The question stem reads: Which of the following is most strongly supported by the statements above? This is a Most Strongly Supported question.

These types of questions will contain a set of facts that will Support a claim found in the answer choices. In other words, the stimulus of an MSS question will make the correct answer choice more likely to be true. The stimulus reads the "star-nosed mole" has a nose with tentacles that are crucial for hunting because the moles have terrible eyesight. The stimulus then goes on to explain that the tentacles work by detecting electric fields produced by other animals. The detection enables the moles to find and catch prey like worms and insects. It's hard to see exactly where this is going. Before we dive into the answer choices, let's take a quick recap:

  1. The star-nosed mole has poor eyesight.
  2. It uses its nose to hunt.
  3. The nose works by detecting electric fields produced by other animals.
  4. The nose enables the mole to catch suitable prey, such as worms and insects.

Correct Answer Choice (A) looks great and is supported by the stimulus. It is more likely to be true that worms and insects produce electric fields because the star-nosed moles hunt them. The mole has bad eyesight, so the way it hunts is by detecting the electric fields procured by its prey (worms and insects).

Answer Choice (B) could be tempting, but it is far too strong to be supported by the stimulus. The stimulus only mentions that the moles are poor-sighted, not that they are entirely blind. So while we know that their eyesight is not the primary method for hunting, it is still possible the mole uses its eyesight in some way while hunting. Furthermore, there is more to survival than just hunting. Maybe the mole uses its poor eyesight to determine the time of day.

Answer Choice (C) is unsupported because we know nothing about the mole's sense of smell or how it does or doesn't use that sense of smell for hunting.

Answer Choice (D) is unsupported because it draws a general rule from a single instance in the stimulus. (D) claims that only animals that hunt have these eclectic tentacle noses. Sure, that might be true in the case of the mole, but how can we then make that claim about all electric tentacle nose animals?

Answer Choice (E) is unsupported because we cannot determine from the stimulus if an animal does not have an electric field. The stimulus only offers a way for us to determine whether an animal does have an electric field.


5 comments

Aristophanes’ play The Clouds, which was written when the philosopher Socrates was in his mid-forties, portrays Socrates as an atheistic philosopher primarily concerned with issues in natural science. The only other surviving portrayals of Socrates were written after Socrates’ death at age 70. They portrayed Socrates as having a religious dimension and a strong focus on ethical issues.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Portrayals of Socrates written after his life are markedly different than the one written during his life.

Objective

The right answer will be a hypothesis that explain why the portrayals of Socrates after his life attribute a religious and ethical dimension to his philosophy, whereas the contemporaneous one ascribes him a strictly atheistic, scientific outlook. We’re looking for something that either says the portrayals had different motivations, or that Socrates himself changes after his portrayal in Aristophanes.

A
Aristophanes’ portrayal of Socrates in The Clouds was unflattering, whereas the other portrayals were very flattering.

The portrayals are diametrically opposed. Whether or not they’re flattering doesn’t explain the vast differences in who they say Socrates really is.

B
Socrates’ philosophical views and interests changed sometime after his mid-forties.

Aristophanes portrays Socrates at age 40. If his views changed afterwards, and if those are the views he’s remembered best for, then it absolutely makes sense later portrayals would emphasize those. This explains the discrepancy in the stimulus.

C
Most of the philosophers who lived before Socrates were primarily concerned with natural science.

We don’t care about other philosophers. We need to know why later portrayals of Socrates differed from the contemporaneous one.

D
Socrates was a much more controversial figure in the years before his death than he was in his mid-forties.

We need to know more about Socrates as a controversial figure for this to be right. How did the controversy influence those later portrayals? Why were they so different than the one in Aristophanes? We simply don’t have enough information to choose this answer.

E
Socrates had an influence on many subsequent philosophers who were primarily concerned with natural science.

This doesn’t explain why Socrates was portrayed as an ethical and religious philosopher after his life. If this answer were true and he influenced philosophers concerned with natural science, why didn’t later accounts portray him as the scientific figure in Aristophanes?


4 comments

Board member: The J Foundation, a philanthropic organization, gave you this grant on the condition that your resulting work not contain any material detrimental to the J Foundation’s reputation. But your resulting work never mentions any of the laudable achievements of our foundation. Hence your work fails to meet the conditions under which the grant was made.

A
takes for granted that a work that never mentions any laudable achievements cannot be of high intellectual value
The author’s reasoning doesn’t relate to intellectual value. The argument concerns whether there is harm to the J Foundation’s reputation, not whether there is a lack of intellectual value.
B
confuses a condition necessary for the receipt of a grant with a condition sufficient for the receipt of a grant
The author doesn’t try to conclude that someone must have received a grant on the basis of having satisfied a necessary condition for a grant. The conclusion concerns whether someone who already received a grant is satisfying what’s required of them.
C
presumes, without providing justification, that a work that does not mention a foundation’s laudable achievements is harmful to that foundation’s reputation
The author assumes that failing to mention the good stuff J Foundation has done hurts the foundation’s reputation. This overlooks the possibility that there might be no reputational harm. Perhaps there’s no increase in reput., but that doens’t imply there has been a decrease.
D
fails to consider that recipients of a grant usually strive to meet a foundation’s conditions
Whether the recipient has tried to satisfy the conditions has no bearing on whether what they’ve done actually satisfies them. The argument concerns whether the recipient has actually satisfied the conditions.
E
fails to consider the possibility that the work that was produced with the aid of the grant may have met all conditions other than avoiding detriment to the J Foundation’s reputation
The argument points out a particular condition that the author believes has not been satisfied. Even if other conditions have been met, that doesn’t affect an argument based on a purported violation of one particular condition.

The question stem reads: The reasoning in the board member’s argument is vulnerable to criticism on grounds that the argument… This is a Flaw question.

The board member begins by claiming that the J Foundation issued “you” this grant on the condition that the resulting work did not contain anything detrimental to the J Foundation’s reputation. In other words, meeting the conditions of the grant requires that “your” work not contain anything harmful to J Foundation’s reputation. However, the board member notes that the resulting work does not mention anything positive about the J Foundation. The board member concludes that “you” have failed to meet the conditions of the grant.

Here we have a very common flaw in the LSAT: assuming that negation and opposition are the same. The board member assumes that no positive information must mean the existence of negative information. However, positive information could also imply that the information in the work was simply neutral: the information was neither good nor bad for the J Foundation’s reputation. If the resulting work was neutral, then “you” would not violate the conditions of the grant. Let’s move to the answer choices.

Answer Choice (A) is incorrect. Whether or not the work has Intellectual value has nothing to do with the board member’s argument.

Answer Choice (B) is incorrect. The author does not confuse the necessary condition of “no harmful information” for being sufficient to issue the grant.

Correct Answer Choice (C) is what we discussed. The board member has assumed that failing to mention the laudable achievements of J Foundation amounts to harming the reputation of J Foundation.

Answer Choice (D) is something the argument fails to consider, but that is not why the argument is flawed.

Answer Choice (E) is also something that the argument does not consider, but (E) is not a problem for the argument. If you failed to satisfy the necessary condition of “no harmful information,” it would not matter how many other conditions were met. The problem is that we do not know if the work actually contained harmful information.

 


8 comments

Psychiatrist: Breaking any habit is difficult, especially when it involves an addictive substance. People who break a habit are more likely to be motivated by immediate concerns than by long-term ones. Therefore, people who succeed in breaking their addiction to smoking cigarettes are more likely to be motivated by the social pressure against smoking—which is an immediate concern—than by health concerns, since _______.

Summarize Argument
People who successfully stop smoking are more motivated by social pressure (an urgent concern) than health concerns. This is because people who break habits are more motivated by urgent concerns than distant ones.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that health concerns are not urgent concerns for most people who quit smoking.

A
a habit that involves an addictive substance is likely to pose a greater health threat than a habit that does not involve any addictive substance
This does not affect the argument. The magnitude of the threat is not relevant to the argument, which is focused on the urgency of a threat.
B
for most people who successfully quit smoking, smoking does not create an immediate health concern at the time they quit
This strengthens the argument. It provides support for the author’s assumption that health is not a pressing concern for most people when they quit smoking.
C
some courses of action that exacerbate health concerns can also relieve social pressure
This does not affect the argument. (C) says some actions that make health issues worse can make social pressure better. This is not relevant to the argument, which is about what motivates people to stop smoking cigarettes (which we can’t assume is one of the actions described).
D
most people who succeed in quitting smoking succeed only after several attempts
This does not affect the argument. The psychiatrist already notes that breaking a habit is difficult, and is more concerned with what motivates someone to try hard enough to succeed in breaking the habit.
E
everyone who succeeds in quitting smoking is motivated either by social pressure or by health concerns
This does not affect our argument, as (E) doesn’t tell us anything about how many people fall into either category. It may strengthen the argument if most people quit because of social pressure. It would weaken it if most people quit because of health concerns.

6 comments

Cassie: In order to improve the quality of customer service provided by our real estate agency, we should reduce client loads—the number of clients each agent is expected to serve at one time.

Melvin: Although smaller client loads are desirable, reducing client loads at our agency is simply not feasible. We already find it very difficult to recruit enough qualified agents; recruiting even more agents, which would be necessary in order to reduce client loads, is out of the question.

Summarize Argument
Melvin concludes that reducing client loads isn’t feasible. This is because the real estate agency already has trouble recruiting qualified agents, and recruiting more agents is necessary for reducing client loads.

Notable Assumptions
Melvin assumes that reducing client loads wouldn’t help the real estate agency recruit more qualified agents. He believes that the necessary condition only works one way, which means he doesn’t believe lower client loads are necessary to help recruit more qualified agents.

A
Since reducing client loads would improve working conditions for agents, reducing client loads would help recruit additional qualified agents to the real estate agency.
While a lack of qualified agents prevent the real estate agency from lowering client loads, high client loads make it very difficult to recruit qualified agents. Thus, lowering client loads would be beneficial for the real estate agency.
B
Many of the real estate agency’s current clients have expressed strong support for efforts to reduce client loads.
We don’t care what the clients think. We care about what’s feasible and beneficial to the real estate agency.
C
Several recently conducted studies of real estate agencies have shown that small client loads are strongly correlated with high customer satisfaction ratings.
Melvin would likely agree smaller client loads are a good thing. He simply thinks they aren’t feasible at the moment.
D
Hiring extra support staff for the real estate agency’s main office would have many of the same beneficial effects as reducing client loads.
This doesn’t weaken Melvin’s stance that client loads shouldn’t be reduced. If anything, it provides another method of achieving the same result reducing client loads would amount to.
E
Over the last several years, it has become increasingly challenging for the real estate agency to recruit enough qualified agents just to maintain current client loads.
This seems to support Melvin’s stance that recruiting more qualified agents is infeasible. We need to weaken that stance.

11 comments

The star-nosed mole has a nose that ends in a pair of several-pointed stars, or tentacles that are crucial for hunting, as moles are poor-sighted. These tentacles contain receptors that detect electric fields produced by other animals, enabling the moles to detect and catch suitable prey such as worms and insects.

Summary
The star-nosed mole has a nose ending in tentacles that are crucial for hunting. The mole has poor eyesight. The tentacles have receptors detecting electrical fields produced by other animals. The tentacles help the moles detect and catch prey, such as worms and insects.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Animals that don’t produce electrical fields would be hard for the star-nosed mole to detect and catch. Worms and insects are detectable by star-nosed moles’ tentacles because they produce electric fields.

A
Both worms and insects produce electric fields.
This is strongly supported because we know that star-nosed moles rely on their tentacles to detect electric fields instead of seeing, and they are able to use these tentacles to detect worms and insects.
B
The star-nosed mole does not rely at all on its eyesight for survival.
This is unsupported because while we know the star-nosed mole has poor eyesight and uses another tool for hunting prey, it may still use its limited eyesight for other purposes.
C
The star-nosed mole does not rely at all on its sense of smell when hunting.
This is unsupported because the author provides no information about the star-nosed mole’s sense of smell. It is possible that it still uses smell in conjunction with the tentacles or to hunt other prey that are not insects or worms.
D
Only animals that hunt have noses with tentacles that detect electric fields.
This is unsupported because there could be other non-hunting animals besides the star-nosed mole that have noses with tentacles that detect electric fields.
E
The star-nosed mole does not produce an electric field.
This is unsupported because for all we know, the star-nosed mole is able to detect itself or other star-nosed moles via electric fields that they produce.

10 comments

If you had trouble with this game, you should practice the other Games that are similar to this one (listed below).  That way, you'll learn to see how the Logic Games really are all the same. That's how high scorers see them and that's how you can improve your speed, accuracy, and score.

Start with the Games in the same set as this Game.  Then, work on the Games in the other sets.

The Easy In/Out Games Set
PT24-Game1 | PT29-Game1 | PT36-Game1 | PT48-Game1 | PT54-Game1 | PT63-Game1
_________________________

The Basic In/Out Games Set
PT33-Game2 | PT40-Game4 | PT45-Game3 | PT58-Game2

The Basic+ In/Out Games Set
PT34-Game4 | PT41-Game3

The Medium In/Out Games Set
PT20-Game2 | PT39-Game4 | PT47-Game2 | PT58-Game4 | PT59-Game3

The Difficult In/Out Games Set
PT31-Game2 | PT32-Game2 | PT49-Game3


19 comments