Sections 2

LSAT 88 - Section 2 - Question 10

November 14, 2019

4 comments

LSAT 88 - Section 2 - Question 11

November 14, 2019

2 comments

LSAT 88 - Section 2 - Question 12

November 14, 2019

2 comments

LSAT 154 - Section 2 - Question 07

November 14, 2019

Library policy: For a book to be removed from circulation, the book must be badly damaged and must not have been checked out for over two years. Books that are either written by local authors or are considered to be of significance to local history can only be removed from circulation if they have not been checked out for over three years.

Application: Paper Flowers should not be removed from circulation.

Summary

The conclusion is that Paper Flowers should not be removed. This is based on the following rules:

In order for a book to be removed, it must be (1) badly damaged, AND (2) not been checked out for over 2 years.

If a book is written by a local author OR considered significant to local history, then this additional rule applies:

In order for the book to be removed, it must not have been check out for over 3 years.

Missing Connection

We want to prove that Paper Flowers should not be removed. So we want to show (1) it was not badly damaged, OR (2) it has been checked out within 2 years.

If the book is written by a local author OR considered significant to local history, then we want to show (1) it was not badly damaged, OR (2) it has been check out within 3 years.

A

Paper Flowers is badly damaged.

(A) tells us that Paper Flowers satisfies one of the necessary conditions for being removed. That doesn’t establish that Paper Flowers should be removed.

B

Paper Flowers has been checked out within the last year.

(B) establishes that we do not meet one of the necessary conditions for being removed. Regardless of whether the book is significant to local history or by a local author, if the book has been checked out in the last year, then it hasn’t met the condition of “not been checked out for over 2 years” or “not been checked out for over 3 years.” So it shouldn’t be removed.

C

Paper Flowers was last checked out between two and three years ago.

(C) isn’t enough to prove Paper Flowers should be removed if the book isn’t by a local author and isn’t important to local history. That’s because if it is by a local author/important to local history, it just needs to be checked out within the last 3 years to be removed.

D

Paper Flowers was written by a local author.

(D) doesn’t tell us whether the book is badly damaged or hasn’t been checked out in the last 3 years. So we don’t know whether any of the necessary conditions for removal haven’t been met.

E

Paper Flowers was not written by a local author, but is considered to be of significance to local history.

(E) doesn’t tell us whether the book is badly damaged or hasn’t been checked out in the last 3 years. So we don’t know whether any of the necessary conditions for removal haven’t been met.

7 comments

LSAT 154 - Section 2 - Question 08

November 14, 2019

3 comments

LSAT 154 - Section 2 - Question 09

November 14, 2019

Editor: It is a myth that a significant amount of music on the Internet is the result of people downloading others’ music and reworking it into new music of their own. We know this because it has been shown that 99 percent of Internet users who download music do not publish new music of their own on the Internet.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that it’s not true that a significant amount of music on the Internet is a result of people downloading others’ music and reworking it into music of their own. This is based on the fact that 99% of Internet users who download music don’t public new music of their own on the Internet.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author overlooks the possibility that a very small portion of music-downloaders can end up producing a large portion music. So the 1% of people who download music and publish it can still create a significant amount of music by reworking others’ music.

A

overlooks the possibility that a relatively small number of people can create a significant amount of new music

This possibility shows that the author’s conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. Even 1% of people using the Internet can produce a significant amount of new music, possibly by reworking the music of others.

B

neglects to consider the ease with which music can be published on the Internet

The author’s reasoning is based on the portion of people who actually publish music after downloading music. Whether publishing is easy has no bearing on the author’s reasoning, because we already know only a small % actually publish.

C

fails to provide an alternative account of the sources for most of the music published on the Internet

We know that only a small % of people publish music after downloading music. The author believes this shows the origin of much Internet music is not from downloaders. Where the music really comes from is not part of what the author sets out to prove.

D

presumes, without giving justification, that those who rework downloaded music into new creations always publish those new creations on the Internet

If people who download music sometimes publish reworked music elsewhere, that doesn’t undermine the author’s argument. The author simply wants to show that there isn’t a lot of reworked music published on the Internet.

E

takes for granted that Internet users always prefer music that is original to music that has been downloaded and reworked into a new creation

The argument has nothing to do with what people “prefer” to listen to. The argument is about whether a lot of Internet music results from people downloading music and reworking it into music of their own.

20 comments

LSAT 154 - Section 2 - Question 10

November 14, 2019

4 comments

LSAT 154 - Section 2 - Question 11

November 14, 2019

A part of the brain called the amygdala is involved in sensing fear. People who have Urbach-Wiethe disease, which destroys the amygdala, generally do not experience fear. They do, however, experience extreme fear when given a breath that is very high in carbon dioxide, just as some people with normal amygdalae do.

Summary

The amygdala is a part of the brain that helps us experience fear. A disease called Urbach-Wiethe disease destroys the amygdala, and people with that disease don’t usually experience fear. However, some people, including people with the disease, experience fear when they breath in a lot of carbon dioxide.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

The stimulus supports these inferences:
The amygdala is not necessary for every experience of fear.
Thus, there must be other parts of the brain that can also sense fear.
In particular, the amygdala is not necessary to experience fear caused by breathing in carbon dioxide.

A

Extreme fear is not the only intense response that people can have to a breath that is high in carbon dioxide.

This is not supported. All we know about people’s response to taking a breath high in carbon dioxide is that it can cause extreme fear. Maybe it can cause other responses too, but we don’t know that.

B

Sensing fear is not the only function the amygdala can serve.

This is not supported. The stimulus just tells us that the amygdala is involved in sensing fear. We have no information about whether or not it does anything else.

C

Urbach-Wiethe disease is not the only disease that can destroy the amygdala.

This is not supported. Just because Urbach-Wiethe disease destroys the amygdala, that doesn’t imply that it’s the only disease which destroys the amygdala. To say so, we would need further information (which we don’t have).

D

The amygdala is not the only part of the brain that can be affected by Urbach-Wiethe disease.

This is not supported. We don’t know anything about Urbach-Wiethe disease except that it affects the amygdala. It’s possible that it affects other brain areas too, and equally possible that it doesn’t. We just don’t know.

E

The amygdala is not the only part of the brain that can be involved in sensing fear.

This is strongly supported. When people with Urbach-Wiethe disease experience fear from breathing carbon dioxide, their amygdala can’t be responsible, because it’s been destroyed. That must mean some other part of the brain senses that particular fear.

2 comments

LSAT 154 - Section 2 - Question 12

November 14, 2019

Bauer: It is a mistake to criticize the city for being overzealous in its issuance of parking tickets. Can you imagine how much worse parking would be if parking regulations were not enforced?

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that the city isn’t being overzealous in its issuance of parking tickets. This is based on the assertion (in the form of a rhetorical question) that parking would be worse if parking regulations were not being enforced.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author overlooks the possibility that the city could still enforce parking regulations, but just not as zealously as it currently is. The author cites to what would happen if parking regulations were not enforced. But this doesn’t tell us what would happen if the city just reduced how much it enforced the regulations, while still enforcing them.

A

misrepresents a criticism about the consequences of a practice as a criticism about the intrinsic value of the practice

The author doesn’t comment on the intrinsic value of enforcing parking regulations. We also have no evidence that the author misrepresents the criticism that the city is overzealous in issuance of tickets.

B

takes for granted that a certain authority should be respected merely because it is an authority

The author doesn’t rely on an an appeal to authority to support the conclusion. Rather, the author relies on a comment on the consequences of lack of parking regulation enforcement.

C

takes for granted that a particular practice is good simply because it is the way things have traditionally been done

The author doesn’t argue that enforcing parking regulations is good merely because we have traditionally enforced such regulations. Rather, the author points to the results of lack of enforcement.

D

confuses the cause of a certain phenomenon for an effect of that phenomenon

The author does not confuse cause and effect. The author does not conclude or assume that one thing causes another. Rather, the premise establishes that lack of enforcement leads to certain consequences.

E

defends the current situation merely by suggesting its superiority to an implausible alternative

The author, through a rhetorical question, suggests that the current level of enforcement is better than a complete lack of enforcement. But lack of enforcement isn’t a plausible alternative — the question is whether the city could enforce less zealously than it currently does.

35 comments

LSAT 88 - Section 2 - Question 01

November 14, 2019

Comment on this