Sections 2

LSAT 110 - Section 2 - Question 25

June 18, 2015

Although wood-burning stoves are more efficient than open fireplaces, they are also more dangerous. The smoke that wood-burning stoves release up the chimney is cooler than the smoke from an open flame. Thus it travels more slowly and deposits more creosote, a flammable substance that can clog a chimney—or worse, ignite inside it.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that wood-burning stoves are more dangerous than open fireplaces. This is because the smoke that wood-burning stoves release up the chimney is cooler than open fireplace smoke, which means that it deposits more creosote. The creosote can clog a chimney or ignite.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that there are no other dangerous features of an open fireplace that could outweigh the danger posed by the greater amounts of creosote from wood-burning stoves. The author also assumes that cooler smoke travels more slowly and deposits more creosote.

A

The most efficient wood-burning stoves produce less creosote than do many open fireplaces.

The author’s conclusion is just about wood-burning stoves in general compared to open fireplaces. In addition, the stimulus says wood-burning stoves deposit more creosote. It’s about the amount deposited, which might be different from the amount produced.

B

The amount of creosote produced depends not only on the type of flame but on how often the stove or fireplace is used.

Frequency of use may be a factor, but we have no reason to think open fireplaces are inherently used more frequently than wood-burning stoves.

C

Open fireplaces pose more risk of severe accidents inside the home than do wood-burning stoves.

This is a factor that could outweigh the danger posed by creosote. If open fireplaces are more likely than wood-burning stoves to lead to severe accidents in the home, this could make open fireplaces equally or more dangerous overall, despite depositing less creosote.

D

Open fireplaces also produce a large amount of creosote residue.

The stimulus told us that wood-burning stoves deposit more creosote. So, even if open fireplaces produce a lot, the stoves deposit more.

E

Homeowners in warm climates rarely use fireplaces or wood-burning stoves.

The argument concerns what kind of fire source is more dangerous. Whether homeowners ever actually use those sources doesn’t impact whether one would be more dangerous than the other.

14 comments

LSAT 34 - Section 2 - Question 22

June 18, 2015

3 comments

LSAT 34 - Section 2 - Question 24

June 18, 2015

8 comments

LSAT 110 - Section 2 - Question 22

June 18, 2015

Sociologist: Some people argue that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism. Critics of such a view argue that more people were executed for theft in preindustrial England than were executed in England after industrialization. But such a criticism overlooks the fact that industrialization and capitalism are two very different social phenomena, and that the latter predated the former by several centuries.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The sociologist disagrees with critics who use pre- and post-industrialization statistics to argue against a claim about capital punishment and British capitalism. To show why the critics’ argument is poor, the sociologist explains that capitalism and industrialization are distinct, and didn’t even begin at the same time. This establishes that the critics’ criticism (about industrialization) is missing the point of the original claim (about capitalism).

Identify Argument Part

The claim that capitalism and industrialization are distinct is used as a rebuttal to the critics discussed in the argument.

A

It is cited as some evidence against the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

The author never provides evidence either for or against the claim about capital punishment being necessary for labour discipline in British capitalism. Arguing against critics is not the same as supporting the claim they criticize.

B

It is cited as a direct contradiction of the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

The author never contradicts the claim about capital punishment being necessary for labour discipline in British capitalism. Specifically, a distinction between industrialization and capitalism does’t contradict that claim.

C

It is an attempt to conclusively prove the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

The author never attempts to prove the claim about capital punishment being necessary for labour discipline in British capitalism. The point is to argue against the critics, not to prove the original claim.

D

It is cited as a fact supporting the critics of the view that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

The author’s whole goal is to refute the critics. Nothing in the argument supports the critics, and the distinction between industrialization and capitalism specifically rebuts them.

E

It is an attempt to undermine the criticism cited against the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

This is a good description of the role played by the distinction between industrialization and capitalism. The author uses the distinction to show that the critics missed the point of the claim they criticize, thus undermining them.

4 comments

LSAT 110 - Section 2 - Question 24

June 18, 2015

9 comments

LSAT 34 - Section 2 - Question 20

June 18, 2015

Comment on this

LSAT 110 - Section 2 - Question 20

June 18, 2015

Professor Chan: The literature department’s undergraduate courses should cover only true literary works, and not such frivolous material as advertisements.

Professor Wigmore: Advertisements might or might not be true literary works but they do have a powerfully detrimental effect on society—largely because people cannot discern their real messages. The literature department’s courses give students the critical skills to analyze and understand texts. Therefore, it is the literature department’s responsibility to include the study of advertisements in its undergraduate courses.

Summarize Argument

Professor Wigmore concludes the literature department is responsible for covering advertisements in its undergraduate courses. Why? Because those courses give students skills to understand texts, and society is negatively affected by people’s inability to understand the real messages of advertisements.

Notable Assumptions

Professor Wigmore assumes the department has the ability and obligation to reduce the harm caused to society by advertising. She assumes covering advertisements in literature courses would allow enough people to understand the real messages of advertisements that it would reduce the amount by which advertisements harm society. In addition, she assumes literature courses will be more effective at helping students understand advertisements if they cover advertisements directly.

A

Advertisements ought to be framed in such a way that their real messages are immediately clear.

This normative judgment doesn’t affect Professor Wigmore’s argument. She does not refer to the way advertisements would ideally be framed.

B

Any text that is subtly constructed and capable of affecting people’s thought and action ought to be considered a form of literature.

This supports calling advertisements literature—but that’s not Professor Wigmore’s point. She argues advertisements should be covered in literature courses, whether they count as literature or not.

C

All undergraduate students ought to take at least one course that focuses on the development of critical skills.

This doesn’t support the argument. Undergraduate literature courses help students develop critical skills in understanding texts, whether or not they cover advertisements, according to Professor Wigmore.

D

The literature department’s courses ought to enable students to analyze and understand any text that could have a harmful effect on society.

This makes concrete a key assumption by Professor Wigmore: that the department has an obligation to reduce the harmful effect on society created by people’s inability to understand advertisements.

E

Any professor teaching an undergraduate course in the literature department ought to be free to choose the material to be covered in that course.

This doesn’t affect Professor Wigmore’s argument. She concludes that undergraduate literature courses should cover advertisements, not that professors should be forced to cover advertisements even if they don’t want to.

Comment on this

LSAT 34 - Section 2 - Question 18

June 18, 2015

4 comments

LSAT 34 - Section 2 - Question 19

June 18, 2015

18 comments

LSAT 110 - Section 2 - Question 18

June 18, 2015

Editorialist: The positions advanced by radical environmentalists often contain hypotheses that are false and proposals that are economically infeasible. But there is a positive role to be played even by these extremists, for the social and political inertia that attends environmental issues is so stubborn that even small areas of progress can be made only if the populace fears environmental disaster, however untenable the reasons for those fears may be.

Summarize Argument

The editorialist tells us that radical environmentalist extremists can play a positive role, even though they often make false claims and suggest impractical solutions. So what’s positive about that? As the editorialist says, people are only willing to address environmental issues if they fear disaster, even if their fears are based on misinformation. This implies that the radical environmentalists can help motivate people towards change by creating fear, thus playing a positive role.

Identify Conclusion

The editorialist’s conclusion is the concession that “there is a positive role to be played” by radical environmentalists.

A

The little progress that has been made in improving the environment is mainly due to the fear created by radical environmentalists.

The argument doesn’t discuss all the factors that lead to environmental progress, and definitely doesn’t say that fear created by radical environmentalists is the most important factor.

B

Radical environmentalists, by promoting their views, stimulate progress on environmental issues.

This is a good paraphrase of the conclusion. The editorialist’s argument is designed to suggest that the extremists, by spreading fear, can motivate environmentally-friendly change.

C

Social and political inertia is most effectively overcome by an extremely fearful populace, regardless of whether its fears are well-founded.

This is much broader than anything the editorialist claims. The argument is specifically talking about inertia on environmental issues, and not inertia in general. Also, the argument’s actual claim about inertia is a premise, not the main conclusion.

D

Radical environmentalists often put forth untenable positions in order to produce the fear that is required to bring about moderate reforms.

The editorialist doesn’t tell us anything about the motivations or intentions of the radical environmentalists, so we simply don’t know if this is true.

E

Radical environmentalists advocate positions without regard for factual support or economic feasibility.

The editorialist never claims that radical environmentalists totally ignore facts and practicality, even if they sometimes make false claims or make unfeasible proposals. This goes beyond what the argument actually says.

15 comments