ordinary morality would require taking foreseeable consequences into account when deciding what to do.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Sometimes scientists may follow their traditional value system and violate ordinary morality at the same time.

A
Scientists should not be held responsible for the consequences of their research.

This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not suggest what scientists should or should not be held accountable for. The stimulus is limited to the contrast between two different value systems.

B
According to the dictates of ordinary morality, scientists doing research that ultimately turns out to yield harmful applications are acting immorally.

This answer is unsupported. Ordinary morality requires taking foreseeable consequences into account. If the harm that results in this answer choice is not foreseeable, then scientists cannot be said to be violating ordinary morality.

C
Science is morally neutral because it assigns no value to the consequences of theoretical research.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether science is in fact morally neutral. We only know that science is frequently said to be morally neutral.

D
It is possible for scientists to both adhere to the traditional values of their field and violate a principle of ordinary morality.

This answer is strongly supported. Scientists’ traditional value system does not require taking into account foreseeable consequences, while ordinary morality does.

E
The uses and effects of scientifically acquired knowledge can never be adequately foreseen.

This answer is unsupported. To say that these can “never” be adequately foreseen is too strong. It’s possible that these effects can be adequately foreseen, it’s just that the traditional value system for science does not require scientists to take these effects into account.


8 comments

The number of serious traffic accidents (accidents resulting in hospitalization or death) that occurred on Park Road from 1986 to 1990 was 35 percent lower than the number of serious accidents from 1981 to 1985. The speed limit on Park Road was lowered in 1986. Hence, the reduction of the speed limit led to the decrease in serious accidents.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the speed reduction caused the decrease in serious accidents. This is because the number of serious accidents was 35% lower for the years after the speed reduction than the years before the speed reduction.

Notable Assumptions
Based solely on a correlation between the speed reduction and the reduction in serious accidents, the author assumes that the former caused the latter. This means she doesn’t believe there was some hidden third factor that occurred at the same time as the speed reduction (e.g. road repairs, better driving instruction, new hospitalization procedures, less traffic) that was the real reason why serious accidents decreased.

A
The number of speeding tickets issued annually on Park Road remained roughly constant from 1981 to 1990.
Even if speeding tickets remained the same, the limit indeed dropped in 1986. This doesn’t weaken the idea that the speed reduction caused the reduction in serious accidents.
B
Beginning in 1986, police patrolled Park Road much less frequently than in 1985 and previous years.
We have no idea what effect a police presence would have. We care about why accidents reduced after 1986.
C
The annual number of vehicles using Park Road decreased significantly and steadily from 1981 to 1990.
Since traffic gradually decreased throughout the decade, it makes sense that there would be less accidents near the end than near the start. Thus, we have another reason why serious accidents decreased that doesn’t include the speed reduction.
D
The annual number of accidents on Park Road that did not result in hospitalization remained roughly constant from 1981 to 1990.
We only care about serious accidents, which result in either death or hospitalization.
E
Until 1986 accidents were classified as “serious” only if they resulted in an extended hospital stay.
This says that the definition of “serious” became more inclusive after the speed reduction. But accidents were decreasing at that point, so all this really does is tell us even fewer accidents were happening than the stimulus led us to believe.

31 comments

Humans are supposedly rational: in other words, they have a capacity for well-considered thinking and behavior. This is supposedly the difference that makes them superior to other animals. But humans knowingly pollute the world’s precious air and water and, through bad farming practices, deplete the soil that feeds them. Thus, humans are not rational after all, so it is absurd to regard them as superior to other animals.

A
relies crucially on an internally contradictory definition of rationality
There’s nothing contradictory about the definition — the capacity for well-considered thinking and behavior. This definition makes logical sense. The author tries to show that human behavior doesn’t fit this definition, but that doesn’t mean the definition is contradictory.
B
takes for granted that humans are aware that their acts are irrational
The author assumes that humans act in ways that aren’t well-considered. But the author doesn’t assume humans are aware this behavior is allegedly irrational. The definition of “rational” doesn’t involve humans’ awareness of rationality.
C
neglects to show that the irrational acts perpetrated by humans are not also perpetrated by other animals
The author never suggested animals are not also irrational. So he didn’t need to show that animals aren’t irrational.
D
presumes, without offering justification, that humans are no worse than other animals
The author concludes that humans are not superior to other animals. That doesn’t mean the author believes humans cannot be worse. If humans are worse than animals, that doesn’t undermine the author’s position.
E
fails to recognize that humans may possess a capacity without displaying it in a given activity
The author fails to realize that humans may possess a capacity (for well-considered thinking/behavior) without displaying it in a given activity (various activities that hurt the environment). One can possess the ability to do something even if one doesn’t always do it.

20 comments

“Good hunter” and “bad hunter” are standard terms in the study of cats. Good hunters can kill prey that weigh up to half their body weight. All good hunters have a high muscle-to-fat ratio. Most wild cats are good hunters, but some domestic cats are good hunters as well.

Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:

Notable Valid Inferences
Most wildcats have a high muscle-to-fat ratio.

Most wildcats can kill prey that weigh up to half of their body weight.

Some cats that can kill prey that weigh up to half of their body weight have a high muscle-to-fat ratio.

Some domestic cats can kill prey that weigh up to half of their body weight.

Some domestic cats have a high muscle-to-fat ratio.

A
Some cats that have a high muscle-to-fat ratio are not good hunters.
This could be false. We know that all good hunters have a high muscle-to-fat ratio. It could be the case that some of the cats with a high muscle-to-fat ratio are not good hunters.
B
A smaller number of domestic cats than wild cats have a high muscle-to-fat ratio.
This could be false. We don’t have any information about the numbers of domestic cats or wild cats.
C
All cats that are bad hunters have a low muscle-to-fat ratio.
This could be false. We don’t know enough about cats that are bad hunters.
D
Some cats that have a high muscle-to-fat ratio are domestic.
This must be true. As shown in the diagram, we see that we can infer that some domestic cats have a high muscle-to-fat ratio.
E
All cats that have a high muscle-to-fat ratio can kill prey that weigh up to half their body weight.
This could be false. We know that some cats with a high muscle-to-fat ratio can kill prey that weigh up to half their body weight, but we don’t know if this is true for all of these cats.

8 comments

Ethicist: The penalties for drunk driving are far more severe when the drunk driver accidentally injures people than when no one is injured. Moral responsibility for an action depends solely on the intentions underlying the action and not on the action’s results. Therefore, legal responsibility, depending as it does in at least some cases on factors other than the agent’s intentions, is different than moral responsibility.

Summarize Argument
Legal responsibility is different than moral responsibility. Why? Moral responsibility depends only on intentions, not outcomes. However, legal responsibility depends on factors other than intentions in some cases. For example, legal drunk driving penalties are stronger when there are worse outcomes.

Identify Argument Part
This is a premise. It is an example that shows that legal responsibility can be outcome dependent, which shows legal responsibility can depend on factors other than intentions, which proves legal responsibility is different from moral responsibility.

A
It is a premise offered in support of the claim that legal responsibility for an action is based solely upon features of the action that are generally unintended by the agent.
This answer choice is too strong. It shows that legal responsibility can be based on unintended features, but not “solely.”
B
It is offered as an illustration of the claim that the criteria of legal responsibility for an action include but are not the same as those for moral responsibility.
This illustrates an aspect of legal responsibility that is different from moral responsibility.
C
It is offered as an illustration of the claim that people may be held morally responsible for an action for which they are not legally responsible.
This claim only shows legal responsibility for drunk driving. We don’t know about moral responsibility.
D
It is a premise offered in support of the claim that legal responsibility depends in at least some cases on factors other than the agent’s intentions.
This shows that outcomes play a role in some legal cases, which is a factor other than the agent’s responsibility.
E
It is a premise offered in support of the claim that moral responsibility depends solely on the intentions underlying the action and not on the action’s result.
That particular claim receives no support. This part of the stimulus supports a claim about legal responsibility.

13 comments