Sections 2

LSAT 59 - Section 2 - Question 14

May 13, 2012

10 comments

LSAT 59 - Section 2 - Question 15

May 13, 2012

3 comments

LSAT 59 - Section 2 - Question 16

May 13, 2012

8 comments

LSAT 59 - Section 2 - Question 17

May 13, 2012

2 comments

LSAT 59 - Section 2 - Question 18

May 13, 2012

55 comments

LSAT 59 - Section 2 - Question 19

May 13, 2012

We have an MBT question which we can glean from the question stem which reads: If the statements above are true, which one of the following statements must also be true?

We’re told there are 3 sets of people at this gathering: bankers, athletes, and lawyers. Sounds like a pretty nice gathering! Then we get a pair of very straightforward conditional statements that we can map out: Bankers→Athletes and Lawyers→/Bankers. So what do we know about our three categories of attendees? If you’re a banker then you are definitely an athlete and you are definitely not a lawyer. If you are a lawyer you are definitely not a banker. And if you’re an athlete—well, we don’t know much. We know that all bankers are athletes, and therefore some athletes are bankers. We can’t say anything more than that.

This question is a test of your ability to understand conditional logic. There’s not much more to break down about this stimulus. I suppose we could spend more time asking questions about this gathering—where is it being held? Who are these hybrid banker/athletes? What are these titans of industry and sport gathering to discuss? But that’s not really what you’re here to learn about, so let’s move onto the answer choices:

Answer Choice (A) We know all the bankers are athletes, but if you know your conditional rules, you know that we can’t simply flip this around without negating both sides. This is a very simple case of sufficiency/necessity confusion. Case closed! Moving on.

Answer Choice (B) We know that none of the lawyers are bankers. Other than that, we have no information to go off of. This is wholly unsupported.

Correct Answer Choice (C) Here we go! If you think back to our analysis of the stimulus we concluded that some athletes are bankers. What do we know about bankers? They are definitely not lawyers. Therefore some athletes are not lawyers. Simple as that!

Answer Choice (D) This is just the opposite of what we know to be true. No bankers are, in fact, lawyers.

Answer Choice (E) We don’t know anything about the relationship between lawyers and athletes so we cannot conclude anything about whether there are or are not any lawyers who are athletes.

31 comments

LSAT 131 - Section 2 - Question 14

May 13, 2012

10 comments

LSAT 131 - Section 2 - Question 15

May 13, 2012

Bowers: A few theorists hold the extreme view that society could flourish in a condition of anarchy, the absence of government. Some of these theorists have even produced interesting arguments to support that position. One writer, for example, contends that anarchy is laissez-faire capitalism taken to its logical extreme. But these theorists’ views ignore the fundamental principle of social philosophy—that an acceptable social philosophy must promote peace and order. Any social philosophy that countenances chaos, i.e., anarchy, accordingly deserves no further attention.

Summarize Argument

The author’s implicit conclusion is that the theorists’ view that society can flourish in a condition of anarchy (in the sense of absence of government) isn’t acceptable. This is based on the premise that any acceptable social philosophy must promote peace and order. The author believes the theorists’ view is something that promotes anarchy (in the sense of chaos), which is why he believes the view isn’t acceptable.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author inappropriately interprets the term “anarchy” in a different way from how the theorists used it. The theorists defined anarchy as the absence of government. But the author mistakenly thinks the theorists’ view condoned anarchy in the sense of chaos (absence of order). This misrepresents the theorists’ view and renders the author’s criticism unpersuasive.

A

the meaning of a key term shifts illicitly during the course of the argument

The meaning of “anarchy” inappropriately shifts. The theorists used “anarchy” to mean absence of government. But in arguing against the theorists’ view, the author uses “anarchy” in the sense of chaos.

B

the argument fails to show that laissez-faire capitalism deserves to be rejected as a social philosophy

The author isn’t attempting to reject laissez-faire capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism is simply mentioned as part of an illustration of the kind of arguments some theorists make in support of the idea that society can flourish without government.

C

the truth or falsity of a view is not determined by the number of people who accept it as true

The author does not reject the theorists’ view on the basis of the number of people who believe it.

D

the argument presumes, without providing justification, that any peaceful society will flourish

The author argues against the idea that society can flourish in a condition of anarchy. But the author doesn’t take any position on what is sufficient to make a society flourish.

E

it is unreasonable to reject a view merely because it can be described as extreme

Although the author does mention that the view is extreme, he does not reject the view on the basis of its being extreme. The basis is the mistaken belief that the view countenances anarchy (in the sense of chaos).

75 comments

LSAT 131 - Section 2 - Question 16

May 13, 2012

8 comments

LSAT 131 - Section 2 - Question 17

May 13, 2012

Teachers should not do anything to cause their students to lose respect for them. And students can sense when someone is trying to hide his or her ignorance. Therefore, a teacher who does not know the answer to a question a student has asked should not pretend to know the answer.

Summary

The author concludes that a teacher should never pretend to know the answer to a question asked by a student. Why? Because students are aware when a teacher pretends to know something, and teachers should never do anything that causes students to lose respect for them.

Missing Connection

The conclusion is about a very specific action (pretending to know the answer), and we know that teachers should preserve respect at all costs. So, the premises would lead to the conclusion if we knew that students lose respect for a teacher when they sense that teachers are feigning knowledge.

A

A teacher cannot be effective unless he or she retains the respect of students.

The argument doesn’t address effectiveness. We need to conclude that teachers shouldn’t pretend to know things.

B

Students respect honesty above all else.

We do not need to know what students respect most. We need to know how to avoid losing the respect of students. We cannot assume that just because students respect honesty above everything else, that dishonesty will lose their respect.

C

Students’ respect for a teacher is independent of the amount of knowledge they attribute to that teacher.

This is, if anything, trying to weaken the argument: If student respect has nothing to do with knowledge, then the teacher won’t lose respect when they pretend due to lack of knowledge. It still isn’t a Weaken answer, because they could lose respect due to the lying itself.

D

Teachers are able to tell when students respect them.

Irrelevant. Based on the information we have, we don’t know that a teacher’s awareness of student respect doesn’t change it for the better or worse.

E

Students lose respect for teachers whenever they sense that the teachers are trying to hide their ignorance.

This provides a link from something we know to be true (students can sense when teachers are faking) to something we’ve been told must be avoided (loss of respect). So, teachers should not fake it.

2 comments