Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?
This is a Most Strongly Supported question.
Lathyrism, a debilitating neurological disorder caused by the consumption of the legume lathyrus sativus, is widespread among the domestic animals of some countries.
We’re told two facts about lathyrism in this sentence: (1) it’s widespread among the domestic animals of some countries, and (2) it’s a debilitating neurological disorder caused by eating a certain kind of plant.
Attempts to use rats to study lathyrism have generally failed.
We’ve tried to study this disorder in rats – but these attempts have mostly failed. Interesting – why have they failed? Are we going to start using some other animal in our studies? And can that animal be my neighbor’s Pomeranian?
Rats that ingested Lathyrus sativus did not produce the symptoms associated with the disorder.
This does provide an explanation of why using rats to study lathyrism hasn’t been useful – the rats that ate the plant that causes lathyrism don’t have the symptoms of lathyrism. Since we don’t see the symptoms in these rats, it’s tough to learn anything about lathyrism from them. For the sake of science, we need our test subjects to suffer the debilitating effects of this neurological disorder!
The stimulus doesn’t seem structured to lead to a particular conclusion. Let’s go to the answers and look for something that’s most strongly supported.
Answer Choice (A) The physiology of rats is radically different from that of domestic animals.
This may be a tempting answer, since it is a potential explanation for why rats don’t seem to experience the symptoms of lathyrism. But the problem is it’s far too speculative. We have no reason to think that this explanation is more likely than any other potential explanation.
Another issue is that even if we could say that some physiological difference in rats is why they don’t experience symptoms of lathyrism, that does not support the claim that rat physiology is radically different from domestic animals. “Radically different” means extremely different. But maybe there’s only a small difference that accounts for the rat’s resistance to the symptoms; we have no reason to think that there must be some extreme difference in physiology. Even a small difference in one’s bodily functions might lead to widely varying resistance to diseases.
Answer Choice (B) The rats did not consume as much Lathyrus sativus as did the domestic animals that contracted lathyrism.
This is similar to (A) in that it’s also offering a potential explanation of why rats did not exhibit symptoms. But we just don’t know how much the rats ate. It’s possible that they ate less than the domestic animals, and that this is why the rats didn’t experience the symptoms. But we don’t know – nothing in the stimulus speaks to the amount of the plants the rats ate.
Correct Answer Choice (C) Not all animal species are equally susceptible to lathyrism.
This is supported, because we know that rats don’t produce the symptoms of lathyrism, whereas at least some other animals do. The stimulus doesn’t explicitly say that other animals experience the symptoms, but the first sentence states that lathyrism is a “debilitating neurological disorder,” which means that it must have some effect on at least some animal in the world. If it didn’t, then it wouldn’t make sense to call the disorder debilitating. Since rats are affected differently from lathyrism compared to at least some other animals, that means lathyrism has varying effects on at least some animals in the world.
Sometimes people have a problem with the word “susceptible” in this answer. But susceptible means “liable to be influenced or harmed by a particular thing.” If rats don’t produce symptoms of lathyrism, but some other animal does, it’s fair to say that rats are less susceptible to lathyrism than the other animal. Rats are not as liable to be influenced or harmed by lathyrism.
Answer Choice (D) Most of the animals that can contract lathyrism are domestic.
“Most” means over half. The stimulus doesn’t support the claim that over half of animals that can get lathyrism are domestic. Although we know that lathyrism is “widespread among the domestic animals of some countries,” that doesn’t speak to what proportion of animals that can get lathyrism are domestic. For example, maybe lathyrism affects many cows, pigs, chickens, and hopefully, my neighbor’s Pomeranian. But it could be that lathyrism also affects lions, tigers, deer, wolves, monkeys, and every single wild animal in the world. The number of wild animals affected could be a lot greater than the number of domestic animals affected.
Answer Choice (E) Laboratory conditions are not conducive to the development of lathyrism.
Like (A) and (B), (E) is also an attempt to explain why the rats were asymptomatic. But we don’t know whether lab conditions are the reason that the rats mentioned in the stimulus didn’t produce symptoms of lathyrism. This explanation is possible but far too speculative since the stimulus doesn’t say anything that makes this explanation for the rats’ resistance to lathyrism any more likely than some other explanation (such as rats having some genetic resistance or other natural defense against lathyrism).
Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by the information above?
This is a Most Strongly Supported question. That means the correct answer will be strongly supported by the stimulus. The wrong answers will not have strong support from the stimulus.
In speech, when words or sentences are ambiguous, gesture and tone of voice are used to indicate the intended meaning.
When we’re talking, and a word or statement is ambiguous, we use things like gesture and tone of voice to help convey meaning. How do you say “Yeah, right,” but in a sarcastic way to mean “No, are you crazy?” Through your tone of voice, and maybe some movement of your head.
Writers, of course, cannot use gesture or tone of voice and must rely instead on style; the reader detects the writer’s intention from the arrangement of words and sentences.
This statement is analogous to the first statement about speech. When it comes to writing, an author has a way to convey the intended meaning when a word of sentence is ambiguous – style, or in other words, the “arrangement of words and sentences.” How do you write, “Yeah, right,” but in a sarcastic way to mean “No, are you crazy?” Maybe something like this: Yeah. Right.
We’re looking for an answer that is strongly supported by the stimulus. Since the stimulus started with the point about speech, and ended with an analogy to writing, I have a slight suspicion that the answer will be about writing, since the LSAT likes to test whether we understand the point of an analogy. But I’m mostly going in with an open mind.
Answer Choice (A) The primary function of style in writing is to augment the literal meanings of the words and sentences used.
The “primary” function? We don’t know the main function of style. We know that one function is to convey an intended meaning of a writer. But that doesn’t mean it’s the main function. This is a classic type of wrong answer – taking something that we know to be one factor and calling it the primary, main, or only factor.
Correct Answer Choice (B) The intended meaning of a piece of writing is indicated in part by the writer’s arrangement of words and sentences.
This is supported by the last sentence – the writer relies on “style” to convey meaning. The reference to “arrangement of words and sentences” is an elaboration of what the author of the stimulus means by “style.”
Some people don’t like this answer because of the phrase “in part.” They take issue with that phrase because the stimulus doesn’t indicate that there are other pieces besides style that go into intended meaning.
If that’s what you’re thinking, you might be overlooking something fairly obvious, though perhaps subtle. What else, besides the arrangement of words and sentences, convey meaning in writing? Surely the words themselves. The words themselves and their arrangement both convey meaning. Hence, meaning is “in part” conveyed by the arrangement of words.
If that still doesn’t convince you, then consider these two points.
First, we’re just looking for an answer that has strong support. It doesn’t have to be 100% proven true by the stimulus.
Second, are you sure that “in part” absolutely means that there must be other pieces to the intended meaning besides style? The phrase “in part” can often be read with an implicit “at least” before it – “at least in part.” For example:
The wedding was in part a disaster since the groom’s ex-girlfriend was a surprise bridesmaid.
Is that statement asserting that there were other parts of the wedding that were not a disaster? Or is it consistent with the whole wedding being a disaster?
Great white sharks are dangerous in part because they can bite you and kill you.
Is that statement asserting that there must be other parts to why great white sharks are dangerous besides the biting and killing? Or is this statement consistent with the idea that biting and killing is the entirety of what makes great white sharks dangerous?
I’m not saying there’s one right or wrong answer to these questions. But keep in mind that sometimes writers use language that’s ambiguous. The LSAT is asking us to recognize that ambiguity and to consider multiple interpretations. If you don’t notice and accept that ambiguity, you’re getting punished for it and losing points. (This happens in law school exams, too. You’ll learn about this one day.)
Answer Choice (C) It is easier for a listener to detect the tone of a speaker than for a reader to detect the style of a writer.
How do we know what’s easier? The stimulus told us what speakers do, and it told us what writers do. But there was never any relative comparison between speakers and writers, or listeners and readers.
Answer Choice (D) A writer’s intention will always be interpreted differently by different readers.
Why can’t readers sometimes have the same interpretation? We do know that when writing is ambiguous there can be multiple interpretations. But couldn’t you interpret the language in the same way as a friend does, even if someone else disagrees with you? And what if the writer doesn’t use any ambiguous language in the first place? Then we don’t have any reason to think there would be multiple interpretations.
Answer Choice (E) The writer’s arrangement of words and sentences completely determines the aesthetic value of his or her writing.
Aesthetic value refers to something like the artistic value of the writing. But we don’t know the “value” of anything from the stimulus. We’re simply told about conveying intended meanings – this doesn’t involve a value judgment about the quality or worth of writing.
The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?
This is a Most Strongly Supported question.
Gene splicing can give rise to new varieties of farm animals that have only a partially understood genetic makeup.
This statement tells us a fact about gene splicing – it might give rise to new kinds of farm animals with genetics we don’t fully understand. Genetically mysterious super-cows? Weirdly buff chickens with six-pack abs? Let’s see where this is going.
In addition to introducing the genes for whichever trait is desired, the technique can introduce genes governing the production of toxins or carcinogens, and these latter undesirable traits might not be easily discoverable.
Apparently gene-splicing can introduce genes that control the production of poisons and cancer-causing substances. In addition, it can be difficult to detect “these … undesirable traits” – this is a reference to the production of poisons and cancer-causing substances. It seems that gene-splicing might, for example, make a cow produce stuff that’s poisonous or causes cancer. And we might have a difficult time realizing that the genetically modified cow produces this stuff.
The stimulus doesn’t lend itself to any specific prediction – let’s go to the answers and look for what’s most strongly supported.
Answer Choice (A) All toxin production is genetically controlled.
“All” toxin production? We know that some toxin production is affected by genes. But we can’t infer that every single kind of toxin production is genetically controlled. That would be the logical flaw of hasty generalization.
Correct Answer Choice (B) Gene splicing to produce new varieties of farm animals should be used cautiously.
This answer contains “should,” which makes it a normative claim. These kinds of claims are inherently more difficult to support. However, there is enough in the stimulus to suggest that we should be cautious about gene splicing – we know that this technique can produce “undesirable” traits in farm animals, and that these traits can be difficult to detect. Calling those traits undesirable means that we don’t want to produce those traits in farm animals – so that’s a reason to be cautious about gene splicing. It produces something that we don’t want and we might not discover the problem easily.
Answer Choice (C) Gene splicing is not effective as a way of producing new varieties of farm animals.
We can’t speak to how effective gene splicing is at producing new farm animals. We know that it can produce new farm animals. But is this a highly effective technique? Minimally effective? The stimulus doesn’t say any more about this.
Make sure not to conflate the effectiveness of gene splicing with the desirability or wisdom of gene splicing. The stimulus does give us facts that would suggest we might not want to engage in gene splicing. But that’s a separate question from whether gene splicing is effective at creating new farm animals or not.
Answer Choice (D) Most new varieties of farm animals produced by gene splicing will develop cancer.
“Most” means over half. The stimulus doesn’t support a claim about over half of new farm animals with respect to developing cancer.
Even if this answer had said “some” at the beginning, it still would not be supported. We know gene splicing can lead to a trait governing production of cancer-causing substances. But that doesn’t imply the animals with these traits will develop cancer – maybe the concern is that people will get cancer from consuming these farm animals or drinking their milk.
Answer Choice (E) Gene splicing will advance to the point where unforeseen consequences are no longer a problem.
Why is this answer so optimistic? The stimulus didn’t give us any evidence about what will happen in the future with gene splicing. This answer is trying to tempt you based on your real-world assumption that science and technology constantly develop. But we don’t know what, if anything, will happen with gene splicing. Maybe scientists will be stumped and can’t make any more progress at reducing or eliminating side effects of gene splicing.