LSAT 40 - Section 1 - Question 03

February 21, 2014

17 comments

LSAT 40 - Section 1 - Question 04

February 21, 2014

10 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 01

February 21, 2014

Considering that Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens, I have always found it amazing that very few people know that Samuel Clemens was a writer, since almost everybody knows that Mark Twain was one.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Why do so few people know that Samuel Clemens is a writer when almost everybody knows that Mark Twain, which is Samuel Clemens’ pen name, is a writer?

Objective

The correct answer must provide a difference between people’s awareness of Mark Twain as a writer on the one hand, and their awareness of Samuel Clemens as a writer on the other.

A
Most people probably have not read anything by Samuel Clemens.

“Mark Twain” is Samuel Clemens’ pen name. If most people haven’t read anything by Samuel Clemens, it means most people haven’t read anything by Mark Twain. Therefore, this answer doesn’t explain why more people know that Mark Twain is a writer.

B
Everyone who knows that Samuel Clemens was a writer also knows that Mark Twain was one.

This provides a similarity between people’s awareness of Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens, but we need a difference. (B) tells us that of all the people who know Samuel Clemens was a writer, those same people also know Mark Twain was a writer. This doesn’t explain why so many more people know about Twain than Clemens.

C
Most people do not know that Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens.

This points out a difference in people’s knowledge about Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens. If most people don’t know that Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens, it provides a possible explanation for why far more people know that Mark Twain was a writer than Samuel Clemens.

D
Many people believe apparently conflicting things about authors.

Even if people believe conflicting things about Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens, it doesn’t address why far more people are aware that Mark Twain is a writer.

E
Some people know that “Mark Twain” is a pseudonym for Samuel Clemens.

This explains why some people could be equally aware of both Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens, but we need an answer choice that does the opposite. We need a difference between people’s awareness of Twain and Clemens.


10 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 02

February 21, 2014

Advertisement: The pride the people at Austin Stables take in their work accounts for their success in producing more winning racehorses than any other stable. Such a tradition of pride is not only found in the business of horse racing. For generations we at Barr Motor Company have demonstrated similar pride. You can rely on Barr Motor Company to produce more winning automobiles than our competitors.

Summarize Argument
The advertisement concludes that Barr Motor Company produces more winning automobiles than its competitors do. This is supported by a claimed analogy: that Barr Motor Company demonstrates similar pride to that displayed by Austin Stables. And apparently, Austin Stables’ pride is responsible for Austin Stables producing more winning racehorses than their own competitors.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The advertisement draws an analogy between two cases which possess the same quality of pride. Because this quality is responsible for a certain outcome in one case, the outcome is said to be similar in the other case. In other words, because Barr Motor Company displays similar pride to Austin Stables, Barr Motor Company—by analogy to Austin Stables—will also have similar success over its competition.

A
demonstrating that Barr Motor Company has more repeat customers than its competitors
The advertisement does not mention repeat customers, only claiming that Barr Motor Company will produce better products than their competitors.
B
using an analogy to reach the conclusion that Barr Motor Company is superior to its competitors
The advertisement uses an analogy between Austin Stables and Barr Motor Company to conclude that Barr Motor Company is superior to its competitors in a way analogous to Austin Stables’ superiority over its competitors.
C
proving that Barr Motor Company has a long-standing tradition of pride
The advertisement doesn’t function to prove Barr Motor Company’s long-standing tradition of pride. Rather, Barr’s pride is a premise that supports drawing an analogy between Barr Motor Company and Austin Stables.
D
understating the role that pride plays in accounting for the success of Austin Stables
The advertisement doesn’t understate the role of pride in accounting for the success of Austin Stables, instead claiming that pride truly does account for that success.
E
asserting that Barr Motor Company has an older tradition of pride than does Austin Stables
The advertisement doesn’t make any claims about how old the tradition of pride at Austin Stables is.

3 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 03

February 21, 2014

Having lived through extraordinary childhood circumstances, Robin has no conception of the moral difference between right and wrong, only between what is legally permitted and what is not. When Robin committed an offense, Robin did not recognize the fact that it was a morally wrong act, despite knowing that it was illegal.

Summary
Robin lived through extraordinary childhood circumstances.
Robin committed an offense.
Robin doesn’t know the moral difference between right and wrong.
Robin did not recognize that her offense was morally wrong.
Robin does know the difference between what is legally permitted and what is not.
Robin did recognize that her offense was illegal.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
Robin’s offense was illegal.
Robin’s offense was morally wrong.

A
Robin committed no offense that was not legally permissible.
Anti-supported. Robin committed an offense that was illegal, meaning it was not legally permissible.
B
Robin did something that was morally wrong.
Very strongly supported. In telling us that Robin didn’t recognize that the offense she committed was morally wrong, the author implies that the act was, in fact, wrong, although Robin did not realize it.
C
Moral ignorance is never excusable in the eyes of the law.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t indicate whether Robin’s moral ignorance constitutes a legal excuse for her behavior.
D
Robin’s childhood could have provided more adequate moral training even in the circumstances.
Unsupported. The stimulus gives no information about what was or was not theoretically possible under the circumstances of Robin’s childhood.
E
Robin could now be brought to see the moral difference between right and wrong.
Unsupported. The stimulus gives no information about Robin’s capacity to learn the moral difference between right and wrong.

17 comments

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 04

February 21, 2014

Anne: Halley’s Comet, now in a part of its orbit relatively far from the Sun, recently flared brightly enough to be seen by telescope. No comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the Sun before, so such a flare must be highly unusual.

Sue: Nonsense. Usually no one bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun. This flare was observed only because an observatory was tracking Halley’s Comet very carefully.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Sue concludes that Anne’s position—that it must be unusual for a comet to flare visibly while far from the Sun—is “nonsense.” This is supported by Sue’s claim that such a flare was observed only once merely because comets far from the Sun are not usually observed. The exceptional event was thus closely tracking the specific comet which flared, not necessarily the flare itself.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Sue introduces a new consideration to undermine Anne’s claim that an event only rarely being seen means that the event itself must be rare. Instead, Sue suggests that the event is rarely seen simply because of a lack of observation.

A
pointing out that Anne’s use of the term “observed” is excessively vague
Sue doesn’t claim that Anne’s language choices are unsatisfactory at all; their arguments agree in their usage of the term “observed.”
B
drawing attention to an inconsistency between two of Anne’s claims
Sue doesn’t claim that Anne is making inconsistent claims, only that her claims do not support her conclusion given the new consideration that Sue introduces.
C
presenting evidence that directly contradicts Anne’s evidence
Sue does not contradict Anne’s evidence. Rather, she agrees with Anne that Halley’s comet was observed to flare, and just doesn’t comment on Anne’s claim that no other comet had ever been observed to flare so far from the sun.
D
offering an alternative explanation for the evidence Anne cites
Sue explains the evidence Anne cites about comet flares far from the Sun rarely being observed, by explaining that comets far from the Sun are rarely observed at all. This is an alternative explanation to Anne’s conclusion that these flares must be highly unusual.
E
undermining some of Anne’s evidence while agreeing with her conclusion
Sue doesn’t undermine any of Anne’s evidence. Sue appears to just take Anne’s evidence at face value, and simply finds an alternate explanation for it.

10 comments

LSAT 39 - Section 4 - Question 24

February 19, 2014

11 comments

LSAT 39 - Section 4 - Question 25

February 19, 2014

7 comments

LSAT 39 - Section 4 - Question 26

February 19, 2014

4 comments

LSAT 115 - Section 4 - Question 24

February 19, 2014

11 comments

«‹492493494495496497498499500501502503504505506507508509510511512›»