LSAT 34 - Section 3 - Question 12

July 27, 2015

12 comments

LSAT 110 - Section 3 - Question 12

July 27, 2015

Politician: My opponents argue that the future of our city depends on compromise—that unless the city’s leaders put aside their differences and work together toward common goals, the city will suffer. However, the founders of this city based the city’s charter on definite principles, and anyone who compromises those principles betrays the city founders’ goals. What my opponents are advocating, therefore, is nothing less than betraying the goals of the city’s founders.

Critic: I’m afraid your argument is flawed. Unless you’re assuming that the differences among the city’s leaders are differences of principle, your argument depends on a misleading use of the term _______.

Summary

The opponents of the politician call for compromise. They say that the city will suffer unless the city’s leaders put aside their own differences and work toward common goals. The politician claims that the opponents advocating for the betrayal of the city founders’ goals, since anyone who compromises the principles on which the city’s charter was founded would betray the city founders’ goals.

The critic calls the politician’s argument flawed because of the misleading use of a particular term.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

The blank should be filled with the term that the politicians is using in a misleading way. The word is “compromise.” The opponents advocate for compromise regarding the city leaders’ differences. That’s not the same as compromise regarding the principles underlying the city’s charter.

A
betray

Unsupported. The word “betray” is used in only one way and is not misleading.

B
common

Unsupported. The word “common” is used in only one way and is not misleading.

C
compromise

Strongly supported. The opponents advocated for “compromise” concerning the city leaders’ differences. The politician interpreted “compromise” as a reference to how we should treat the principles underlying the city charter. This changed the meaning of “compromise.”

D
principles

Unsupported. “Principles” was used in only one way and was not misleading.

E
opponents

Unsupported. “Opponents” was used in only one way and was not misleading.


15 comments

LSAT 34 - Section 3 - Question 01

July 27, 2015

5 comments

LSAT 110 - Section 3 - Question 01

July 27, 2015

6 comments

LSAT 34 - Section 2 - Question 14

July 27, 2015

48 comments

LSAT 110 - Section 2 - Question 14

July 27, 2015

Some people claim that every human discovery or invention is an instance of self-expression. But what they seem to ignore is that, trivially, anything we do is self-expressive. So, until they can give us a more interesting interpretation of their claim, we are not obliged to take their claim seriously.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes people who say every discovery or invention is a form of self-expression shouldn’t be taken seriously unless they make their interpretation more interesting. Why not? Because everything a person does is somewhat self-expressive.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes people who say all discovery and invention is self-expression allow everything to count as self-expression. In addition, he assumes a claim about self-expression should only be taken seriously if it means denying that some things are self-expressive.

A
All claims that are trivial are uninteresting.
This doesn’t affect the argument. It implies the claim about self-expression is both trivial and uninteresting, but does nothing to establish that a trivial, uninteresting claim shouldn’t be taken seriously.
B
Most people do not take trivial claims seriously.
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how many people do take the claim seriously—only whether people should take it seriously.
C
No claims that are trivial are worthy of serious consideration.
This makes concrete a key assumption: that a claim about self-expression shouldn’t be taken seriously if it allows everything to be self-expressive and is therefore trivial.
D
Every claim is open to both interesting and uninteresting interpretations.
This doesn’t support the assertion that a more interesting interpretation is required. The author may consider the interpretation provided interesting, but not interesting enough.
E
Every interpretation is either trivial or uninteresting.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests the author asks the impossible by demanding those who claim discovery and invention are instances of self-expression craft an interpretation that is both not trivial and more interesting.

53 comments

LSAT 35 - Section 4 - Question 25

July 15, 2015

41 comments

LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 25

July 15, 2015

Zachary: The term “fresco” refers to paint that has been applied to wet plaster. Once dried, a fresco indelibly preserves the paint that a painter has applied in this way. Unfortunately, additions known to have been made by later painters have obscured the original fresco work done by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel. Therefore, in order to restore Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel paintings to the appearance that Michelangelo intended them to have, everything except the original fresco work must be stripped away.

Stephen: But it was extremely common for painters of Michelangelo’s era to add painted details to their own fresco work after the frescos had dried.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to Zachary’s claim that everything except the original fresco work must be stripped away in order to restore the Sistine Chapel to the appearance Michelangelo intended, Stephen points out that it is common for painters of that era to add painted details to their own fresco work after the frescos dried.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Stephen counters the position held by Zachary. He does this by pointing out an assumption that underlies Zachary’s argument. If it was common for painters of Michelangelo’s era to add details to fresco works after they have dried, then it may be that Michelangelo himself made the additions to the fresco work in the Sistine Chapel. If this is true, then it may not be necessary to strip away everything but the original fresco work as Zachary claims.

A
calling into question an assumption on which Zachary’s conclusion depends
The assumption Zachary’s conclusion depends on is the assumption that the additions made to the fresco work were not done by Michelangelo himself.
B
challenging the definition of a key term in Zachary’s argument
Stephen does not challenge the definition of any key terms. He does not dispute what counts as fresco work, etc.
C
drawing a conclusion other than the one that Zachary reaches
Stephen does not draw any conclusion. He provides additional information meant to counter an assumption that Zachary’s argument relies on.
D
denying the truth of one of the stated premises of Zachary’s argument
Stephen does not deny whether any later painters may have obscured Michelangelo’s original fresco work. Instead, he suggests that it is possible some of this later work was done by Michelangelo himself.
E
demonstrating that Zachary’s conclusion is not consistent with the premises he uses to support it
Zachary’s argument is not self-contradictory. We cannot say that an argument is self-contradictory because the argument relies on an assumption.

50 comments

LSAT 35 - Section 4 - Question 23

July 15, 2015

4 comments

LSAT 35 - Section 4 - Question 24

July 15, 2015

31 comments

«‹360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380›»