Sections 1

LSAT 152 - Section 1 - Question 20

January 16, 2019

LSAT 86 - Section 1 - Question 15

January 16, 2019

LSAT 152 - Section 1 - Question 15

January 16, 2019

It has been said that understanding a person completely leads one to forgive that person entirely. If so, then it follows that complete self-forgiveness is beyond our reach, for complete self-understanding, however desirable, is unattainable.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that complete self-forgiveness is unattainable. He supports this by saying that completely understanding someone leads to completely forgiving them, but complete self-understanding is unattainable.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking sufficiency and necessity. The author concludes that complete self-forgiveness is unattainable because complete self-understanding is unattainable. In doing so, he treats “understanding” as necessary for “forgiveness.” But according to his premises, “understanding” is merely sufficient. So negating “understanding” tells us nothing about “forgiveness.”
In other words, the author treats complete understanding as the only way to bring about forgiveness. But maybe it’s possible to forgive yourself completely, even though you can’t understand yourself completely.

A

treats the failure to satisfy a condition that brings about a particular outcome as if satisfying that condition is the only way to realize the outcome

The author treats the failure to satisfy “understanding,” which is sufficient to bring about “forgiveness,” as if satisfying “understanding” is the only way to bring about “forgiveness.” But what if self-forgiveness is attainable, even though self-understanding is not?

B

confuses something that is necessary for an action to occur with something that necessarily results from that action

Actually, the author confuses something that is sufficient for an action to occur with something that is necessary for that action to occur. He doesn’t confuse a conditional claim with a causal claim like (B) suggests.

C

takes for granted that something that has merely been said to be true is, in fact, true

The author doesn't assume that it’s true that complete understanding leads to complete forgiveness merely because it has been said to be true. He just says that if this is true, then complete self-forgiveness is unattainable.

D

ignores the possibility that a state of affairs is desirable even if it cannot be attained

The argument is about whether complete self-forgiveness and understanding are possible, not whether they are desirable. Also the author seems to acknowledge that complete self-understanding is desirable, even though it’s unattainable.

E

uses the difficulty of attaining a state of affairs as a reason for not attempting to attain it

The author doesn't make any claims about whether one should or should not attempt to attain self-forgiveness and understanding. Also, he doesn’t argue that self-forgiveness and understanding are simply difficult; he argues that they’re unattainable.

24 comments

LSAT 86 - Section 1 - Question 14

January 16, 2019

43 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 1 - Question 14

January 16, 2019

Pratt: Almost all cases of rabies in humans come from being bitten by a rabid animal, and bats do carry rabies. But there is little justification for health warnings that urge the removal of any bats residing in buildings where people work or live. Bats are shy animals that rarely bite, and the overwhelming majority of bats do not have rabies.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that there’s not much justification for health warnings that urge removal of all bats that live in buildings where people work/live. This is based on the fact that bats are shy animals that rarely bite, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of bats don’t have rabies.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that the risk of being bitten by bats, whether they have rabies or not, does not provide significant justification for removing bats from all buildings where people work/live. The author assumes that there aren’t significant reasons we should remove all bats from the buildings, despite the unlikelihood of being bitten by a rabid bat.

A

A rabid bat is much more likely to infect another bat than to infect any other type of animal.

This suggests bats pose more risk to other bats than to other animals, such as humans. This is consistent with the author’s position, which is that we don’t have much justification to remove all bats from buildings with people.

B

Rabid bats are less mobile than other bats but are much more aggressive.

(B) gives us reason to think that rabid bats are likely to bite more often than other bats, which means that the general tendency (”rarely bite”) pointed out by the author does not apply to rabid bats. This undermines the support provided by that premise.

C

Most animals that carry rabies are animals of species that, under normal conditions, very rarely bite people.

This has no clear impact. Most animals with rabies could be raccoons, weasels, rats, etc. This doesn’t suggest that rabid bats are more likely to bite people than normal bats, or that there’s something about bats that should justify removing them from buildings.

D

The bat species with the highest incidence of rabies do not live in buildings.

If anything, this might support the author’s position by eliminating the possibility that the most rabid bats live in buildings, which might otherwise give us a reason to remove bats from buildings.

E

People are more likely to be aware of having been bitten by a bat if they were bitten by the bat inside a building.

This has no clear impact. If people are more likely to be aware of being bitten by a bat in a building, that doesn’t suggest we might want to remove bats from buildings.

49 comments

LSAT 86 - Section 1 - Question 08

January 16, 2019

17 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 1 - Question 08

January 16, 2019

Monarch butterflies must contend with single-celled parasites that can cause deformities that interfere with their flight. In populations of monarch butterflies that have not migrated, as many as 95 percent are heavily infected by the parasites, while less than 15 percent of those in migrating populations are infected. This shows that migrating allows monarch butterflies to avoid these parasites.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The author hypothesizes that migration allows monarchs to avoid the parasites. She supports this by saying that up to 95% of non-migrating monarch populations are infected, while less than 15% of migrating populations are infected. She also says the parasites can interfere with monarchs’ flight.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that correlation proves causation. The author notes a correlation between migration and lower infection percentages and then concludes that migration causes monarchs to avoid infection. Her reasoning is flawed because she overlooks two key alternative hypotheses:

(1) The causal relationship could be reversed—maybe parasitic infections prevent monarchs from migrating, not the other way around.

(2) Another factor might cause certain populations to not migrate and to be more vulnerable to parasites.

A

monarch butterflies are unable to detect which areas are free from parasites

Migrating monarchs have a lower percentage of infections, but it doesn’t matter whether they can detect which areas are free from parasites. Even if the author did address this, it wouldn’t impact her conclusion that migration allows these monarchs to avoid parasites.

B

long migrations are no better protection from parasites than are short migrations

The author just concludes that migration allows monarchs to avoid the parasites; she never claims that long migrations are better than short ones. Even if long and short migrations are equally effective, this wouldn’t impact her conclusion.

C

populations of monarch butterflies that have not migrated are much larger than migrating populations

The author addresses the percentage of monarchs infected, not the number. Even if there are more non-migrating monarchs, it doesn't change the fact that they have a higher percentage of infections. The question of what causes this higher percentage still remains.

D

monarch butterflies infected with parasites are typically unable to migrate

The author overlooks the possibility that the causal relationship is reversed. Maybe the parasites cause monarchs not to migrate, rather than the other way around. After all, the author does say that the parasites can interfere with the monarchs’ flight.

E

populations of monarch butterflies tend not to migrate if they have stable food sources

Even if monarchs with stable food sources tend not to migrate, this doesn’t change the fact that these non-migrating populations have a higher percentage of infections. It also doesn’t affect the conclusion that migration helps the migrating monarchs to avoid the parasites.

19 comments

LSAT 86 - Section 1 - Question 10

January 14, 2019

5 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 1 - Question 10

January 14, 2019

When a bird flies, powerful forces converge on its shoulder joints. The bird’s wings must be kept stable during flight, which cannot happen unless something balances these forces. The only structure in birds capable of balancing them is a ligament that connects the wing to the shoulder joint. So that ligament must be _______.

Summary

Any time a bird flies, powerful forces converge on its shoulder joints. If they are flying, the bird’s wings must be kept stable during flight. If their wings are stable, something needs to balance these powerful forces. The only structure in birds that can balance these forces is a ligament that connects the wings to the shoulder joint. So that ligament must be (the correct answer is the conclusion).

Strongly Supported Conclusions

The ligament is how birds stabilize their wings while flying.
Bird Flying -> wings stable -> balance powerful forces

A

the only structure that is indispensable to bird flight

The stimulus gives no indication that this ligament is the *only* structure necessary for bird flight. This is too strong to support and does not follow logically from the argument.

B

the reason that a bird’s wings must be kept stable during flight

The stimulus does not explain exactly *why* the bird’s wings must be kept stable. The stimulus is primarily concerned with the importance of stability, but not the reasons for it.

C

the sole connection between the wing and the shoulder joint

The stimulus says that the ligament is the only structure *capable of balancing* the wings, not that it is the sole connection. This is too strong to support.

D

the source of the powerful forces that converge on the shoulder joint

The stimulus does not explain where these powerful forces come from. The stimulus only says that these ligaments *balance* the powerful sources.

E

the means by which a bird stabilizes its wings during flight

The stimulus says that *the only structure* capable of balancing the wings is this ligament. Thus, the ligament must keep its wings stable because nothing else can.

5 comments

LSAT 86 - Section 1 - Question 25

January 13, 2019

7 comments