LSAT 149 - Section 1 - Question 20

March 5, 2018

18 comments

LSAT 83 - Section 1 - Question 15

March 5, 2018

20 comments

LSAT 149 - Section 1 - Question 15

March 5, 2018

Physicists attempting to create new kinds of atoms often do so by fusing together two existing atoms. For such fusion to occur, the two atoms must collide with enough energy—that is, at high enough speeds—to overcome the electromagnetic force by which atoms repel each other. But if the energy with which two atoms collide greatly exceeds the minimum required for the fusion to take place, the excess energy will be converted into heat, making the resulting new atom very hot. And the hotter the atom is, the greater the chance that it will immediately split apart again.

Summary
Atoms naturally repel each other. But they can fuse together if they collide with enough energy to overcome this repelling force. If atoms collide with too much energy, however, then after the atoms fuse together, the excess energy will make the new fused atom hot. The hotter a fused atom, the greater the chance it will immediately split apart again.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
In order to fuse two atoms together, but also keep the fused atom from splitting apart again, there’s a certain range of energy that’s required for the collision. (In other words, there’s a certain “Goldilocks” range. The energy can’t be too low, or else the atoms won’t fuse. The energy can’t be too high, or else the atoms will split apart after fusing.)

A
When physicists create new kinds of atoms by fusing together two existing atoms, the new atoms usually split apart again immediately.
Unsupported, because we don’t know the typical level of energy produced when physicists try to fuse atoms together. We have no evidence that the physicists aren’t creating collisions with the right amount of energy to avoid splitting.
B
If a new atom produced by the collision of two other atoms immediately splits apart again, then the collision did not produce enough energy to overcome the electromagnetic force by which atoms repel each other.
This is anti-supported, because in order to fuse together in the first place, the energy of the collision needed to overcome the repelling force.
C
The stronger the electromagnetic force by which two atoms repel each other, the hotter any new atom will be that is created by the fusion of those two atoms.
Unsupported, because we don’t know about the relationship between the repelling force and heat. We know that if the collision produces a lot of energy, that create heat. But we don’t know what happens if the repelling force is greater or lower.
D
Whenever two existing atoms are made to collide and fuse together into a new atom, little energy is produced in the collision unless the new atom immediately splits apart.
Unsupported, because we know there’s a range of energy in which two atoms can fuse and not immediately split apart. This level of energy needs to be enough to overcome the repelling force, and this could be a high level. We don’t have evidence that this is a low amount of energy.
E
If two atoms collide with considerably more energy than is needed for fusion to take place, the new atom will be likely to immediately split apart again.
Supported, because we know that if the energy produced by a collision greatly exceeds the minimum required to fuse, the fused atom will be very hot. The hotter an atom, the more likely it will split. I don’t like the word “likely” here, but it’s the most supported answer.

23 comments

LSAT 83 - Section 1 - Question 10

March 5, 2018


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypzWUzP_AOU


65 comments

LSAT 149 - Section 1 - Question 10

March 5, 2018

One adaptation that enables an animal species to survive despite predation by other species is effective camouflage. Yet some prey species with few or no other adaptations to counteract predation have endured for a long time with black-and-white coloration that seems unlikely to provide effective camouflage.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
How have some black-and-white prey species survived despite the fact that they have few or no adaptations to counteract predation and their coloration seems unlikely to provide effective camouflage?

Objective
The right answer will describe some factor that has allowed the black-and-white species to endure for a long time, despite their apparent survival shortcomings. This might take the form of explaining how the coloration actually does benefit the species despite what we may think, adding some additional survival information about these species, or showing some weakness in the species’ predators.

A
Most species with black-and-white coloration are more populous than the species that prey upon them.
This doesn’t matter. We expect that predators eat more than one animal throughout their lives, so the prey species being more populous doesn’t explain their survival. This answer also doesn’t say how much more populous the prey are—it could be that there’s only one more of them!
B
No form of camouflage is completely effective against all kinds of predators.
This doesn’t help. The black-and-white species in question seem not to have any camouflage at all, so general information about camouflage effectiveness isn’t relevant or useful.
C
Animals of many predatory species do not perceive color or pattern in the same manner as humans do.
This explains how the black-and-white coloration that humans don’t see as effective camouflage might in fact function as such against predator species. Maybe these predators see the world in black-and-white or perceive patterns that match the prey’s coloration!
D
Conspicuous black-and-white areas help animals of the same species avoid encounters with one another.
This isn’t helpful. We need information about how these black-and-white animals evade predator species in order to survive, not how they avoid one another.
E
Black-and-white coloration is not as great a liability against predators at night as it is during the day.
This doesn’t matter. This answer choice suggests that black-and-white coloration is a liability against predators, even if that liability is less substantial at night!

Extracurricular


76 comments

LSAT 82 - Section 4 - Question 26

November 24, 2017

12 comments

LSAT 154 - Section 1 - Question 26

November 24, 2017

Philosopher: A person is morally responsible for an action only if that action is performed freely. And an action is free only if there is an alternative action that is genuinely open to the person. But an alternative action is genuinely open only if performing that alternative action is not morally wrong.

Summary

The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:

Notable Valid Inferences

If someone is morally responsible for an action, then it is not the case that the alternative to that action is morally wrong.

If an action was performed freely, then it is not the case that the alternative to that action is morally wrong.

If someone is morally responsible for an action, then there is an alternative action that is genuinely open to the person.

A
An alternative action is not genuinely open to a person unless that person would be morally responsible for performing the alternative action.

Could be false. We know that moral responsibility is a sufficient condition for an alternative action being genuinely open; (A) mixes up the sufficient and necessary conditions of this relationship.

B
People are not morally responsible for most of the actions that they perform.

Could be false. The stimulus does not discuss any quantities; we cannot make any inferences about “most” actions that people perform.

C
A person is morally responsible for an action if there is an alternative action that is genuinely open to the person.

Could be false. We know that moral responsibility is a sufficient condition for an alternative action being genuinely open. Like (A), (C) mixes up the sufficient and necessary conditions of this relationship.

D
If it would be morally wrong for a person to perform a given action, then that action is genuinely open to that person.

Could be false. We know that if an alternative action is morally wrong, then that alternative action was not genuinely open. (D) misses the fact that this relationship discusses “alternative” actions. Also, the necessary condition is that the action is not genuinely open.

E
An action is not free unless there is an alternative action that is not morally wrong.

Must be true. As shown below, an action being performed freely is a sufficient condition for the alternative to that action not being morally wrong.


15 comments

LSAT 82 - Section 4 - Question 25

November 24, 2017

35 comments

LSAT 154 - Section 1 - Question 25

November 24, 2017

40 comments

LSAT 82 - Section 4 - Question 24

November 24, 2017

15 comments

«‹209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229›»