Sections 2

LSAT 30 - Section 2 - Question 24

October 29, 2012

47 comments

LSAT 25 - Section 2 - Question 22

October 23, 2012

1 comment

LSAT 102 - Section 2 - Question 22

October 23, 2012

92 comments

LSAT 105 - Section 2 - Question 08

October 21, 2012

Millions of female bats rear their pups in Bracken Cave. Although the mothers all leave the cave nightly, on their return each mother is almost always swiftly reunited with her own pup. Since the bats’ calls are their only means of finding one another, and a bat pup cannot distinguish the call of its mother from that of any other adult bat, it is clear that each mother bat can recognize the call of her pup.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that every mother bat is able to recognize the call of her pup. As evidence, the author states that a bat’s calls are the only means of finding one another, and that a bat pup cannot distinguish calls between adult bats.

Describe Method of Reasoning

The author concludes that a mother bat must be able to recognize the call of her pup by eliminating the possibility of a bat pup recognizing the call of a mother bat.

A

derive a general conclusion about all members of a group from facts known about representative members of that group

The author does not provide facts about representative members of a group. While the author’s conclusion is a general conclusion applying to all mother bats, the author’s premises do not include facts about a specific set of mother bats.

B

establish the validity of one explanation for a phenomenon by excluding alternative explanations

The alternative explanation the author excludes is the possibility of a bat pup recognizing its mother’s call. Since this is not a possibility, the author concludes that the other possibility of a mother bat recognizing its pup’s call is a valid explanation.

C

support, by describing a suitable mechanism, the hypothesis that a certain phenomenon can occur

The author does not describe how mother bats are able to recognize a pup’s call. Rather, the author states this phenomenon as a matter of fact.

D

conclude that members of two groups are likely to share a certain ability because of other characteristics they share

The author only addresses and comes to a conclusion about one group of animals. The author does not make comparisons between bats and any other animal.

E

demonstrate that a general rule applies in a particular case

The author does not provide a particular case that illustrates the conclusion. Rather, the author’s argument is stated generally and theoretically.

64 comments

LSAT 23 - Section 2 - Question 03

October 21, 2012

11 comments

LSAT 21 - Section 2 - Question 24

October 21, 2012

74 comments

LSAT 30 - Section 2 - Question 16

October 21, 2012

71 comments

LSAT 114 - Section 2 - Question 03

October 21, 2012

David: Forbidding companies from hiring permanent replacements for striking employees would be profoundly unfair. Such companies would have little leverage in their negotiations with strikers.

Lin: No, the companies would still have sufficient leverage in negotiations if they hired temporary replacements.

Summary

David claims that disallowing companies to hire permanent replacements for striking employees is unfair because the companies would have little leverage to negotiate with striking employees. Lin disagrees, and claims that companies would have sufficient leverage to negotiate even if they hired temporary replacements.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

David and Lin disagree about the amount of leverage companies would have if those companies were forbidden from hiring permanent replacements for striking employees.

A

David does not believe that the freedom to hire temporary replacements gives companies any leverage in their negotiations with strikers.

We don’t know whether David believes that hiring temporary replacements would result in a company not having any leverage for negotiations. We only know that, unless the companies were allowed to hired permanent replacements, David believes companies would have little leverage.

B

David and Lin believe that companies should be allowed as much leverage in negotiations as the striking employees.

We don’t know whether David or Lin believe that companies should have an equal amount of leverage compared to striking employees.

C

David and Lin disagree over the amount of leverage companies lose in their negotiations with strikers by not being able to hire permanent replacements.

David believes that companies have little leverage for negotiations if companies are forbidden from hiring permanent replacements. Lin believes that companies have sufficient leverage for negotiations even if companies hired temporary replacements.

D

David and Lin disagree over how much leverage should be accorded companies in their negotiations with strikers.

We don’t know what David or Lin believe to be an appropriate amount of leverage for companies. Rather, their disagreement is about how much leverage companies have based on the types of replacements the companies are allowed to hire.

E

Lin believes it is unfair to forbid companies from hiring permanent replacements for their striking employees.

We don’t know whether Lin believes forbidding companies from hiring permanent replacements is unfair. We only know that she believes companies have sufficient leverage for negotiations even if the companies hire temporary replacements.

69 comments

LSAT 105 - Section 2 - Question 19

October 14, 2012

46 comments

LSAT 106 - Section 2 - Question 05

October 14, 2012

A newly developed light bulb is much more cost-effective than conventional light bulbs: it costs only about 3 times what a conventional light bulb costs but it lasts up to 10 times as long as a conventional light bulb. Despite the manufacturer’s intense efforts to publicize the advantages of the new bulb, one analyst predicts that these new bulbs will prove to sell very poorly.

Summarize Argument

The analyst predicts a new type of light bulb will sell poorly, even though it can last 10 times longer than a conventional light bulb and is only triple the cost.

Notable Assumptions

The analyst assumes there’s something about the new bulb, the way it will be sold, or the light bulb market in general that makes the new bulb likely to fail. This means assuming the new bulb’s disadvantages relative to other bulbs on the market outweigh its apparent advantage in cost efficiency relative to conventional bulbs.

A

The light generated by the new bulb is in the yellow range of the spectrum, a type of artificial light most people find unappealing.

This supports the analyst’s prediction. It’s a reason for consumers to avoid the new bulb despite its apparent cost efficiency.

B

Most people who purchase light bulbs prefer to buy inexpensive light bulbs rather than more durable but expensive light bulbs.

This offers support for the analyst’s prediction. It suggests consumers care more about total cost—where the new bulb has a disadvantage—than about cost efficiency when purchasing new bulbs.

C

A manufacturer of one brand of conventional light bulb has advertised claims that the new light bulb uses more electricity than do conventional light bulbs.

This offers support for the analyst’s prediction. It’s a reason for consumers to doubt the actual cost efficiency of the new bulb when electricity consumption is considered.

D

The new bulb is to be marketed in several different quantities, ranging from packages containing one bulb to packages containing four bulbs.

This doesn’t support the analyst’s prediction. There’s no indication consumers are less likely to purchase bulbs because they come in packs of no more than four.

E

A competing manufacturer is about to introduce a light bulb that lasts 10 times as long as a conventional bulb but costs less than a conventional bulb.

This supports the analyst’s prediction. It’s a reason to believe the upcoming light bulb will be even more cost-efficient than the new bulb in question, and will therefore outcompete it.

26 comments