LSAT 103 - Section 2 - Question 07

October 24, 2015

Speakers of the Caronian language constitute a minority of the population in several large countries. An international body has recommended that the regions where Caronian-speakers live be granted autonomy as an independent nation in which Caronian-speakers would form a majority. But Caronian-speakers live in several, widely scattered areas that cannot be united within a single continuous boundary while at the same time allowing Caronian-speakers to be the majority population. Hence, the recommendation cannot be satisfied.

Summary
The argument concludes that it’s impossible to satisfy a recommendation that regions with many Caronian-speakers be allowed to form an independent, Caronian-majority nation. This is because Caronian-speakers live in scattered areas that wouldn’t fit into a single continuous border without including a majority population of non-Caronian-speakers.

Notable Assumptions
The argument disqualifies the idea of a Caronian-majority nation on the basis that such a nation would be impossible within a continuous border. This assumes that it’s impossible to create a Caronian-majority nation with a discontinuous border—that includes several disconnected regions.

A
A nation once existed in which Caronian-speakers formed the majority of the population.
The argument doesn’t rely on a Caronian-majority nation having previously existed. In fact, this doesn’t affect the argument at all one way or another, so is not necessary.
B
Caronian-speakers tend to perceive themselves as constituting a single community.
The argument’s analysis of whether it’s possible to create a Caronian-majority nation operates independently of how Caronian-speakers perceive themselves, making this not necessary.
C
The recommendation would not be satisfied by the creation of a nation formed of disconnected regions.
This must be assumed, because it’s the only way that the conclusion is supported by the premise that forming a continuous Caronian-majority nation would be impossible. If a disconnected nation were possible, the conclusion would be unsupported.
D
The new Caronian nation will not include as citizens anyone who does not speak Caronian.
The argument only cares about non-Caronian-speakers to the extent that they can’t form a majority in the proposed Caronian nation. Whether or not they will be citizens is irrelevant.
E
In most nations several different languages are spoken.
The typical language situation of most nations is irrelevant to whether it’s possible to create a new Caronian-majority nation.

4 comments

LSAT 26 - Section 2 - Question 04

October 24, 2015

1 comment

LSAT 103 - Section 2 - Question 04

October 24, 2015

Politician P: My opponent claims that the government is obligated to raise taxes to increase funding for schools and health care. Because raising taxes to increase funding for schools and health care would make taxpayers upset over their loss of buying power, my opponent is simply mistaken.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Politician P concludes that an opponent is wrong to say that the government is obligated to raise taxes to better fund school and health care. In support, P says that such a policy would upset taxpayers.

Identify and Describe Flaw
P concludes that the government is not obligated to take a particular action, because that action would upset people. This doesn’t address the opponent’s core claim that an obligation exists.

A
presupposing that a claim is mistaken on the grounds that the person defending it advocates other unpopular views
P never mentions whether or not the opponent advocates for other unpopular views.
B
assuming that a claim is false on the grounds that the person defending it is of questionable character
P doesn’t talk at all about anyone’s character, and doesn’t attack the opponent’s character.
C
concluding that a view is false on the grounds that its implementation would lead to unhappiness
P concludes that the opponent’s view about a government obligation to raise taxes is “mistaken,” meaning false, and as support only says that raising taxes would make people unhappy. This doesn’t actually address whether or not there’s an obligation.
D
appealing to wholly irrelevant issues to deflect attention away from the real issue
P isn’t appealing to wholly irrelevant issues—taxpayers’ response to a tax policy change is still a relevant consideration, even if it doesn’t establish that the government has no obligation to better fund schools and health care.
E
insisting that an obligation exists without offering any evidence that it exists
P isn’t insisting that an obligation exists. Instead, it’s the opposite: P’s opponent claims that an obligation exists, and P claims that the obligation does not exist.

25 comments

LSAT 26 - Section 2 - Question 03

October 24, 2015

3 comments

LSAT 103 - Section 2 - Question 03

October 24, 2015

Trisha: Today’s family is declining in its ability to carry out its functions of child-rearing and providing stability for adult life. There must be a return to the traditional values of commitment and responsibility.

Jerod: We ought to leave what is good enough alone. Contemporary families may be less stable than traditionally, but most people do not find that to be bad. Contemporary criticisms of the family are overblown and destructive.

Speaker 1 Summary

Trisha claims that families should return to the traditional values of commitment and responsibility. As support, Trisha says that modern families are not as able to raise children and provide stability for adult life. This implies that a change is needed, and traditional values can provide that change.

Speaker 2 Summary

Jerod doesn’t think we should interfere with modern families. Why not? Because even if Trisha is right about the lack of stability, that just isn’t a problem for most people. Jerod also finds criticisms of the modern family to be exaggerated. Families are more or less fine, so we should leave them alone.

Objective

We need to find a disagreement about the state of families. The point of disagreement between Trisha and Jerod is whether modern families should be changed: Trisha thinks they should be, but Jerod thinks we should leave them alone.

A
adequate as it is

Trisha disagrees with this statement but Jerod agrees, meaning that this is the point of disagreement. Trisha argues that families must return to traditional values (meaning, change). On the other hand, Jerod thinks families are “good enough” and should be left alone.

B
changing over time

Trisha agrees, claiming that families are changing by becoming less supportive and stable. Jerod doesn’t disagree, though. In fact, Jerod says that modern families may be less stable. This could be a point of agreement, or Jerod could be neutral; either way, not a disagreement.

C
valued by most people

Neither speaker gives an opinion on whether most people value families, so we can’t say that they disagree.

D
not going to survive

Neither speaker claims that families will or will not survive. Because no one says anything about this claim, it can’t be a point of disagreement.

E
no longer traditional

Both speakers agree with this claim. Trisha’s contrast between modern families and traditional values implies that modern families aren’t traditional. Jerod also distinguishes between contemporary and traditional families. This is a point of agreement.


3 comments

LSAT 26 - Section 2 - Question 02

October 24, 2015

12 comments

LSAT 103 - Section 2 - Question 02

October 24, 2015

Once a child’s imagination becomes developed, a host of imaginary creatures may torment the child. But this newly developed cognitive capacity may also be used to render these creatures harmless. For instance, a child’s new toy may be imagined as an ally, powerful enough to ward off any imaginary threats.

Summary
The stimulus says that when a child’s imagination develops, the child might be tormented by imagined monsters. However, a child in that situation could also use their imagination to defeat the monsters—for example, by imagining a powerful friend who can offer protection.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
The stimulus allows us to infer the following principles:
A child’s developing imagination can cause torment as well as offering reassurance.
A child’s developing imagination can be a source of problems, but can also be a source of solutions for those problems.
It is possible to use imaginary allies to defeat imaginary threats.

A
Some newly developed capacities only give rise to problems.
This is not supported. Imagination is presented as a newly developed capacity that gives rise to both problems and solutions, not just problems. We don’t have any examples of capacities that only give rise to problems.
B
Sometimes the cause of a problem may also provide its solution.
This is strongly supported. Based on the stimulus, we can infer that a child’s imagination can cause problems but can also be used to solve the problems it causes. In other words, imagination is both the cause of the problem and provides its solution.
C
Children are not able to distinguish between real and imaginary threats.
This is not supported. The facts in the stimulus never suggest whether or not children can tell the difference between real and imaginary threats. We can’t assume that the child doesn’t know that the threats are imaginary.
D
The most effective way for children to address their fears is to acknowledge them.
This is not supported. The stimulus never indicates anything about children acknowledging their fears. Instead, we learn that children can solve a problem of imaginary monsters by turning to a new, imaginary ally. It’s not clear if acknowledgement is part of that at all.
E
Most problems associated with child-rearing can be solved with a little imagination.
This is not supported. The stimulus isn’t talking about most problems associated with child-rearing—it’s talking about a single, specific problem that children may face as their imagination develops. We can’t generalize that to “most” child-rearing problems.

12 comments

LSAT 26 - Section 2 - Question 01

October 24, 2015

17 comments

LSAT 103 - Section 2 - Question 01

October 24, 2015

Insurance that was to become effective at 9 A.M. on a certain date was taken out on the life of a flight attendant. He died on that date at 10 A.M. local time, which was two hours before 9 A.M. in the time zone where the policy had been purchased. The insurance company contended that the policy had not become effective; a representative of the flight attendant’s beneficiary, his mother, countered by arguing that the policy amount should be paid because the attendant had been his mother’s sole support, and she was ill.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The representative concludes that the insurance company should pay out a flight attendant’s life insurance policy, even though there is a question of whether the policy had become effective when he died. In support, the representative says that the flight attendant had been the only support for his beneficiary, his mother, and that she is also ill.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The representative is trying to counter the insurance company’s argument about the timing of the policy by appealing to emotional concerns about the beneficiary. This just doesn’t address the concern raised by the insurance company.

A
the conclusion is no more than a paraphrase of the evidence offered in support of it
The representative’s conclusion is that the insurance company should pay out the policy, which is totally different from the supporting evidence about the beneficiary being vulnerable and ill.
B
it appeals to the emotion of pity rather than addressing the issue raised
The representative’s support is entirely about the beneficiary being vulnerable and ill, which attempts to evoke pity as a reason to pay out the policy. This does not address the issue of timing raised by the insurance company.
C
it makes an unwarranted distinction between family obligations and business obligations
The representative never makes a distinction between family and business obligations.
D
it substitutes an attack on a person for the giving of reasons
The representative never attacks anyone.
E
a cause and its effect are mistaken for each other
The representative doesn’t make any claims about cause and effect.

17 comments

LSAT 25 - Section 4 - Question 22

October 24, 2015

10 comments

«‹306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326›»