Sections 2

LSAT 106 - Section 2 - Question 06

December 22, 2012

The Rienzi, a passenger ship, sank as a result of a hole in its hull, possibly caused by sabotage. Normally, when a holed ship sinks as rapidly as the Rienzi did, water does not enter the ship quickly enough for the ship to be fully flooded when it reaches the ocean floor. Full flooding can be achieved, however, by sabotage. Any ship that sinks deep into the ocean when not fully flooded will implode. Deep-sea photographs, taken of the sunken Rienzi where it rests on the ocean floor, reveal that the Rienzi did not implode.

Summary

The Rienzi sank because it had a hole. It descended rapidly. Usually, ships that sink this fast don’t fully flood by the time they reach the ocean floor, which makes them implode. The Rienzi did not implode. Sabotage can cause a ship to flood fully.

Notable Valid Inferences

The Rienzi must have fully flooded by the time it was deep in the ocean—we know this because if it hadn’t flooded fully, it would have imploded. We cannot conclude what caused the full flooding, but we can infer that it was either sabotage or that the Rienzi filled with water faster than normal.

A

The Rienzi was so constructed as to reduce the risk of sinking by impact.

This could be false. The stimulus does not offer any information about how the Rienzi was constructed.

B

If the Rienzi became fully flooded, it did so only after it reached the ocean floor.

This must be false. We know the Rienzi must have fully flooded when it reached the ocean floor or it would have imploded.

C

If the Rienzi was not sunk by sabotage, water flooded into it unusually fast.

This must be true. We know the Rienzi fully flooded by the time it reached the ocean floor—this means it was either sabotaged to allow for full flooding or water entered the ship faster than normal.

D

If the Rienzi had sunk more slowly, it would have imploded.

This could be false. We don’t know if the rate at which the Rienzi sunk caused the ship not to flood fully, and whether changing the rate would affect this outcome.

E

The Rienzi was so strongly constructed as to resist imploding under deep-sea pressure.

This could be false. The stimulus does not offer any information about how the Rienzi was constructed.

50 comments

LSAT 31 - Section 2 - Question 16

December 20, 2012

54 comments

LSAT 25 - Section 2 - Question 16

December 20, 2012

25 comments

LSAT 102 - Section 2 - Question 16

December 20, 2012

28 comments

LSAT 25 - Section 2 - Question 18

December 16, 2012

33 comments

LSAT 102 - Section 2 - Question 18

December 16, 2012

President of Central Supply Company: Profits are at an all-time low this fiscal year because of decreased demand for our products. If this situation continues, the company may have to declare bankruptcy. So it is important to prevent any further decrease in profits. Consequently, the only options are to reduce planned expansion or to eliminate some less profitable existing operations.

Summarize Argument

The president concludes that the only options for Central Supply Company are to reduce planned expansion, or to eliminate less profitable existing operations. Why? Because if the company’s profits stay low, it may go bankrupt. Because of this, the company needs to prevent further decreases in its already low profits.

Identify and Describe Flaw

Based on the company’s need to prevent its profits from falling, the president concludes that there are only two options: reducing expansion or cutting existing operations. The flaw here is that we have no reason to think that other options might not also be possible—the president never addresses other possibilities. For example, why not increase advertising, or improve existing products?

A

It presumes without giving justification that survival of the company has been a good thing.

The president doesn’t ever claim that the company’s survival has been a good thing. The argument is about preventing bankruptcy, not about weighing the company’s impact so far.

B

It does not take into account that there are alternatives to declaring bankruptcy.

The president’s whole argument is about what alternatives may be possible instead of the company needing to declare bankruptcy.

C

It presumes without giving justification that only decreased demand can ever be the cause of decreased profits.

The president never claims that decreased demand is the only thing that can ever cause decreased profits. Saying that decreased demand caused decreased profits in this particular case is not the same thing.

D

It does not allow for the possibility that profits will decrease only slightly during the next fiscal year.

Whether or not it’s possible that profits will decrease only slightly next year is irrelevant to the argument. We already know that if profits continue to fall, the company may go bankrupt. How much they fall doesn’t change that.

E

It does not take into account that there may be other ways to stop the decrease in profits.

The president concludes that there are only two ways to stop the company’s profits from falling, but never tells us why those are the only options. This is a flaw because it means an important part of the conclusion—that these are the “only” options—lacks support.

37 comments

LSAT June 2007 - Section 2 - Question 21

December 13, 2012

32 comments

LSAT 123 - Section 2 - Question 21

December 13, 2012

Driver: My friends say I will one day have an accident because I drive my sports car recklessly. But I have done some research, and apparently minivans and larger sedans have very low accident rates compared to sports cars. So trading my sports car in for a minivan would lower my risk of having an accident.

A

infers a cause from a mere correlation

The driver infers a cause— that trading his sports car for a minivan will cause him to have a lower chance of getting in an accident— from a mere correlation— that minivans have lower accident rates than sports cars.

B

relies on a sample that is too narrow

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of using an unrepresentative sample. The driver doesn’t mention any samples at all.

C

misinterprets evidence that a result is likely as evidence that the result is certain

The driver says switching to a minivan will lower his accident risk, not eliminate it. Also, his research never shows that a result is likely. It shows that minivans have lower accident rates overall, not that an individual driver is likely to have fewer accidents in a minivan.

D

mistakes a condition sufficient for bringing about a result for a condition necessary for doing so

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing sufficiency and necessity. The driver doesn’t make this mistake. He mistakenly assumes that driving a minivan is sufficient for lowering his chance of getting into an accident, but he never confuses this for a necessary condition.

E

relies on a source that is probably not well-informed

The driver relies on his research about the accident rates of minivans, large sedans, and sports cars. We can’t assume that this research is probably not well-informed.

33 comments

LSAT June 2007 - Section 2 - Question 19

December 13, 2012

45 comments

LSAT 123 - Section 2 - Question 19

December 13, 2012

Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory in Banestria in 1935. It received most of its support that year in rural and semirural areas, where the bulk of Banestria’s population lived at the time. The economic woes of the years surrounding that election hit agricultural and small business interests the hardest, and the Land Party specifically targeted those groups in 1935. I conclude that the success of the Land Party that year was due to the combination of the Land Party’s specifically addressing the concerns of these groups and the depth of the economic problems people in these groups were facing.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The historian hypothesizes that the reason the Land Party won the 1935 election was because it addressed the big challenges the agricultural and small business sectors were facing. Most of the party’s support—and the country’s population—lived in rural areas, and the industries concentrated in these areas were most affected by the economic challenges of the time.

Notable Assumptions

The historian assumes causation from correlation. In other words, the historian assumes the Land Party's victory in the election wasn't due to any other factor—it must have been because of the economic challenges facing the agriculture and small business industries and the fact that the party addressed them.

A

In preceding elections the Land Party made no attempt to address the interests of economically distressed urban groups.

This does not affect the argument. Whether the Land Party appealed to urban groups facing economic challenges in previous elections is irrelevant to the fact that they sought and won rural and semirural support in 1935.

B

Voters are more likely to vote for a political party that focuses on their problems.

This strengthens the argument. It reinforces the historian’s assumption that people in the agricultural and small business sectors voted for the Land Party because it focused on their problems (as opposed to some other factor).

C

The Land Party had most of its successes when there was economic distress in the agricultural sector.

This strengthens the argument. It reinforces the historian’s assumption that the depth of the economic difficulties in the agricultural sector made people employed in this sector inclined to vote for the Land Party.

D

No other major party in Banestria specifically addressed the issues of people who lived in semirural areas in 1935.

This strengthens the argument by supporting the historian’s assumption that the Land Party’s focus on certain demographics led to its success. (D) says no other party focused on semirural areas, supporting the idea that this focus contributed to the Party’s success.

E

The greater the degree of economic distress someone is in, the more likely that person is to vote.

This strengthens the historian’s argument. It reinforces the assumption that the depth of the economic problems people were facing mobilized them to vote for the Land Party.

47 comments