Questions Question 11

LSAT June 2007 - Section 3 - Question 11

March 19, 2013

17 comments

LSAT 123 - Section 3 - Question 11

March 19, 2013

18 comments

LSAT June 2007 - Section 2 - Question 11

March 5, 2013

46 comments

LSAT 123 - Section 2 - Question 11

March 5, 2013

It is now a common complaint that the electronic media have corroded the intellectual skills required and fostered by the literary media. But several centuries ago the complaint was that certain intellectual skills, such as the powerful memory and extemporaneous eloquence that were intrinsic to oral culture, were being destroyed by the spread of literacy. So, what awaits us is probably a mere alteration of the human mind rather than its devolution.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The argument refutes the complaint that electronic media are hurting intellectual skills. The author claims the mind is likely just changing instead of weakening. She uses an analogous situation - literary media was once feared to destroy the skills involved in oral tradition - to support her point.

Identify Argument Part

This is an analogy to the situation at hand that is used to support the conclusion. It is implied that because this media change ended up being embraced, then this change to electronic media will be fine as well.

A

evidence supporting the claim that the intellectual skills fostered by the literary media are being destroyed by the electronic media

This evidence is being used to refute that claim, not support it. The author is claiming that the transition to electronic media will not weaken the mind.

B

an illustration of the general hypothesis being advanced that intellectual abilities are inseparable from the means by which people communicate

The author is not advancing the claim that means and intellectual abilities are inseparable. Instead, she is claiming that intellectual abilities can remain strong, even if the means of communication change.

C

an example of a cultural change that did not necessarily have a detrimental effect on the human mind overall

This is descriptively accurate. The situation is used as an analogy - another situation that ended up ok, even though the media form changed. This shows that the current media transition will also be ok.

D

evidence that the claim that the intellectual skills required and fostered by the literary media are being lost is unwarranted

The author is refuting this claim, but there is no evidence that the author is trying to show it to be unwarranted. The author just claims that a different outcome is more likely.

E

possible evidence, mentioned and then dismissed, that might be cited by supporters of the hypothesis being criticized

This evidence supports the author’s hypothesis that the mind will not be weakened, not the opposition.

46 comments

LSAT 42 - Section 2 - Question 11

March 1, 2013

11 comments

LSAT 126 - Section 4 - Question 11

March 1, 2013

Inez: The book we are reading, The Nature of Matter, is mistitled. A title should summarize the content of the whole book, but nearly half of this book is devoted to discussing a different, albeit closely related subject: energy.

Antonio: I do not think that the author erred; according to modern physics, matter and energy are two facets of the same phenomenon.

Summary

Inez says that the book The Nature of Matter should have a different title. Why? Because almost half the book is about energy, and Inez thinks a title should summarize the entire book.

Antonio thinks that the title The Nature of Matter is actually fine, because modern physics considers matter and energy to be part of the same phenomenon.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

The conversation supports these inferences:

Inez thinks that the book’s title doesn’t summarize the entire book.

Inez thinks that if the book’s title mentions matter, it should also mention energy.

Antonio either thinks that the book’s title does summarize the entire book, or that summarizing the entire book is not necessary for a good book title.

Inez and Antonio disagree about whether the book is correctly titled.

A

Inez believes that the book should be called The Nature of Energy.

This is not supported. Inez says that a book’s title should summarize the entire book, but more than half of this book is about matter. Thus, replacing “Matter” with “Energy” in the title would just make the problem worse—then it would summarize less than half of the book.

B

Antonio believes that there are no differences between matter and energy.

This is not supported. Antonio calls matter and energy “two facets of the same phenomenon,” which indicates that they are different: they’re different facets. Just because they’re part of the same phenomenon, doesn’t mean they have no differences.

C

Inez and Antonio disagree on whether matter and energy are related.

This is not supported. Inez and Antonio both feel that matter and energy are related. Inez calls them “closely related,” while Antonio explains that they’re two parts of the same phenomenon—meaning they must be related.

D

Inez and Antonio disagree about the overall value of the book.

This is not supported. Neither Inez nor Antonio actually indicates their thoughts on the overall value of the book. They’re just discussing whether or not they like the title.

E

Inez believes that the book’s title should not mention matter without mentioning energy.

This is strongly supported. Inez’s complaint is that the book’s title doesn’t summarize the book’s whole contents: the book discusses both matter and energy, while the title only mentions matter. Including matter but not energy is what makes it an insufficient summary.

11 comments

LSAT 34 - Section 2 - Question 11

February 21, 2013

1 comment

LSAT 110 - Section 2 - Question 11

February 21, 2013

Some psychologists claim that, in theory, the best way to understand another person would be through deep empathy, whereby one would gain a direct and complete grasp of that person’s motivations. But suppose they are right; then there would be no way at all to achieve understanding, since it is psychologically impossible to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person’s motivations. But obviously one can understand other people; thus these psychologists are wrong.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that psychologists who claim empathy is the best way, in theory, to understand someone else are wrong. He concludes this by arguing that since it’s impossible to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person’s motivations, there’d be no way to achieve understanding according to the psychologists, and since one can understand people, the psychologists are wrong.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author reasons that if the psychologists are right, we can’t achieve understanding. However, this reasoning is flawed because the psychologists didn’t argue that deep empathy is the only way to understand people, only that it’s the best way. Also, the author’s reasoning that the psychologists are wrong is flawed. Just because the theoretically best way to do something wouldn’t work in practice, it doesn’t mean it’s not the theoretically best way.

A

fails to adequately define the key phrase “deep empathy”

The term “deep empathy” is defined right after it’s first mentioned.

B

assumes something that it later denies, resulting in a contradiction

The author erroneously assumes that the psychologists’ claim is contradictory to fact. However, the author never denies this assumption.

C

confuses a theoretically best way of accomplishing something with the only way of accomplishing it

This flaw is committed. The author reasons that if the psychologists are right, understanding can’t be achieved. However, the psychologists never argued that deep empathy is the only way to understand people. They only argued that it’s the best way.

D

accepts a claim on mere authority, without requiring sufficient justification

The author doesn’t accept any claims on mere authority. The author argues that the psychologists’ claim is incorrect.

E

fails to consider that other psychologists may disagree with the psychologists cited

The author’s argument isn’t concerned with other psychologists. The author only argues that the psychologists who claim that deep empathy is the best way to understand another person are wrong.