LSAT 35 - Section 1 - Question 19

October 17, 2013

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

This is a Most Strongly Supported question.

Lathyrism, a debilitating neurological disorder caused by the consumption of the legume lathyrus sativus, is widespread among the domestic animals of some countries.

We’re told two facts about lathyrism in this sentence: (1) it’s widespread among the domestic animals of some countries, and (2) it’s a debilitating neurological disorder caused by eating a certain kind of plant.

Attempts to use rats to study lathyrism have generally failed.

We’ve tried to study this disorder in rats – but these attempts have mostly failed. Interesting – why have they failed? Are we going to start using some other animal in our studies? And can that animal be my neighbor’s Pomeranian?

Rats that ingested Lathyrus sativus did not produce the symptoms associated with the disorder.

This does provide an explanation of why using rats to study lathyrism hasn’t been useful – the rats that ate the plant that causes lathyrism don’t have the symptoms of lathyrism. Since we don’t see the symptoms in these rats, it’s tough to learn anything about lathyrism from them. For the sake of science, we need our test subjects to suffer the debilitating effects of this neurological disorder!

The stimulus doesn’t seem structured to lead to a particular conclusion. Let’s go to the answers and look for something that’s most strongly supported.

Answer Choice (A) The physiology of rats is radically different from that of domestic animals.

This may be a tempting answer, since it is a potential explanation for why rats don’t seem to experience the symptoms of lathyrism. But the problem is it’s far too speculative. We have no reason to think that this explanation is more likely than any other potential explanation.

Another issue is that even if we could say that some physiological difference in rats is why they don’t experience symptoms of lathyrism, that does not support the claim that rat physiology is radically different from domestic animals. “Radically different” means extremely different. But maybe there’s only a small difference that accounts for the rat’s resistance to the symptoms; we have no reason to think that there must be some extreme difference in physiology. Even a small difference in one’s bodily functions might lead to widely varying resistance to diseases.

Answer Choice (B) The rats did not consume as much Lathyrus sativus as did the domestic animals that contracted lathyrism.

This is similar to (A) in that it’s also offering a potential explanation of why rats did not exhibit symptoms. But we just don’t know how much the rats ate. It’s possible that they ate less than the domestic animals, and that this is why the rats didn’t experience the symptoms. But we don’t know – nothing in the stimulus speaks to the amount of the plants the rats ate.

Correct Answer Choice (C) Not all animal species are equally susceptible to lathyrism.

This is supported, because we know that rats don’t produce the symptoms of lathyrism, whereas at least some other animals do. The stimulus doesn’t explicitly say that other animals experience the symptoms, but the first sentence states that lathyrism is a “debilitating neurological disorder,” which means that it must have some effect on at least some animal in the world. If it didn’t, then it wouldn’t make sense to call the disorder debilitating. Since rats are affected differently from lathyrism compared to at least some other animals, that means lathyrism has varying effects on at least some animals in the world.

Sometimes people have a problem with the word “susceptible” in this answer. But susceptible means “liable to be influenced or harmed by a particular thing.” If rats don’t produce symptoms of lathyrism, but some other animal does, it’s fair to say that rats are less susceptible to lathyrism than the other animal. Rats are not as liable to be influenced or harmed by lathyrism.

Answer Choice (D) Most of the animals that can contract lathyrism are domestic.

“Most” means over half. The stimulus doesn’t support the claim that over half of animals that can get lathyrism are domestic. Although we know that lathyrism is “widespread among the domestic animals of some countries,” that doesn’t speak to what proportion of animals that can get lathyrism are domestic. For example, maybe lathyrism affects many cows, pigs, chickens, and hopefully, my neighbor’s Pomeranian. But it could be that lathyrism also affects lions, tigers, deer, wolves, monkeys, and every single wild animal in the world. The number of wild animals affected could be a lot greater than the number of domestic animals affected.

Answer Choice (E) Laboratory conditions are not conducive to the development of lathyrism.

Like (A) and (B), (E) is also an attempt to explain why the rats were asymptomatic. But we don’t know whether lab conditions are the reason that the rats mentioned in the stimulus didn’t produce symptoms of lathyrism. This explanation is possible but far too speculative since the stimulus doesn’t say anything that makes this explanation for the rats’ resistance to lathyrism any more likely than some other explanation (such as rats having some genetic resistance or other natural defense against lathyrism).


71 comments

LSAT 111 - Section 1 - Question 19

October 17, 2013

Lathyrism, a debilitating neurological disorder caused by the consumption of the legume Lathyrus sativus, is widespread among the domestic animals of some countries. Attempts to use rats to study lathyrism have generally failed. Rats that ingested Lathyrus sativus did not produce the symptoms associated with the disorder.

Summary
The stimulus says that eating Lathyrus sativus (L.S.) can cause domestic animals to develop a severe disorder called lathyrism. However, researchers have failed to use rats to study lathyrism. This is because rats that ate L.S. didn’t develop lathyrism symptoms.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
These conclusions are strongly supported:
Not all animals that eat L.S. will develop lathyrism.
Rats are less vulnerable to lathyrism than at least some other animals.

A
The physiology of rats is radically different from that of domestic animals.
This is not supported. The stimulus doesn’t offer any general facts about the physiology of rats versus domestic animals. We don’t even know why rats don’t develop lathyrism, let alone if it’s due to a “radical” difference in physiology.
B
The rats did not consume as much Lathyrus sativus as did the domestic animals that contracted lathyrism.
This is not supported. Nothing in the facts suggests how much L.S. is needed to cause lathyrism in domestic animals, how much the affected domestic animals actually eat, nor how much was given to the rats.
C
Not all animal species are equally susceptible to lathyrism.
This is strongly supported. The stimulus says that rats don’t develop lathyrism from eating L.S., even though lathyrism is widespread in some domestic animal species. This lets us infer that different species of animals have different susceptibility to lathyrism.
D
Most of the animals that can contract lathyrism are domestic.
This is not supported. The stimulus mentions that lathyrism occurs in some domestic animals, but doesn’t indicate whether or not it can occur in non-domestic animals. Because we don’t know anything about non-domestic animals, we can’t compare.
E
Laboratory conditions are not conducive to the development of lathyrism.
This is not supported. The facts strongly imply that the problem with these lathyrism studies is that rats don’t develop lathyrism; nothing suggests that the laboratory conditions themselves are to blame. We don’t even know for sure if the studies happen in a laboratory!

74 comments

LSAT 34 - Section 3 - Question 08

October 17, 2013

6 comments

LSAT 110 - Section 3 - Question 08

October 17, 2013

Dr. Jones: The new technology dubbed “telemedicine” will provide sustained improvement in at least rural patient care since it allows rural physicians to televise medical examinations to specialists who live at great distances—specialists who will thus be able to provide advice the rural patient would otherwise not receive.

Dr. Carabella: Not so. Telemedicine might help rural patient care initially. However, small hospitals will soon realize that they can minimize expenses by replacing physicians with technicians who can use telemedicine to transmit examinations to large medical centers, resulting in fewer patients being able to receive traditional, direct medical examinations. Eventually, it will be the rare individual who ever gets truly personal attention. Hence, rural as well as urban patient care will suffer.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
In response to Dr. Jones’s claim that telemedicine will improve rural patient care, Dr. Carabella concludes this is not the case. As evidence, she points out that small hospitals will replace physicians with telemedicine technicians, which will cause fewer patients to receive direct examinations. As a result, rural and urban patient care will suffer.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Dr. Carabella counters the position held by Dr. Jones. She does this by describing a cause-and-effect relationship of what would happen if rural patient care were to adopt telemedicine. Introducing telemedicine would cause small hospitals to replace physicians, which would cause fewer patients to receive direct examinations and in turn cause patient care to suffer.

A
listing a set of considerations to show that a prescribed treatment that seems to be benefiting a patient in fact harms that patient
Dr. Carabella does not address the topic of prescribed treatment. She only hypothesizes the effects of introducing telemedicine technology.
B
describing the application of the technology discussed by Dr. Jones as one step that initiates a process that leads to an undesirable end
The undesirable end is Dr. Carabella’s claim that rural and urban patient care will suffer. The process is the cause-and-effect Dr. Carabella describes as a result of implementing telemedicine.
C
citing evidence that Dr. Jones lacks the professional training to judge the case at issue
Dr. Carabella does not address Dr. Jones’s medical training. Dr. Carabella addresses Dr. Jones’s argument directly.
D
invoking medical statistics that cast doubt on the premises used in Dr. Jones’s argument
Dr. Carabella does not mention any medical statistics. Her counter to Dr. Jones is made generally.
E
providing grounds for dismissing Dr. Jones’s interpretation of a key term in medical technology
Dr. Carabella does not argue that Dr. Jones misinterpreted a key term. In fact, it is implied that Dr. Carabella and Dr. Jones agree what telemedicine is.

7 comments

LSAT 34 - Section 2 - Question 03

October 17, 2013

19 comments

LSAT 110 - Section 2 - Question 03

October 17, 2013

Restaurant manager: In response to requests from our patrons for vegetarian main dishes, we recently introduced three: an eggplant and zucchini casserole with tomatoes, brown rice with mushrooms, and potatoes baked with cheese. The first two are frequently ordered, but no one orders the potato dish, although it costs less than the other two. Clearly, then, our patrons prefer not to eat potatoes.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The restaurant manager concludes that his restaurant’s patrons prefer not to eat potatoes because after adding a dish of potatoes baked with cheese to the restaurant’s menu, nobody ordered the dish, even though it’s cheaper than the restaurant’s other vegetarian-friendly main dishes.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The restaurant manager reasons that because nobody has been ordering the dish of potatoes baked with cheese, the restaurant’s patrons must not like to eat potatoes. However, an error of reasoning in the argument is that the manager draws a conclusion that’s too specific without adequate evidence.
While the patrons may not be ordering the potato dish because they dislike potatoes, it could also be for other reasons. They may not be ordering the dish because they dislike the cheese in the dish, the name of the dish, or any other number of reasons.

A
concluding that two things that occur at the same time have a common cause
The restaurant manager doesn’t discuss two things having a common cause. He just makes the case for why people aren’t ordering the potato dish.
B
drawing a conclusion that is inconsistent with one premise of the argument
The restaurant manager’s conclusion is that the restaurant’s patrons don’t like potatoes, and his premises are that nobody is ordering the potato dish even though patrons are ordering other vegetarian dishes that are more expensive. The premises doesn’t undermine the conclusion.
C
ignoring possible differences between what people say they want and what they actually choose
The restaurant manager doesn’t discuss what people say they want. He only discusses how patrons aren’t ordering the potato dish but are ordering the other vegetarian dishes.
D
attempting to prove a claim on the basis of evidence that a number of people hold that claim to be true
The restaurant manager doesn’t say his claim that the restaurant’s patrons don’t like potatoes is proven by the number of people who hold that claim to be true. He says the claim that the restaurant’s patrons don’t like potatoes is proven by nobody ever ordering the potato dish.
E
treating one of several plausible explanations of a phenomenon as the only possible explanation
This is the error the restaurant manager commits. Because people aren’t ordering the potato dish, the restaurant manager jumps to the explanation that the patrons don’t like potatoes. However, people not ordering the potato dish could have several other possible explanations.

22 comments

LSAT 34 - Section 2 - Question 01

October 17, 2013

22 comments

LSAT 110 - Section 2 - Question 01

October 17, 2013

In his new book on his complex scientific research, R frequently imputes bad faith to researchers disagreeing with him. A troubling aspect of R’s book is his stated conviction that other investigators’ funding sources often determine what “findings” those investigators report. Add to this that R has often shown himself to be arrogant, overly ambitious, and sometimes plain nasty, and it becomes clear that R’s book does not merit attention from serious professionals.

Summarize Argument
The author of the book review concludes that R’s book doesn’t deserve attention from serious professionals because R frequently attributes bad faith to his critics, R believes that investigators’ funding sources determine what types of “findings” they report, and R often acts arrogant, overly ambitious, and nasty.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the person making an argument instead of the argument itself. In this instance, the author of the book review says that R’s book doesn’t merit attention from serious professionals because R is an unpleasant person who accuses his critics of bad things. Rather than attempting to point out issues with R’s book, the author just points out issues with R.

A
using an attack on the character of the writer of the book as evidence that this person is not competent on matters of scientific substance
This is the flaw the author commits. Rather than criticizing R’s book, the author criticizes R and cites those criticisms of R as why R isn’t competent on matters of scientific substance.
B
taking it for granted that an investigator is unlikely to report findings that are contrary to the interests of those funding the investigation
The author doesn’t make this assumption. The author accuses R of making this assumption.
C
dismissing a scientific theory by giving a biased account of it
The author doesn’t give an account of R’s theory. The author just argues that R’s book shouldn’t receive attention from serious professionals because R has character flaws.
D
presenting as facts several assertions about the book under review that are based only on strong conviction and would be impossible for others to verify
The author doesn’t make several assertions about the book. The author only makes several assertions about R and why R’s behavior proves that R’s book doesn’t deserve serious consideration.
E
failing to distinguish between the criteria of being true and of being sufficiently interesting to merit attention
The author isn’t concerned with whether R’s book is true or interesting. The author only argues that R’s book doesn’t merit attention from serious professionals because of R’s character flaws.

23 comments

LSAT 33 - Section 3 - Question 22

October 17, 2013

15 comments

LSAT 109 - Section 3 - Question 22

October 17, 2013

17 comments

«‹534535536537538539540541542543544545546547548549550551552553554›»