LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 13

February 21, 2014

James: Many people claim that the voting public is unable to evaluate complex campaign issues. The television commercials for Reade in the national campaign, however, discuss complex campaign issues, and Reade is, at present, more popular than any other candidate.

Maria: Yes, Reade is the most popular. However, you are incorrect in claiming that this is because of Reade’s discussion of complex campaign issues. Reade simply strikes the voters as the most competent and trustworthy candidate.

Summarize Argument
Maria concludes that Reade isn’t ahead in the polls because of her discussion of complex campaign issues. Instead, Reade is ahead because voters think she’s the most competent and trustworthy candidate.

Notable Assumptions
Since Maria believes Reade is ahead because voters view her as the most competent and trustworthy candidate, Maria assumes competence and trustworthiness outweigh discussions of complex campaign issues for voters.

A
Reade’s opponents are discussing some of the same issues as Reade.
Even if they’re discussing these issues, voters may evaluate their stances to be inferior to Reade’s. We need something that tells us voters care less about such discussions than they care about competence and trustworthiness.
B
Reade’s opponents charge that Reade oversimplifies complex campaign issues.
We don’t care what Reade’s opponents think.
C
Polling data show that Reade’s present popularity will probably diminish over time.
We don’t care what will happen to Reade’s popularity later on. Maria is arguing about why she’s ahead right now.
D
Polling data show that most voters cannot identify Reade’s positions on campaign issues.
Since voters can’t identify Reade’s positions on campaign issues, they evidently haven’t been paying too much attention to her discussion of such issues. This means Reade must be ahead in the polls for some other reason, such as the one Maria gives.
E
Polling data show that some voters consider Reade competent and trustworthy.
“Some” could be mean 5%. This certainly wouldn’t put Reade ahead in the polls.

46 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 14

February 21, 2014

Some critics claim that the power of the media to impose opinions upon people concerning the important issues of the day is too great. But this is not true. It would be true if on major issues the media purveyed a range of opinion narrower than that found among consumers of media. The fact that this assumption is untrue shows the critics’ claim to be false.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that the media does not have excessive power to impose opinions, contrary to the view of some critics. His support is that, if the media purveyed an overly narrow range of opinion, that would be sufficient for it to impose opinions. But it doesn’t purvey an overly narrow range of opinion.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing sufficiency and necessity. The author argues that, because a sufficient condition (overly restricted opinion) isn’t true, its necessary condition (imposing opinions) couldn’t be true. This is flawed reasoning, because only the absence of a necessary condition (not a sufficient condition) can tell you that something can’t be true.
Consider the analogous argument: “If this food was an orange, it would be a fruit. It’s not an orange, so it can’t be a fruit.” This is fallacious, because even though being an orange is enough to make something a fruit, not all fruits are oranges.

A
The argument launches a personal attack against the critics rather than addressing the reasons they present in support of their claim.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of ad hominem. It isn’t applicable here, because there is no personal attack; the author provides a substantive argument.
B
The argument takes for granted that the media give at least as much exposure as they should to a wide range of opinion on the important issues of the day.
The author would be taking this for granted if he were to assume it was true without actually stating it. He explicitly says that it is true, so he isn’t taking it for granted.
C
The argument takes for granted that if the truth of one claim implies the truth of a second claim, then the falsity of the first claim proves the falsity of the second claim.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions (see diagram above). The author argues that a sufficient condition doesn’t apply, so its necessary condition doesn’t apply either. But that doesn’t follow logically.
D
The argument, instead of providing adequate reasons in support of its conclusion, makes an appeal to popular opinion.
The author’s conclusion is about people’s opinions, but he doesn’t appeal to popular opinion. That would be if he’d said that many people believe this conclusion is true, so therefore it must be true.
E
The argument takes for granted that it is desirable for a wide range of opinion on the important issues of the day to receive media exposure.
The author never says that it is desirable to have a wide range of opinion—he only says that there is in fact a wide range of opinion.

21 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 15

February 21, 2014

26 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 16

February 21, 2014

20 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 17

February 21, 2014

Researcher: Hard water contains more calcium and magnesium than soft water contains. Thus, those who drink mostly soft water incur an increased risk of heart disease, stroke, and hypertension, for people being treated for these conditions tend to have lower levels of magnesium in their blood.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The researcher hypothesizes that people who drink mostly soft water have a higher risk of heart disease, stroke, and hypertension than people who drink mostly hard water. This is because hard water has more magnesium than soft water. The researcher’s hypothesis is based on the phenomenon that people being treated for the aforementioned conditions having lower levels of magnesium in their blood.

Notable Assumptions

The researcher assumes that the difference in hard and soft water’s magnesium levels is not negligible. The researcher also assumes that lower levels of magnesium (at least in part) caused people to develop heart disease, stroke, and hypertension, as opposed to the low magnesium levels being an effect of these conditions.

A
Magnesium deficiency is not uncommon, even in relatively prosperous countries with an otherwise generally adequate diet.

This does not affect the argument. The researcher does not discuss magnesium deficiencies: he focuses on the relative magnesium levels in hard and soft water, and the low magnesium levels in the blood of people receiving treatment. We cannot conclude that they are deficient.

B
Magnesium is needed to prevent sodium from increasing blood pressure.

This does not affect the argument. The role of magnesium in maintaining blood pressure is not relevant to the argument.

C
As people age, their ability to metabolize magnesium deteriorates.

This does not affect the argument. We don’t know about the ages of the patients being treated or how age affects one’s likeliness to develop one of the mentioned conditions.

D
The ingestion of magnesium supplements inhibits the effectiveness of many medicines used to treat high blood pressure and heart disease.

This does not affect the argument. (D) suggests those being treated for these conditions cannot take supplements to increase their low magnesium levels. This is compatible with the author’s assumption that lower levels of magnesium increase one’s risk of the conditions described.

E
Compounds commonly used to treat hypertension and heart disease diminish the body’s capacity to absorb and retain magnesium.

This weakens the argument. It exploits the researcher’s assumption that lower magnesium levels caused people to need treatment for the conditions described. (E) says the opposite: that the lower magnesium levels are a result of receiving treatment.


45 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 18

February 21, 2014

9 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 19

February 21, 2014

23 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 05

February 21, 2014

25 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 06

February 21, 2014

Skeletal remains of early humans indicate clearly that our ancestors had fewer dental problems than we have. So, most likely, the diet of early humans was very different from ours.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes early humans had different diets than us. Her evidence is that skeletal remains of early humans show fewer dental problems than we have.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that virtually the only thing that could’ve caused fewer dental problems in early humans is different diets.

A
A healthy diet leads to healthy teeth.
We have no idea if early humans or modern humans have “healthy diets.”
B
Skeletal remains indicate that some early humans had a significant number of cavities.
Regardless, early humans had less dental problems than we do now.
C
The diet of early humans was at least as varied as is our diet.
We don’t care how varied their diet was. We need to strengthen the connection between early humans eating a different diet than ours, and early humans having less dental problems than us.
D
Early humans had a shorter average life span than we do, and the most serious dental problems now tend to develop late in life.
This weakens the author’s argument. Early humans had fewer dental problems because they didn’t live long enough to develop such problems, rather than because of their diets.
E
Diet is by far the most significant factor contributing to dental health.
In all likelihood, early humans had better dental health because of their diets. This affirms the author’s assumption that fewer health problems are a sign of better diets.

10 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 07

February 21, 2014

In preagricultural societies, social roles were few and were easily predicted for each phase of a person’s life. Accordingly, interpersonal relations, although not always pleasant or fair, were stable and predictable. Modern society, on the other hand, has thousands of different social roles. Technology and consumerism require that each of us fill highly particularized niches, and these niches are differentiating at an astonishing pace. Therefore, _______.

Summary
Each phase of a person’s life had predictable social roles in preagricultural societies. Social roles were few in these societies. Interpersonal relations in preagricultural societies were not always fair, but they were stable and predictable. Modern society has thousands of different roles. Technology and consumerism require people to fill several different roles that are differentiating at a high pace.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Modern social roles are less stable and predictable than preagricultural social roles.

A
modern society is characterized by greater injustice and unpleasantness than were preagricultural societies
This is unsupported because modern roles may very well be more fair and pleasant than the preagricultural roles, which were not always fair and pleasant despite being stable and predictable.
B
interpersonal relations in modern societies are less stable and less predictable than they were in preagricultural societies
This is strongly supported because the stability and predictability of preagricultural roles was due to the relatively low number of roles. With the diversifying roles of modern society, these roles will likely be less stable and predictable.
C
the most important difference between modern and preagricultural societies is the variety and type of social roles permitted in each
This is unsupported because we don’t know how to rank the importance of the various differences between modern and preagricultural societies.
D
in modern societies, people must rely on technology to effectively predict and interpret other people’s actions
This is unsupported because the author states nothing about how one person can interpret or predict the actions of another.
E
preagricultural societies lacked the complex social system that is needed to provide each person with an appropriate and stable social role or niche
This is anti-supported because the stimulus states that preagricultural societies had stable social roles.

10 comments

«‹158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178›»