Sections 3

LSAT 151 - Section 3 - Question 17

November 20, 2018

forage
Verb. 1. (of a person or animal) search widely for food or provisions.
"gulls are equipped by nature to forage for food"
source

50 comments

LSAT 85 - Section 3 - Question 16

November 20, 2018

2 comments

LSAT 151 - Section 3 - Question 16

November 20, 2018

Wood that is waterlogged or desiccated can be preserved for a significant period, but, under normal conditions, wood usually disintegrates within a century or two. For this reason, archaeologists have been unable to find many remains of early wheeled vehicles to examine. However, archaeologists have found small ceramic models of wheeled vehicles made at approximately the same time as those early vehicles. Since these models have been much less susceptible to disintegration than the vehicles themselves, the main evidence regarding early wheeled vehicles has come from these models.

Summary

Waterlogged or desiccated wood can be preserved for significant periods. In contrast, wood normally disintegrates within a century or two in normal conditions. For this reason, archaeologists have not found many remains of early wheeled vehicles. However, archaeologists have found small ceramic models of wheeled vehicles made around the same time as early vehicles. These ceramic models have served as the main evidence for early wheeled vehicles because they are less susceptible to disintegration.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

More early wheeled vehicles were made of wood than of materials susceptible to disintegration.

A

Most of the small ceramic models of early wheeled vehicles were made by the very individuals who made the vehicles upon which the ceramic vehicles were modeled.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus who made early wheeled vehicles or the ceramic models.

B

Few, if any, small models of early wheeled vehicles were made of wood or other materials equally susceptible to disintegration under normal conditions.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if few models were wooden. We only know archaeologists found ceramic models. It is possible that most models were made from wood. We cannot assume something about all of the models on the basis of only the models archaeologists found.

C

The individuals who made the early wheeled vehicles were not always aware that wood can be preserved through waterlogging or desiccation.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the makers of early wheeled vehicles were aware of preservation methods.

D

An artifact will be more difficult for archaeologists to find if it has been preserved through waterlogging or desiccation than if it has been preserved under more normal conditions.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus which artifacts are more difficult to find. It could be that they are all equally difficult or equally easy to find.

E

Of the early wheeled vehicles not preserved, more were made of wood than were made of materials no more susceptible to disintegration than are ceramic items.

This answer is strongly supported. We know that under normal conditions wood disintegrates in a century or two, and the small models archeologists have found are ceramic. Therefore, more early wheeled vehicles were made from wood than materials like ceramic.

29 comments

LSAT 85 - Section 3 - Question 24

November 15, 2018

1 comment

LSAT 151 - Section 3 - Question 24

November 15, 2018

A recent poll of a large number of households found that 47 percent of those with a cat had at least one person with a university degree, while 38 percent of households with a dog had at least one person with a university degree. Clearly, people who hold university degrees are more likely to live in a household with a cat than one with a dog.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that people who have university degrees are more likely to live in a household with a cat than a household with a dog. This is based on the following poll results:

47% of households with a cat had at least one person with a university degree.

38% of households with a dog had at least one person with a university degree.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author overlooks the possibility that the number of houses with dogs is significantly higher than the number of houses with cats, such that 38% of dog-houses might be a greater number than 47% of cat-houses. And if this is the case, a person with a university degree might be more likely to be part of a dog-house than a cat-house.

A

ignores the possibility that a significant number of households might have both a cat and a dog

This possibility doesn’t hurt the argument, because we have statistics about households with cats and households with dogs. Households that have both would simply be counted as both a household with a cat and a household with a dog. These households are not excluded.

B

takes for granted that there are not significantly more households with a dog than ones with a cat

This describes an assumption of the argument, because if there were significantly more households with a dog than ones with a cat, that opens the possibility 38% of the dog-houses is a greater number than 47% of the cat-houses.

C

fails to consider how many of the households have at least one person without a university degree

The argument concerns only people who have university degrees. What proportion have houses with at least one person without a university degree has no bearing on the argument.

D

fails to consider to what extent people with university degrees participate in decisions about whether their households have a cat or dog

The argument concerns the likelihood that someone with a university degree is to live in a household with a cat vs. a household with a dog. Who makes decisions on pets in these households has no bearing on the argument.

E

ignores the possibility that two things can be correlated without being causally connected

The argument does not assert any causal relationship. The author doesn’t say that having a degree causes one to get a cat or a dog or vice versa. So the possibilty that things can be correlated without being causally connected has no impact on the argument.

46 comments

LSAT 85 - Section 3 - Question 23

November 15, 2018

7 comments

LSAT 151 - Section 3 - Question 23

November 15, 2018

Researchers have found that some unprotected areas outside of a national park that was designed to protect birds have substantially higher numbers of certain bird species than comparable areas inside the park.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Some areas outside of a conservation park have substantially higher populations of certain bird species than the park does.

Objective

The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains why certain species are more prevalent outside the park than inside the park. The explanation must account for some quirk about the species themselves, or some quirk about the park that makes it less hospitable to these species than one would assume.

A

Moose are much more prevalent inside the park, where hunting is prohibited, than outside the park, and moose eat much of the food that the birds need to survive.

The park has a moose problem, which reduces food available for the birds. This isn’t true of areas outside the park, hence why certain bird species make their homes there.

B

The researchers also found that some unprotected areas outside of the park have substantially higher numbers of certain reptile species than comparable areas inside the park.

Rather than clearing anything up about the birds, we also have to account for reptiles. We want something that addresses the surprising fact about birds.

C

Researchers tagged a large number of birds inside the park; three months later some of these birds were recaptured outside the park.

Why did the birds leave? We’re looking for something that tells us why birds prefer to live outside the park.

D

Both inside the park and just outside of it, there are riverside areas containing willows and other waterside growth that the bird species thrive on.

This points to a similarity between the two areas in question. We need a difference that helps explain why some birds prefer not to live in the protected park.

E

The park was designed to protect endangered bird species, but some of the bird species that are present in higher numbers in the unprotected areas are also endangered.

Why don’t those birds go into the park? Like (D), this is missing a comparative aspect between the park and the unprotected areas.

7 comments

LSAT 84 - Section 3 - Question 25

August 10, 2018

5 comments

LSAT 150 - Section 3 - Question 25

August 10, 2018

9 comments

LSAT 84 - Section 3 - Question 24

August 10, 2018

Flaw/Descriptive Weakening

Let's say that someone's very obese. That's bad for their overall health. There are now a number of proposals on the table to help them lose weight. Consider proposal 1 which I won't reveal yet but trust me, it definitely helps them lose weight. Are you willing to accept that therefore it'll be good for their overall health?

Well you shouldn't. Because you know what proposal 1 is? Crystal meth. It'll help with the obesity by suppressing appetite and speeding up metabolism. But it'll also increase chances of you dead. So no. It's not gonna be good for overall health.

There's the analogy for the politician's argument. The proposal 1 is the regulation proposals. The obesity is the large trade deficit. The overall health is the overall economy.

Just because the proposed regulations would cut down the trade deficit doesn't mean that it would be good for the overall economy. The regulations could have other effects that would be bad for the overall economy. That's what (D) says.

(E) is saying that this argument commits a whole to part flaw. The conclusion descriptor is true enough. It does conclude that "every/each regulation will help the economy" but no where did it say that the entire set of regulations as a whole would help the economy. Who's even thinking about enacting the entire set of regulations? I don't know.

(B) is just descriptively inaccurate. The politician does not assume (take for granted) that reducing the trade deficit is the only way of improving the economy, just that it's one way. If you said "excuse me, but here's some Martian technology from 100 years in the future, that'll help boost your economy" the politician will just be like "cool, thanks buddy!"

25 comments