Questions Question 16

LSAT 136 - Section 2 - Question 16

August 17, 2012

24 comments

LSAT 21 - Section 3 - Question 16

August 8, 2012

160 comments

LSAT 65 - Section 4 - Question 16

May 13, 2012

28 comments

LSAT 135 - Section 4 - Question 16

May 13, 2012

Critic to economist: In yet another of your bumbling forecasts, last year you predicted that this country’s economy would soon go into recession if current economic policies were not changed. Instead, economic growth is even stronger this year.

Economist: There was nothing at all bumbling about my warning. Indeed, it convinced the country’s leaders to change economic policies, which is what prevented a recession.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The economist concludes that his warning that the country’s economy would go into recession if policies weren’t changed was not bumbling. He supports this by saying that his warning led the country’s leaders to change economic policies, which prevented the recession.

Describe Method of Reasoning

The economist’s prediction relied on a condition. He predicted that the economy would go into recession if policies weren’t changed. But the economist shows that this condition wasn’t met— because of his warning, economic policies were changed. As a result, he concludes that his warning wasn’t bumbling and ineffective and suggests that it actually led to the prevention of the recession.

A

indicating that the state of affairs on which the economist’s prediction was conditioned did not obtain

The economist’s prediction was conditioned on economic policies staying the same. By showing that policies were changed (i.e. that “the state of affairs on which [his] prediction was conditioned did not obtain”), he refutes the critic’s claim that his prediction was bumbling.

B

distinguishing between a prediction that has not yet turned out to be correct and one that has turned out to be incorrect

The economist doesn’t suggest that his prediction might still be correct, nor does he distinguish between types of predictions. He’s not concerned with whether his prediction came to pass; instead, he focuses on disproving the claim that his warning was bumbling or pointless.

C

attempting to show that the critic’s statements are mutually inconsistent

The economist refutes the critic’s claim that his warning was bumbling, but he doesn’t point out any inconsistencies within the critic’s argument.

D

offering a particular counterexample to a general claim asserted by the critic

The critic asserts a very specific claim about the economist’s prediction, not a general one. And the economist doesn't respond by offering a counterexample, but shows that the condition on which his prediction depended was not met.

E

offering evidence against one of the critic’s factual premises

The economist implicitly accepts both of the critic’s factual claims (that he predicted a recession if policies weren’t changed and that economic growth was stronger this year). Instead of disputing these claims, he points out that the condition for his prediction wasn’t met.

29 comments

LSAT 65 - Section 1 - Question 16

May 13, 2012

20 comments

LSAT 135 - Section 1 - Question 16

May 13, 2012

24 comments

LSAT 64 - Section 3 - Question 16

May 13, 2012

1 comment

LSAT 134 - Section 3 - Question 16

May 13, 2012

Editorial: Cell-phone usage on buses and trains is annoying to other passengers. This suggests that recent proposals to allow use of cell phones on airplanes are ill-advised. Cell-phone use would be far more upsetting on airplanes than it is on buses and trains. Airline passengers are usually packed in tightly. And if airline passengers are offended by the cell-phone excesses of their seatmates, they often cannot move to another seat.

Summarize Argument

The editorialist claims that recent proposals allowing cell phones to be used on airplanes is a bad idea. Cell-phone usage on buses and trains annoys other passengers, and airplanes are configured in such a way that would make cell-phone usage even more annoying.

Identify Argument Part

The referenced text supports the editorialist’s conclusion that recent proposals to allow cell-phone usage on airplanes are ill-advised. It’s also supported by two other premises, making it a sub-conclusion.

A

It is the main conclusion of the argument.

The author concludes that recent proposals are ill-advised. The referenced text supports this conclusion by showing that airplanes are a more extreme case than trains and buses, where cell-phone usage is already annoying.

B

It is a claim that the argument tries to rebut.

The editorialist doesn’t disagree that cell-phone usage on planes is more annoying than on trains and buses. In fact, he supports the claim with additional premises.

C

It is a premise that indirectly supports the main conclusion of the argument by supporting a premise for that conclusion.

The referenced text directly supports the conclusion, and is itself supported by other premises. Why are the proposals a bad idea? Because cell-phone usage is even more annoying on airplanes than on trains and buses.

D

It is a conclusion for which support is provided and that itself is used in turn to directly support the argument’s main conclusion.

The referenced text supports the claim that recent proposals are ill-advised, and is also supported by two claims. Why are cell phones more annoying on airplanes than buses? Because airplanes are tightly packed, and you can’t change seats mid-flight to avoid the annoyance.

E

It provides background information that plays no role in the reasoning in the argument.

The referenced text supports the argument. It gives a reason why recent proposals are a bad idea—cell-phone usage, while already annoying on buses and trains, is far worse on airplanes.

8 comments

LSAT 64 - Section 1 - Question 16

May 13, 2012

This is a pretty tough question. Hopefully, you're well trained by now to always separate premises from conclusions.

This passage makes you work for it. The first sentence is a premise:

selfish --> /gov't by consent

The second sentence contains a conclusion followed by "since" and another premise:

/gov't by consent --> /democracy

Forget the conclusion for now. Let's just piece together the premises.

selfish --> /gov't by consent --> /democracy

What conclusion can you validly draw? This one:

selfish --> /democracy

What conclusion do they draw?

B(selfish) --> B(/democracy)

Sort of. They make a small assumption [/democracy --> futile to aspire to democracy]. Anyway, this is a tiny assumption and reasonable too, so let's concede this point.

Besides, they committed a huge logical error.

If I tell you that Tommy is 3 years old and just formed a new belief that this delicious object he's eating is called "banana". Can you conclude that Tommy believes that this object is a fruit? That's reasonable isn't it since banana --> fruit?

Well, that depends on whether Tommy knows that conditional relationship holds. Tommy just learned "banana". Who knows if he understands that "banana" is a sub-set of this other thing called "fruit".

Now imagine things more complex than "banana" and "fruit" and you'll see that this applies to all of us. We don't know all the logical relationships that exist. X --> Y may be true, but if we are unaware of that truth, our knowing X doesn't imply our knowing Y.

Anyway, this is not the first time that you've seen this exact error on the LSAT. Plenty of questions before this one committed similar errors.

33 comments

LSAT 134 - Section 1 - Question 16

May 13, 2012

The view that every person is concerned exclusively with her or his own self-interest implies that government by consent is impossible. Thus, social theorists who believe that people are concerned only with their self-interest evidently believe that aspiring to democracy is futile, since democracy is not possible in the absence of government by consent.

Summarize Argument

The argument concludes that social theorists who believe that people are only concerned with their self-interest must also believe that democracy is impossible. This is based on two claims: that democracy requires government by consent; and that if people are only concerned with their self-interest, government by consent is impossible.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The argument uses a claimed implication of some theorists’ belief about self-interest to come to a conclusion about what those believe about democracy. This assumes that everyone who has the belief about self-interest must agree with what that implies about democracy. However, it’s still possible that not everyone who has the belief about self-interest will agree that democracy is impossible.

A

infers merely from the fact of someone’s holding a belief that he or she believes an implication of that belief

The argument infers that everyone who believes that people are only concerned with their self-interest will also believe the supposed implication that government by consent is impossible. This inference has no support other than the mere fact of holding the first belief.

B

infers that because something is true of a group of people, it is true of each individual member of the group

The argument doesn’t make any inferences about the properties of individual people based on the properties of the groups they belong to.

C

infers that because something is true of each individual person belonging to a group, it is true of the group as a whole

The argument doesn’t make any inferences about the properties of groups based on the properties of individual people in those groups.

D

attempts to discredit a theory by discrediting those who espouse that theory

The argument isn’t attempting to discredit any theory. It also never tries to discredit supporters of any theory—in fact, there’s no discussion of people’s character at all.

E

fails to consider that, even if an argument’s conclusion is false, some of the assumptions used to justify that conclusion may nonetheless be true

The argument doesn’t attempt to claim that any other argument’s conclusion is false.

This is a pretty tough question. Hopefully, you're well trained by now to always separate premises from conclusions.

This passage makes you work for it. The first sentence is a premise:

selfish --> /gov't by consent

The second sentence contains a conclusion followed by "since" and another premise:

/gov't by consent --> /democracy

Forget the conclusion for now. Let's just piece together the premises.

selfish --> /gov't by consent --> /democracy

What conclusion can you validly draw? This one:

selfish --> /democracy

What conclusion do they draw?

B(selfish) --> B(/democracy)

Sort of. They make a small assumption [/democracy --> futile to aspire to democracy]. Anyway, this is a tiny assumption and reasonable too, so let's concede this point.

Besides, they committed a huge logical error.

If I tell you that Tommy is 3 years old and just formed a new belief that this delicious object he's eating is called "banana". Can you conclude that Tommy believes that this object is a fruit? That's reasonable isn't it since banana --> fruit?

Well, that depends on whether Tommy knows that conditional relationship holds. Tommy just learned "banana". Who knows if he understands that "banana" is a sub-set of this other thing called "fruit".

Now imagine things more complex than "banana" and "fruit" and you'll see that this applies to all of us. We don't know all the logical relationships that exist. X --> Y may be true, but if we are unaware of that truth, our knowing X doesn't imply our knowing Y.

Anyway, this is not the first time that you've seen this exact error on the LSAT. Plenty of questions before this one committed similar errors.

35 comments