LSAT 106 - Section 3 - Question 10

October 17, 2013

Laura: Harold is obviously lonely. He should sell his cabin in the woods and move into town. In town he will be near other people all the time, so he will not be lonely any more.

Ralph: Many very lonely people live in towns. What is needed to avoid loneliness is not only the proximity of other people but also genuine interaction with them.

Summarize Argument
In response to Laura’s claim that Harold should move into town, Ralph concludes that avoiding loneliness requires proximity to other people and genuine interaction with them. As evidence, he states that there are many very lonely people who live in towns.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Ralph qualifies the position held by Laura. He does this by suggesting that proximity to other people is not alone sufficient to avoid loneliness. In addition to proximity, it is necessary for a person to have genuine interaction with others in order to avoid loneliness.

A
something needed for a certain result does not necessarily guarantee that result
The something needed is proximity to other people, and the certain result is the avoidance of loneliness. Ralph thinks that proximity alone does not guarantee avoiding loneliness because a person also needs genuine interaction.
B
what is appropriate in one case is not necessarily appropriate in all cases
Ralph’s claims are made generally as applied to all cases.
C
what is logically certain is not always intuitively obvious
Ralph does not address what is or is not intuitively obvious.
D
various alternative solutions are possible for a single problem
Ralph does not propose any alternative solutions. Instead, Ralph qualifies the solution Laura proposes.
E
a proposed solution for a problem could actually worsen that problem
Ralph does not suggest that the problem of loneliness would worsen. Rather, he claims that proximity alone is insufficient.

20 comments

LSAT 28 - Section 3 - Question 01

October 17, 2013

8 comments

LSAT 106 - Section 3 - Question 01

October 17, 2013

Flavonoids are a common component of almost all plants, but a specific variety of flavonoid in apples has been found to be an antioxidant. Antioxidants are known to be a factor in the prevention of heart disease.

Summary
Flavonoids are a common part of almost all plants.
A certain kind of flavonoid in apples is an antioxidant.
Antioxidants are a factor in preventing heart disease.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
There’s at least one flavonoid that can help prevent heart disease (the flavonoid that’s in apples).

A
A diet composed largely of fruits and vegetables will help to prevent heart disease.
This isn’t supported, because we don’t know whether fruits and vegetables besides apples contain antioxidants. And we don’t know whether the diet described in (A) includes apples.
B
Flavonoids are essential to preventing heart disease.
We know some flavonoids can help prevent heart disease (because some are antioxidants). This doesn’t tell us whether flavonoids are necessary for preventing heart disease. Something can be a factor without being necessary.
C
Eating at least one apple each day will prevent heart disease.
We know something in apples is a factor in preventing heart disease. This doesn’t imply that eating at least one apple is guaranteed to prevent heart disease. This is too extreme to be supported. Something can be a factor in preventing heart disease without always preventing it.
D
At least one type of flavonoid helps to prevent heart disease.
We know that the flavonoid in apples helps prevent heart disease, because it’s an antioxidant.
E
A diet deficient in antioxidants is a common cause of heart disease.
We don’t know what is a common cause of heart disease. We know nothing about common causes of heart disease from the stimulus.

8 comments

LSAT 113 - Section 3 - Question 03

September 4, 2013

Announcement for a television program: Are female physicians more sensitive than male physicians to the needs of women patients? To get the answer, we’ll ask physicians of both sexes this question. Tune in tomorrow.

Summarize Argument

The announcement claims that surveying female and male physicians can answer a question about how sensitive each is to the needs of their patients.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This reasoning is flawed because the source for the TV show’s potential claim is biased. If you ask a physician how sensitive they are to the needs of their patients, they will probably answer favorably about themselves. However, if you ask women patients, they are more likely to answer without bias. Thus, if the television program proceeds to base its claim about the sensitivity of physicians on the reports of physicians themselves, its conclusion will likely not be very accurate.

A
Physicians are in general unwilling to describe the treatment style of other physicians.

Our argument never says that the physicians being interviewed will describe other physicians' treatment style. Additionally, treatment style is not necessarily analogous to sensitivity toward patients, so this would not answer the question at hand.

B
There still are fewer women than men who are physicians, so a patient might not have the opportunity to choose a woman as a physician.

The proportion of female doctors compared to male doctors does not change how sensitive each gender is to their patients. Thus, this answer choice does not address the TV show’s question.

C
Those who are best able to provide answers to the question are patients, rather than physicians.

This AC addresses the biased source by highlighting which source would be appropriate for the TV show to use in answering its question. Because doctors are more likely to answer favorably about themselves, the TV show should consult someone less biased, such as patients.

D
Since medical research is often performed on men, not all results are fully applicable to women as patients.

Irrelevant. This stimulus deals with doctor-patient interactions, not with medical research. Therefore, this AC does not address the argument, much less the flaw.

E
Women as patients are now beginning to take a more active role in managing their care and making sure that they understand the medical alternatives.

Even if this were true, it has nothing to do with how sensitive a doctor is to a patient’s needs. Therefore, it does not address the argument or its flaw.


8 comments

LSAT 28 - Section 3 - Question 24

September 4, 2013

1 comment

LSAT 106 - Section 3 - Question 24

September 4, 2013

Surviving seventeenth-century Dutch landscapes attributed to major artists now equal in number those attributed to minor ones. But since in the seventeenth century many prolific minor artists made a living supplying the voracious market for Dutch landscapes, while only a handful of major artists painted in the genre, many attributions of seventeenth-century Dutch landscape paintings to major artists are undoubtedly erroneous.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that many Dutch landscape paintings from the seventeenth century were painted by minor artists but attributed to major artists. Why? Because many more minor artists did those paintings than major artists, yet there are a roughly equal number of surviving paintings attributed to each type of artist.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes the output of the few major artists could not have equaled the output of the more numerous minor artists. In addition, he assumes paintings by major artists were no more likely to survive to the present day than paintings by minor artists.

A
Technically gifted seventeenth-century Dutch landscape artists developed recognizable styles that were difficult to imitate.
This weakens the argument because it suggests at least some of the paintings’ artists should be easy to identify. This makes it less likely that many paintings were misattributed.
B
In the workshops of major seventeenth-century artists, assistants were employed to prepare the paints, brushes, and other materials that the major artists then used.
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t imply the major artists produced more paintings on average than minor artists—for instance, minor artists may have enjoyed the same assistance.
C
In the eighteenth century, landscapes by minor seventeenth-century artists were often simply thrown away or else destroyed through improper storage.
This weakens the argument. It implies the paintings by major and minor artists are roughly equal in number because paintings by minor artists were unlikely to survive, even if there were more to begin with.
D
Seventeenth-century art dealers paid minor artists extra money to leave their landscapes unsigned so that the dealers could add phony signatures and pass such works off as valuable paintings.
This supports the argument. It implies art dealers were motivated and able to misrepresent artworks by minor artists as works by major artists. There’s no indication the forged signatures would be unlikely to convince people in the present day.
E
More seventeenth-century Dutch landscapes were painted than have actually survived, and that is true of those executed by minor artists as well as of those executed by major artists.
This doesn’t say whether works by minor or major artists were more likely to survive. Without that information, this doesn’t support concluding that given artworks by minor and major artists were equally likely to last until the present day.

62 comments

LSAT 69 - Section 3 - Passage 4 - Questions

September 4, 2013

16 comments

LSAT 139 - Section 3 - Passage 4 - Questions

September 4, 2013

18 comments

LSAT 69 - Section 3 - Passage 4 - Passage

September 4, 2013

17 comments

LSAT 139 - Section 3 - Passage 4 - Passage

September 4, 2013

17 comments

«‹144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164›»