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

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

LSAT 144 - Section 4 - Question 03

December 17, 2015

The official listing of an animal species as endangered triggers the enforcement of legal safeguards designed to protect endangered species, such as tighter animal export and trade restrictions and stronger antipoaching laws. Nevertheless, there have been many cases in which the decline in the wild population of a species was more rapid after that species was listed as endangered than before it was so listed.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Why have some animal species declined faster in the wild after being listed as endangered, even though this status is meant to provide legal protection?

Objective

The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains how listing a species as endangered can lead to an increase in the rate of population decline. It will explain a key difference between the intended legal protections and the actual consequences of listing a species as endangered by connecting population decline to public awareness or attention around the endangered species.

A
The process of officially listing a species as endangered can take many years.

This might explain why the rate of population decline continues after a species is listed as endangered (perhaps the listing came too late and the damage is done), but it does not explain why the rate of population decline increases as soon as an animal is listed as endangered.

B
Public campaigns to save endangered animal species often focus only on those species that garner the public’s affection.

This does not connect public attention around endangered animals to the rate of decline in the animals’ population, so it does not help us to explain why a species’ rate of population decline increases after it is listed as endangered.

C
The number of animal species listed as endangered has recently increased dramatically.

This does not explain the connection between the “endangered” status and an increase in population decline. There may be more endangered species than ever, but we still do not know why population decline increases after a species is listed as endangered.

D
Animals are more desirable to collectors when they are perceived to be rare.

This is the only answer choice that could explain the endangered status leading to increased population decline. The perceived rarity of an endangered species makes it more desirable to collectors, who are more likely to illegally obtain it and thus increase population decline.

E
Poachers find it progressively more difficult to locate animals of a particular species as that species’ population declines.

This does not explain why a species’ population decline increases after it is listed as endangered. If anything, poachers’ inability to locate a particular species might decrease that species’ population decline.


5 comments

LSAT 144 - Section 4 - Question 02

December 17, 2015

3 comments

LSAT 144 - Section 4 - Question 01

December 17, 2015

Aisha: Vadim is going to be laid off. Vadim’s work as a programmer has been exemplary since joining the firm. But management has already made the decision to lay off a programmer. And this firm strictly follows a policy of laying off the most recently hired programmer in such cases.

Summary
The author concludes that Vadim, a programmer, is going to be laid off. This is based on the fact that his company has already decided to lay off a programmer, and the firm will follow the following rule in deciding who to lay off:
Most recently hired programmer → laid off

Missing Connection
We know the company will lay off the most recently hired programmer. So to establish that Vadim will be laid off, we want to know that he is the most recently hired programmer.

A
The firm values experience in its programmers more highly than any other quality.
(A) doesn’t tell us that Vadim is the most recently hired programmer. So it doesn’t guarantee that he will be laid off.
B
When Vadim was hired, the policy of laying off the most recently hired programmer was clearly explained.
(B) doesn’t tell us that Vadim is the most recently hired programmer. So it doesn’t guarantee that he will be laid off.
C
Vadim is the most recently hired programmer at the firm.
(C) establishes that Vadim was the most recently hired programmer at the company. So, based on the policy described, he will be the programmer who is laid off.
D
Every other programmer at the firm has done better work than Vadim.
(D) doesn’t tell us that Vadim is the most recently hired programmer. So it doesn’t guarantee that he will be laid off.
E
It is bad policy that the firm always lays off the most recently hired programmer.
(E) doesn’t tell us that Vadim is the most recently hired programmer. So it doesn’t guarantee that he will be laid off.

3 comments

LSAT 144 - Section 2 - Question 26

December 17, 2015

35 comments

LSAT 144 - Section 2 - Question 25

December 17, 2015

It is likely that most of the new television programs Wilke & Wilke produce for this season will be canceled. Most of the new shows they produced last season were canceled due to insufficient viewership. Furthermore, their new shows are all police dramas, and few police dramas have been popular in recent years.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that most new Wilke & Wilke television shows this season will probably be canceled. The author supports this argument by observing that most of Wilke & Wilke’s new shows last season were canceled because of insufficient viewership. The author also asserts that Wilke & Wilke’s new shows are all police dramas, a type of show that has not been popular in recent years.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that viewership in the last season will probably be similar to viewership in the current season. The author also assumes that if few police dramas have been popular in recent years, then new police dramas will probably not be popular.

On top of this, the author assumes that viewership will be so low, and police dramas are so unpopular, that the new shows will be cancelled.

A
Wilke & Wilke have produced more new shows for this season than they produced last season.

The amount of new shows being produced in a season has no clear effect on whether most new shows in a season will be canceled, and is therefore irrelevant to the argument.

B
Most of the shows that Wilke & Wilke produced last year were police dramas.

This doesn’t strengthen the argument, because we still don’t know how Wilke & Wilke’s low viewership interacts with the unpopularity of police dramas. Maybe their police dramas were actually unusually popular, which is why they’re producing more!

C
None of the shows that Wilke & Wilke produced last year that were not canceled were police dramas.

This choice does not give us any information about the shows that are likely to be canceled; the fact that other kinds of shows were not canceled is irrelevant.

D
All of the new shows that Wilke & Wilke produced last year that were canceled were police dramas.

This strengthens by backing up the assumption that trends from last year will predict this year’s results. Now we have a direct analogy between the types of shows the author predicts will be canceled, and similar shows last season that were actually cancelled.

E
None of the most popular television shows last year were police dramas.

This does not add to the argument, as the author has already asserted that police dramas have not been popular recently.


29 comments

LSAT 144 - Section 2 - Question 24

December 17, 2015

85 comments

LSAT 144 - Section 2 - Question 23

December 17, 2015

Well-intentioned people sometimes attempt to resolve the marital problems of their friends. But these attempts are usually ineffectual and thereby foster resentment among all parties. Thus, even well-intentioned attempts to resolve the marital problems of friends are usually unjustified.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that people’s well-intentioned attempts to solve their friends’ marital problems are usually unjustified. In support, the author explains that these attempts usually don’t work, and instead just cause resentment.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there’s a link between a well-intentioned attempt to solve a problem being ineffectual and causing resentment, and whether that attempt was justified.

A
One should get involved in other people’s problems only with the intention of producing the best overall consequences.
This is irrelevant, because the domain of the argument is already limited to well-intentioned attempts. This doesn’t tell us anything about why such an attempt could be unjustified.
B
Interpersonal relations should be conducted in accordance with doing whatever is right, regardless of the consequences.
This is irrelevant. The author never mentions what kinds of actions are “right,” only what’s “justified.” This doesn’t help us with justification at all.
C
Good intentions are the only legitimate grounds on which to attempt to resolve the marital problems of friends.
This still doesn’t help us with the element of justification, and so doesn’t strengthen the argument.
D
The intentions of an action are irrelevant to whether or not that action is justified.
This doesn’t strengthen because it still doesn’t tell us what contributes to an action being justified. Intentions are irrelevant, great, but we still don’t know how an action being ineffectual and causing resentment cause it to be unjustified.
E
No actions based on good intentions are justified unless they also result in success.
This affirms the author’s assumption that a well-intentioned action being ineffectual makes that action unjustified, and so strengthens the argument.

16 comments

LSAT 144 - Section 2 - Question 22

December 17, 2015

A tax preparation company automatically adds the following disclaimer to every e-mail message sent to its clients: “Any tax advice in this e-mail should not be construed as advocating any violation of the provisions of the tax code.” The only purpose this disclaimer could serve is to provide legal protection for the company. But if the e-mail elsewhere suggests that the client do something illegal, then the disclaimer offers no legal protection. So the disclaimer serves no purpose.

Summary
The author concludes that the e-mail disclaimer serves no purpose. This is based on the following:
The only purpose of the disclaimer is to provide legal protection for the company.
If the e-mail in which the disclaimer appears suggests that the client do something illegal, then the disclaimer offers no legal protection.

Missing Connection
We know that if the e-mail suggests that people do something illegal, the disclaimer won’t serve its purpose. But what if the e-mail does NOT suggest that people do something illegal? Couldn’t the disclaimer still serve a purpose in this situation? To make the argument valid, we want to establish that if the e-mail doesn’t suggest doing something illegal, the disclaimer still doesn’t serve the purpose of providing legal protection.

A
If the e-mail does not elsewhere suggest that the client do anything illegal, then the company does not need legal protection.
(E) provides the missing half of the argument. So whether the e-mail does or does not suggest to do something illegal, the e-mail doesn’t serve a purpose. Either the e-mail doesn’t offer legal protection, or the company doesn’t need legal protection.
B
If e-mail messages sent by the tax preparation company do elsewhere suggest that the recipient do something illegal, then the company could be subject to substantial penalties.
(B) doesn’t tell us what happens if the e-mail does not suggest that people should do something illegal. So we don’t know whether the disclaimer might be able to serve a purpose in that situation.
C
A disclaimer that is included in every e-mail message sent by a company will tend to be ignored by recipients who have already received many e-mails from that company.
(C) establishes that people might end up ignoring the disclaimer. But this doesn’t prove that the disclaimer serves no purpose when the e-mail doesn’t suggest doing something illegal. The disclaimer might still serve its purpose in that situation, even if there’s a potential people will ignore the disclaimer.
D
At least some of the recipients of the company’s e-mails will follow the advice contained in the body of at least some of the e-mails they receive.
This doesn’t establish that the disclaimer serves no purpose if the e-mail doesn’t suggest that clients do something illegal. We already know that the disclaimer serves no purpose if the e-mail suggests something illegal. What matters is what happens if the e-mail doesn’t suggest something illegal.
E
Some of the tax preparation company’s clients would try to illegally evade penalties if they knew how to do so.
This doesn’t establish that the disclaimer serves no purpose if the e-mail doesn’t suggest that clients do something illegal. We already know that the disclaimer serves no purpose if the e-mail suggests something illegal. What matters is what happens if the e-mail doesn’t suggest something illegal.

48 comments

«‹123456789›»