Brain-scanning technology provides information about processes occurring in the brain. For this information to help researchers understand how the brain enables us to think, however, researchers must be able to rely on the accuracy of the verbal reports given by subjects while their brains are being scanned. Otherwise brain-scan data gathered at a given moment might not contain information about what the subject reports thinking about at that moment, but instead about some different set of thoughts.

Summarize Argument
The author makes a claim about what needs to occur in certain studies. Using brain scanning technology to understand thinking requires accurate verbal reports from the subjects being scanned. This is because the brain scan data would not contain useful information about thought processes if the subject reports thinking one thing, but is actually thinking another.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is what needs to occur: “For this information to help researchers understand how the brain enables us to think, researchers must be able to rely on the accuracy of the verbal reports given by subjects while their brains are being scanned.”

A
It is unlikely that brain-scanning technology will ever enable researchers to understand how the brain enables us to think.
This concept is not contained in the stimulus. The stimulus concludes what needs to happen, not what is likely or unlikely.
B
There is no way that researchers can know for certain that subjects whose brains are being scanned are accurately reporting what they are thinking.
This concept is not contained in the stimulus. We know we need accurate information, but there is no discussion of certainty.
C
Because subjects whose brains are being scanned may not accurately report what they are thinking, the results of brain-scanning research should be regarded with great skepticism.
This concept is not contained in the stimulus. The stimulus concludes what needs to happen for data to be accurate, not how the results should be regarded.
D
Brain scans can provide information about the accuracy of the verbal reports of subjects whose brains are being scanned.
This is not contained in the stimulus. We know that the reports need to be accurate, but there is no information about the scans evaluating accuracy.
E
Information from brain scans can help researchers understand how the brain enables us to think only if the verbal reports of those whose brains are being scanned are accurate.
This accurately restates the argument the author is making - what needs to happen in order for the research to serve its purpose.

2 comments

Ornithologist: This bird species is widely thought to subsist primarily on vegetation, but my research shows that this belief is erroneous. While concealed in a well-camouflaged blind, I have observed hundreds of these birds every morning over a period of months, and I estimate that over half of what they ate consisted of insects and other animal food sources.

A
assumes, without providing justification, that the feeding behavior of the birds observed was not affected by the ornithologist’s act of observation
The author notes that she was concealed behind a “well-camouflaged blind” — so there is some justification for the assumption that the feeding wasn’t affected. In any case, the author just needs to assume that the birds didn’t change the vegetation/non-veg. makeup of their diet.
B
fails to specify the nature of the animal food sources, other than insects, that were consumed by the birds
The point of the observation is that the birds ate mainly non-vegetation in the morning. The particular kinds of food don’t matter as long as they’re not vegetation.
C
adopts a widespread belief about the birds’ feeding habits without considering the evidence that led to the belief
The author rejects the widespread belief that that the bird eats primarily vegetation.
D
neglects the possibility that the birds have different patterns of food consumption during different parts of the day and night
If the birds might have different patterns of food consumption at other times of day, that opens the possibility that the bird could eat primarly vegetation at other times of day. So the author’s observations of the birds’ diet might not be representative of the overall diet.
E
fails to consider the possibility that the birds’ diet has changed since the earlier belief about their diet was formed
If the birds’ diet has changed since the earlier belief was formed, that doesn’t undermine the author’s reasoning. The author is simply trying to prove that the bird doesn’t eat primarily vegetation.

The question stem reads: The reasoning in the ornithologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument… This is a Flaw question.

The ornithologist begins by stating how a particular bird species (we will call this bird "X") diet is believed to consist primarily of vegetation (plants). However, the ornithologist concludes that belief is wrong. In other words, The ornithologist argues that "X" birds' diets are mostly not plants. As evidence, he describes how he camouflaged himself and watched hundreds of "X" birds every morning for a month. During his morning observations, he estimates that over half of what "X" birds ate were insects and animal food resources (not plants). This line of reasoning is flawed because the ornithologist only observed birds during the morning. Let's say I hypothesized that the belief humans frequently drink coffee is wrong. To prove my theory, I hid in people's closets for many months and watched their bedtime routines. During my observations, I noticed very few people drank coffee. Hypothesis proven, right? No! The problem is that I only observed people at night when they were unlikely to drink coffee. The other problem is that I shouldn't hide in people's closets. An ideal experiment has a representative sample.

Similarly, the ornithologist has only observed what "X" birds eat in the morning. However, what "X" birds eat in the morning might be unrepresentative of their diet on the whole. Now that we have identified our flaw let's move to the answer choices.

Answer Choice (A) is wrong. The ornithologist says he camouflaged himself. You might argue that perhaps his camouflage was ineffective. However, our job LSAT flaw questions in the reasoning, not to question the truth of the premises. Even if he did camouflage himself well, his argument is still problematic (he was only watching "X" birds in the morning!).

Answer Choice (B) is wrong. The ornithologist does not need to describe exactly what kinds of food "X" birds ate. He needs to say that plants accounted for 50% or less of their diet. So if it was true that most of "X" birds' diets were insect and animal food sources, that would imply 50% or less of "X" birds' diet was plants.

Answer Choice (C) is wrong. The author does not adopt the widespread belief. The author rejects the widespread idea that "X" birds' diet is mostly plants.

Correct Answer Choice (D) is what we discussed. If it was confirmed that "X" birds have different feeding patterns throughout the day, the ornithologist made an error by taking an unrepresentative sample of the birds' diet.

Answer Choice (E) is incorrect. Mapping on the stimulus to (E), we would get: fails to consider the possibility that "X" birds diet has changed since the earlier belief that "X" birds mostly ate plants was formed. Even if it was true that the popular belief was formed when "X" birds used to mostly eat plants, what matters is what the birds eat now. If "X" birds mostly eat insects and animals, then the popular belief is wrong. Being right in the past doesn't make you any less wrong in the present.


16 comments

Educator: Only those students who are genuinely curious about a topic can successfully learn about that topic. They find the satisfaction of their curiosity intrinsically gratifying, and appreciate the inherent rewards of the learning process itself. However, almost no child enters the classroom with sufficient curiosity to learn successfully all that the teacher must instill. A teacher’s job, therefore, _______.

Summary

For students to successfully learn about a topic, they must be genuinely curious about that topic. These students find satisfaction of curiosity gratifying. However, almost no child enters the classroom with sufficient curiosity to successfully learn all that must be taught.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

A teacher’s job, therefore, requires stimulating and satisfying a student’s curiosity.

A
requires for the fulfillment of its goals the stimulation as well as the satisfaction of curiosity

This answer is strongly supported. Curiosity is a necessary condition for students to successfully learn a topic.

B
necessitates the creative use of rewards that are not inherent in the learning process itself

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the use of rewards is necessary for stimulating curiosity or successfully learning a topic.

C
is to focus primarily on those topics that do not initially interest the students

This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not suggest what topics teachers should or should not focus on.

D
is facilitated by students’ taking responsibility for their own learning

This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not suggest whether students have any responsibility for their own learning.

E
becomes easier if students realize that some learning is not necessarily enjoyable

This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not suggest at what point a teacher’s job becomes easier.


12 comments

Tea made from camellia leaves is a popular beverage. However, studies show that regular drinkers of camellia tea usually suffer withdrawal symptoms if they discontinue drinking the tea. Furthermore, regular drinkers of camellia tea are more likely than people in general to develop kidney damage. Regular consumption of this tea, therefore, can result in a heightened risk of kidney damage.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that regular consumption of camellia tea can lead to a heightened risk of kidney damage. She supports this claim by citing two studies: one showing that show camellia tea drinkers suffer withdrawal if they stop drinking the tea, and another showing that regular drinkers of camellia tea are more likely than most people to develop kidney damage.

Notable Assumptions
Based on a mere correlation between camellia tea drinking and kidney damage, the author concludes that the former causes the latter. This means she doesn’t believe the reverse is true (that people drink camellia tea because they have kidney damage, perhaps as a herbal remedy or as a substitute for kidney-damage beverages), nor that there’s some hidden third factor causing kidney damage and camellia tea drinking, or kidney damage in isolation.

A
Several other popular beverages contain the same addictive chemical that is found in camellia tea.
The author never says camellia tea is the only addictive beverage. We don’t care if other drinks are addictive, too.
B
Addictive chemicals are unlikely to cause kidney damage solely by virtue of their addictive qualities.
The author never said camellia tea is harmful because of its addictive qualities. The addictive qualities are simply why regular drinkers have a difficult time quitting.
C
Some people claim that regular consumption of camellia tea helps alleviate their stress.
This lists a benefit of camellia tea, but it doesn’t weaken the connection between regular drinking and kidney disease. We’re not trying to counterbalance the conclusion—we’re trying to weaken the connection.
D
Most people who regularly drink camellia tea do not develop kidney damage.
Even if most regular drinkers don’t develop kidney damage, camellia tea may still be linked to kidney damage. We already know regular drinkers are more susceptible to kidney damage than the general population.
E
Many people who regularly consume camellia tea also regularly consume other beverages suspected of causing kidney damage.
Camellia tea drinkers on the whole also drink other drinks, and those are also suspected of causing kidney damage. We don’t know which drink is actually responsible for kidney damage, so we can’t draw any conclusions about camellia tea.

37 comments

Artist: Avant-garde artists intend their work to challenge a society’s mainstream beliefs and initiate change. And some art collectors claim that an avant-garde work that becomes popular in its own time is successful. However, a society’s mainstream beliefs do not generally show any significant changes over a short period of time. Therefore, when an avant-garde work becomes popular it is a sign that the work is not successful, since it does not fulfil the intentions of its creator.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Avant-garde work that becomes popular in its own time is not successful, despite what some art collectors believe. Why? When avant-garde work becomes popular, it does not fulfill the intentions of the artist. The intentions of the artists are to challenge mainstream beliefs and initiate change. However, no such change could occur in a short period of time.

Identify Argument Part
The claim of some art collectors is what is being refuted. The art collectors think avant-garde work that becomes popular in its own time is successful, while the artist’s argument says no - that means the art is not successful.

A
It serves to bolster the argument’s main conclusion.
It is in opposition to the main conclusion. The main conclusion refutes it.
B
It identifies a view that is ultimately disputed by the argument.
The argument is dedicated to refuting/disputing this particular claim.
C
It identifies a position supported by the initial premise in the argument.
This position is given no support within the argument. The initial premise is used to support the opposite conclusion.
D
It provides support for the initial premise in the argument.
The claim provides no support for the other parts of the argument. The first premise stands alone, without any support.
E
It provides support for a counterargument to the initial premise.
This is a claim that is being refuted, and it doesn’t support anything else. Additionally, the initial premise is just a premise - the opposing arguments diverge on success, not the intentions of artists.

2 comments

A recent epidemiological study found that businesspeople who travel internationally on business are much more likely to suffer from chronic insomnia than are businesspeople who do not travel on business. International travelers experience the stresses of dramatic changes in climate, frequent disruption of daily routines, and immersion in cultures other than their own, stresses not commonly felt by those who do not travel. Thus, it is likely that these stresses cause the insomnia.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The author hypothesizes that increased stress causes more insomnia in businesspeople who travel relative to those who don’t. This is because travelling exposes you to stressors that you wouldn’t have at home.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that there isn’t some other factor that makes travelling businesspeople more likely to have insomnia. In other words, the author assumes that stress is the important factor here, and not something else—maybe people who travel for business have more demanding jobs, which makes them more prone to insomnia.

A
Most international travel for the sake of business occurs between countries with contiguous borders.

This does not affect the argument. Most business travel occurring between countries with contiguous borders doesn’t tell us about how similar those countries are culturally and climate-wise. We would have to make several assumptions for this to have any impact.

B
Some businesspeople who travel internationally greatly enjoy the changes in climate and immersion in another culture.

This does not affect the argument. It could be that people enjoy the experience but still feel the stresses described. Also, the argument claims travelling businesspeople are more likely to have insomnia—the author isn’t arguing that all of them do.

C
Businesspeople who already suffer from chronic insomnia are no more likely than businesspeople who do not to accept assignments from their employers that require international travel.

This strengthens the argument by addressing a potential alternative explanation for the phenomenon: that businesspeople who already have insomnia are more likely to travel than businesspeople who don’t have insomnia. This would mean the stress has nothing to do with it.

D
Experiencing dramatic changes in climate and disruption of daily routines through international travel can be beneficial to some people who suffer from chronic insomnia.

This does not affect the argument. (D) says people who already have insomnia may benefit from the stresses described. This is outside the scope of the causal mechanism described in the stimulus, which is that the stresses cause insomnia in the first place.

E
Some businesspeople who once traveled internationally but no longer do so complain of various sleep-related ailments.

This does not affect the argument. We don’t know if these ailments include insomnia, which is what we’re concerned with. Also, the stimulus only discusses stress as the cause of insomnia for travelling businesspeople—other people can have insomnia for other reasons.


34 comments

The question stem reads: Each of the following arguments exhibits flawed reasoning similar to that in the argument above EXCEPT… This is a Parallel Flaw question.

The author states that each of the smallest particles in the universe has an “elegantly simple structure.” Since the universe is composed of these particles, the author concludes that the universe also has an “elegantly simple structure.” The argument makes a fallacy of composition (part to whole). Just because a part or all of the parts have a particular property, the property does not necessarily carry over to the whole. By a similar line of reasoning, we could conclude that because the parts of a car cannot move on their own, and a car is composed of those parts, the car itself must not be able to move.

Because this is an except question, the wrong answer choices will contain a fallacy of composition. The right answer choice could exhibit some other fallacy or be a valid argument.

Answer Choice (A) is incorrect. (A) matches the stimulus by saying that because the parts of a car have the property of being perfectly engineered, then the car (the parts put together) must also have the property of being perfectly engineered. The car's parts may be well-engineered, but the car could be designed and assembled in a terrible fashion. Eliminate (A).

Correct Answer Choice (B) does make an argument from part to whole. However, (B) is not a fallacious argument. If every part of the desk is made of metal, then it must be true the desk is made of metal. While the properties of the parts do not necessarily carry over to the whole, sometimes they do. You must use your judgment to determine whether a “part to whole” argument works or is fallacious. Because (B) makes a good argument, (B) is our right answer.

Answer Choice (C) is incorrect. (C) matches the stimulus by saying because bricks have the property of being rectangular, the wall of bricks (the bricks put together) must have the property of being rectangular. What if the wall is built in a circle? Eliminate (C).

Answer Choice (D) is incorrect. (D) matches the stimulus by saying that because each piece of wood has the property of being sturdy, then the desk (the wood put together) must also have the property of being sturdy. Perhaps the stool was poorly put together. Eliminate (D).

Answer Choice (E) is incorrect. (E) matches our stimulus by saying that because each sentence of the novel has the property of being well constructed, the novel (all of the sentences put together) must also have the property of being well constructed. Eliminate (E).


9 comments