Sections 2

LSAT 66 - Section 2 - Question 08

August 17, 2012

LSAT 136 - Section 2 - Question 03

August 17, 2012

Lawyer: Juries are traditionally given their instructions in convoluted, legalistic language. The verbiage is intended to make the instructions more precise, but greater precision is of little use if most jurors have difficulty understanding the instructions. Since it is more important for jurors to have a basic but adequate understanding of their role than it is for the details of that role to be precisely specified, jury instructions should be formulated in simple, easily comprehensible language.

Summarize Argument

The lawyer concludes that jury instructions should be given in simple language. She supports this by saying that convoluted language is meant to make instructions precise, but it's more important for jurors to have a basic but adequate understanding of their role than to focus on the precise details.

Notable Assumptions

The lawyer assumes jurors can gain an adequate understanding of their role with simple instructions and without focusing on precise details. She also assumes that convoluted instructions often don’t give jurors an adequate understanding of their role and jurors are more likely to gain an adequate understanding through simple instructions.

A

Most jurors are less likely to understand instructions given in convoluted, legalistic language than instructions given in simple, easily comprehensible language.

It’s more important for jurors to have a basic understanding of their role than to focus on the precise details. If most jurors are less likely to understand convoluted instructions than simple ones, it makes sense that jury instructions should be given in simple language.

B

Most jurors do not have an adequate understanding of their role after being given jury instructions in convoluted, legalistic language.

It’s more important for jurors to have an adequate understanding of their role than to focus on the precise details. If most jurors don’t have an adequate understanding after receiving convoluted instructions, it makes sense that instructions should be given in simple language.

C

Jury instructions formulated in simple, easily comprehensible language can adequately describe the role of the jurors.

It’s important for jurors to have a basic but adequate understanding of their role. The lawyer’s recommendation to give jury instructions in simple language is strengthened by the fact that simple instructions can give jurors such an understanding.

D

The details of the role of the jurors cannot be specified with complete precision in simple, easily comprehensible language.

This doesn't strengthen the lawyer’s recommendation to give jury instructions in simple language. She already said that it’s more important for jurors to have an adequate understanding of their role; it doesn’t matter if simple instructions can’t provide complete precision.

E

Jurors do not need to know the precise details of their role in order to have an adequate understanding of that role.

It’s important for jurors to have a basic but adequate understanding of their role. The lawyer’s recommendation is strengthened by the fact that jurors can have such an understanding even if they don’t know the precise details of their role.

5 comments

LSAT 136 - Section 2 - Question 04

August 17, 2012

22 comments

LSAT 136 - Section 2 - Question 05

August 17, 2012

Bacteria that benefit human beings when they are present in the body are called commensals. The bacterium Helicobacter pylori plays a primary role in the development of stomach ulcers. But since stomach ulcers occur in less than 10 percent of those harboring H. pylori, and since it allegedly strengthens immune response, many scientists now consider it a commensal. But this is surely misguided. Only about 10 percent of the people who harbor Mycobacter tuberculosis—a bacterium that can cause tuberculosis—get sick from it, yet no one would call M. tuberculosis a commensal.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that H. pylori shouldn’t be considered a commensal. He supports this conclusion through an analogy, saying that M. tuberculosis, which causes tuberculosis in about 10% of people who harbor it, is not considered a commensal. Similarly, he argues, H. pylori, which allegedly strengthens immune response but causes stomach ulcers in less than 10% of the people who harbor it, shouldn’t be considered a commensal.

Notable Assumptions

In order for his analogy to support his conclusion, the author must assume that M. tuberculosis and H. pylori can be accurately compared to one another.

A

Stomach ulcers caused by H. pylori and tuberculosis can both be effectively treated with antibiotics.

This doesn’t weaken the argument because it doesn’t show that H. pylori and M. tuberculosis can’t be accurately compared to one another. The treatment of stomach ulcers caused by both bacteria is irrelevant to this argument.

B

Cases of tuberculosis usually last longer than ulcers caused by H. pylori.

Even if tuberculosis lasts longer than stomach ulcers, H. pylori still causes harmful stomach ulcers. So this doesn’t weaken the author’s conclusion that H. pylori shouldn’t be considered a commensal.

C

People who harbor M. tuberculosis derive no benefit from its presence.

(C) weakens the argument by showing that M. tuberculosis and H. pylori can’t be accurately compared to one another. Both cause illness in some people who harbor the bacterium, but M. tuberculosis is not beneficial at all, while H. pylori allegedly strengthens immune response.

D

There are more people who harbor M. tuberculosis than people who harbor H. pylori.

The number of people who harbor each bacterium is not relevant because we still need to know if the two bacteria can be accurately compared to one another.

E

There are more people who harbor H. pylori than people who harbor M. tuberculosis.

Like (D), the number of people who harbor each bacterium is not relevant because we still need to know if the two bacteria can be accurately compared to one another.

10 comments

LSAT 136 - Section 2 - Question 06

August 17, 2012

20 comments

LSAT 136 - Section 2 - Question 07

August 17, 2012

2 comments

LSAT 136 - Section 2 - Question 08

August 17, 2012

Robinson: Wexell says that the museum wasted its money in purchasing props and costumes from famous stage productions, because such items have no artistic significance outside the context of a performance. But many of the props and costumes are too old and fragile for use in a performance. So clearly, the museum did not waste its money, for displaying these items is the only way of making them available to the public.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Wexell argues the the museum wasted its money in purchasing certain items from stage productions, because those items have no artistic significance outside the context of a performance.

The author responds to Wexell by pointing out that displaying those items is the only way to make them available to the public. Thus, the author concludes that the museum did not waste its money.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author fails to respond to Wexell’s point about lack of artistic significance outside the context of a performance. It’s not clear that making the items available to the public is important or constitutes a reason the museum should have purchased the items.

A

offers anecdotal evidence insufficient to support a general claim

The author doesn’t rely on anecdotal evidence. The claim that many of the props are too old and fragile for use in a performance is not anecdotal evidence.

B

gives reasons that do not address the point made in Wexell’s argument

The author fails to address Wexell’s point about lack of artistic significance. This makes the author’s attempt to counter Wexell’s argument unpersuasive.

C

attacks the person making the argument rather than the substance of the argument

The author doesn’t attack Wexell’s background or character.

D

concludes that a claim is false merely on the grounds that the evidence for it is insufficient

The author’s reasoning isn’t that there’s not enough evidence that purchasing the items was a waste of money.

E

takes a condition that is sufficient for the conclusion to be true as one that is necessary for the conclusion to be true

The author’s reasoning isn’t based on conditional relationships, so there is no confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions.

16 comments

LSAT 66 - Section 2 - Question 01

August 17, 2012

15 comments

LSAT 66 - Section 2 - Question 02

August 17, 2012

7 comments

LSAT 136 - Section 2 - Question 01

August 17, 2012

Mayor: There has been a long debate in city council about how to accommodate projected increases in automobile traffic. Today, our choice is clear: either we adopt my plan to build a new expressway, or we do nothing. Doing nothing is not a viable option because our existing system of roads would be in gridlock within ten years given even a conservative estimate of future traffic levels. City council should therefore adopt my plan.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that the city council should adopt the mayor’s plan. This is based on the assertion that there are only two options: either the council adopts the mayor’s plan, or they do nothing. And, doing nothing isn’t a viable option.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author presents a false dichotomy between adopting the mayor’s plan and doing nothing. Why can’t the city council do something else besides the mayor’s plan and nothing? Maybe there’s a different strategy that could be used. The author doesn’t provide any reason to think the city council’s options are limited to the two described.

A

It bases a projection only on conservative estimates rather than considering a wider range of estimates.

There’s nothing flawed about basing a projection only on conservative estimates. Conservative estimates are less extreme; if less conservative estimates were used, we have no reason to think that gridlock wouldn’t occur as quickly.

B

It takes for granted that the options it considers are mutually exclusive.

The two options are mutually exclusive — doing nothing, by definition, cannot happen at the same time as adopting the mayor’s plan. So the author isn’t assuming the options are mutually exclusive.

C

It fails to consider the possibility that the rate of increase in traffic will start to diminish after ten years.

The author never made any predictions about what occurs after ten years. So this possibility isn’t something that undermines the author’s argument.

D

It fails to address the issue of the cost of traffic gridlock to the city’s economy.

The argument concerns how to accommodate projected increases in automobile traffic. The author never cited to economic concerns or reached a conclusion about economic concerns. So the failure to address the cost of traffic gridlock is irrelevant.

E

It presents a choice that is limited to two options, without giving reasons for not considering any other options.

The author presents only two choices — adopting the mayor’s plan or doing nothing. But there was no reason given for why these are the only two options. This presents a false dichotomy.

16 comments