LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 20

September 10, 2013

Unusually large and intense forest fires swept the tropics in 1997. The tropics were quite susceptible to fire at that time because of the widespread drought caused by an unusually strong El Niño, an occasional global weather phenomenon. Many scientists believe the strength of the El Niño was enhanced by the global warming caused by air pollution.

Summary
Unusually large/intense forest fires occurred in the tropics in 1997.
That year, the tropics were susceptible to fire because of a drought caused by an unusually strong El Nino.
Many scientists think the strength of El Nino that year was enhanced by global warming caused by air pollution.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
The unusually strong El Nino in 1997 caused a drought, which made the tropics susceptible to fire, which contributed to unusually large/intense fires in the tropics.
Note that we cannot infer that the El Nino was unusually strong because of global warming from air pollution. We’re told that many scientists “believe” that this is the case, but this doesn’t establish that this belief is true.

A
Air pollution was largely responsible for the size and intensity of the forest fires that swept the tropics in 1997.
We know many scientists believe that air pollution enhanced the strength of El Nino. But we don’t know that this belief is true. So we cannot infer (A).
B
If the El Niño in 1997 had not been unusually strong, few if any large and intense forest fires would have swept the tropics in that year.
We know that fires were unusually large and intense due to the unusually strong El Nino. This doesn’t imply that if the El Nino weren’t as strong, there would only be “few” large/intense forest fires. Perhaps there would not be as many, or the fires would be less large/intense; this doesn’t imply there would only be “few,” however.
C
Forest fires in the tropics are generally larger and more intense than usual during a strong El Niño.
We only have evidence concerning large/intense fires in a single year — 1997. This doesn’t support a claim about what is “generally” the case concerning forest fires during a strong El Nino.
D
At least some scientists believe that air pollution was responsible for the size and intensity of the forest fires that swept the tropics in 1997.
We know that some scientists believe air pollution contributed to the strength of El Nino in 1997. But we’re not told anything about what scientists believe concerning the fires. So we can’t infer that scientists hold a belief about the fires.
E
If air pollution enhanced the strength of the El Niño in 1997, then it also contributed to the widespread drought in that year.
We know that the strength of El Nino in 1997 caused a drought. So, if air pollution strengthened the El Nino, that implies that air pollution also played a causal role in the drought. Note that (E) doesn’t assert that air pollution in fact strengthened El Nino; it merely asserts what would be true IF air pollution strengthened El Nino.

This question is very hard. It's hard because the information is presented to you in a mess, kind of like how Logic Games present information to you. I cleaned up the information a bit, starting from the first cause going through to the last effect. The LSAT writers, in their never ending quest to torment, presented the information backwards, of course.

Many scientists believe that air pollution causes global warming.

Many scientists believe that global warming enhanced the strength of the El Niño.

In 1997, an unusually strong El Niño caused widespread drought.

In 1997, widespread drought caused the tropics to be susceptible to fire.

In 1997, unusually large and intense forest fires swept the tropics.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Let's consider each answer choice.

(A)  Air pollution was largely responsible for the size and intensity of the forest fires that swept the tropics in 1997. Really? Come on. We don't even know if air pollution was even the slightest bit responsible, not to mention "largely" responsible.  The link between air pollution and El Niño owes to what "many scientists believe." Those scientists could just be wrong.

(B)  If the El Niño in 1997 had not been unusually strong, few if any large and intense forest fires would have swept the tropics in that year. I will not yell at you as loudly if you chose this answer choice. This one is tempting. We know that the strong El Niño was a causal component that contributed to the usually large and intense forest fires. But, that doesn't mean that if it wasn't present, the fires wouldn't have happened anyway. Who's to say what would have happened if the El Niño wasn't unusually strong? Maybe volcanos would have erupted setting the forests ablaze. Maybe a pyromanic on a scale never before known to the world would have run rampant through the forests of the tropics. Counterfactuals are notoriously speculative. So, MAYBE this will pass as a MSS answer choice, but definitely not an MBT answer choice.

(C)  Forest fires in the tropics are generally larger and more intense than usual during a strong El Niño. NOOOOOO! WROOOOONG! One instance in 1997 doesn't prove shit. You know what else happened in 1997? It became really popular for Hanson to make an mmmbop noise with their mouths over and over and over. Imagine if that meant that "song" would be generally popular going forward for all time...

(D)  At least some scientists believe that air pollution was responsible for the size and intensity of the forest fires that swept the tropics in 1997. Also very tempting and therefore forgivable if you chose this one. What do we know about what some scientists believe? Only that global warming, caused by air pollution, enhanced the strength of the El Niño. So they do believe that air pollution was responsible for the El Niño. Do they also believe "in 1997, an unusually strong El Niño caused widespread drought"? We don't know. Okay so there's a break in logic. But even if you argument that it's incredibly reasonable to assume that the particular scientist that we're talking about in this answer choice believes that "in 1997, an unusually strong El Niño caused widespread drought", it only gets us to the following: "that scientist believes that air pollution was responsible for the drought." Drought makes the forests susceptible to fire, but that's very different from being responsible for the fire.

(E)  If air pollution enhanced the strength of the El Niño in 1997, then it also contributed to the widespread drought in that year. This is just perfect. It takes the statement that some scientists believe and turns it into fact. Then it connects up the causal chain. It's even worded correctly saying "contributed" and not "was the single most important factor".


26 comments

LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 21

September 10, 2013

If Skiff’s book is published this year, Professor Nguyen vows she will urge the dean to promote Skiff. Thus, if Skiff’s book is as important and as well written as Skiff claims, he will be promoted, for Nguyen will certainly keep her promise, and the dean will surely promote Skiff if Nguyen recommends it.

Summary
If the book is both as important and as well written as Skiff says, he’ll get a promotion. Why? Because as long as the book is published this year, Nguyen will certainly urge the dean to promote Skiff, in which case the dean will surely do so.
We can simplify the conditional conclusion by kicking up the sufficient condition and taking for granted that yes, the book is as important and as well written as claimed.

Missing Connection
The conclusion is that a promotion is certain given that the book is as important and well-written as claimed, but the premises are all about how a promotion is certain if the book is published this year.

The premises would lead to the conclusion if we knew that as long as the book is as important and/or as well written as claimed, it will be published this year.

A
Skiff’s book will be published this year if it is as important as he claims it is.
The book being as important as claimed becomes a sufficient condition, all on its own, for promotion. So we can now validly conclude that, yes, if the book is as important as claimed (and it also happens to be as well written as claimed), Skiff gets the promotion.
B
Skiff needs to publish a book before he can be promoted.
This says that publishing is necessary for promotion. But we still know nothing about whether the book’s being as important and as well written as claimed will in any way lead to a promotion. So the conclusion doesn’t follow.
C
Professor Nguyen believes that Skiff’s book is well written.
What Nguyen believes is irrelevant. All that matters about Nguyen is whether he urges the dean to promote Skiff. We know Nguyen will do so as long as the book is published this year. Any other facts about Nguyen have no effect on the argument.
D
Skiff’s book will not be published unless it is as important and as well written as he claims it is.
This says that to be published this year—or ever—the book must be as important and as well written as claimed. But there’s still no indication that being that important and well written will be sufficient to get it published. So the conclusion doesn’t follow.
E
Skiff will not be promoted unless Professor Nguyen urges the dean to do so.
This means that Nguyen’s recommendation is necessary (as well as sufficient) for Skiff’s promotion. But we still know nothing about whether the book’s being as important and as well written as claimed will in any way lead to a promotion. So the conclusion doesn’t follow.

This question is difficult because of the obscuring of the premises and conclusion. Here's the premises and conclusion distilled, utilizing the skills we learned in our grammar lessons.

published --> prof. N promise to urge dean to promote S --> prof. N urge dean to promote S --> S promoted
_____________
import & well written --> S promoted

Reducing it, the argument goes:

published --> S promoted
_____________
import & well written --> S promoted

Formulaically, we want to supply the missing premise: import & well written --> published

But, the LSAC did something new this time. They gave us: import --> published

That actually works!

To see why, let's think about an analogous argument.

If you buy milk, then you will use cash. Therefore, if you go to store & gas station, you will use cash.

Formulaically, we want to supply the missing premise: if you go to store & gas station, you will buy milk. But, doesn't that feel a little redundant? What if I just said "if you go to store, you will buy milk."

That also allows us to validly draw the conclusion that "if you go to store & gas station, you will use cash."

In fact, it'll even allow us to validly draw the conclusion that "if you go to store & gas station & mars & russia, you will use cash."

Very clever, those LSAT writers


59 comments

LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 22

September 10, 2013

3 comments

LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 23

September 10, 2013

Botanist: In an experiment, scientists raised domesticated radishes in a field with wild radishes, which are considered weeds. Within several generations, the wild radishes began to show the same flower color as the domesticated ones. This suggests that resistance to pesticides, which is often a genetically engineered trait, would also be passed from domesticated crop plants to their relatives that are considered weeds.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the trait of resistance to pesticides would be passed from domesticated crop plants to their weed relatives. This is based on an experiment in which domesticated radishes were able to pass on the trait of flower color to their weed relatives. In addition, the trait of pesticide resistance is often a genetically engineered trait.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that pesticide resistance would have the same ability to be transferred to relatives as does the trait of flower color. This overlooks the possibility that something about pesticide resistance — for example, the fact that it’s often genetically engineered into the plant — might prevent it from being passable to weeds. The author also assumes that observations concerning radishes are applicants to other crop plants.

A
It is much easier in principle for genetic traits to be passed from wild plants to their domesticated relatives than it is for such traits to be passed from the domesticated plant to the wild relative.
This compares ability to transfer traits from wild to domesticated with ability to transfer from domesticated to wild. But the argument doesn’t concern transferring from wild to domesticated.
B
When the ratio of domesticated radishes to wild radishes in the field increased, the speed with which the flower color passed to the wild radishes also increased.
This suggests we can speed up the rate of transferring flower color by including a greater proportion of domesticated plants. But this doesn’t relate to whether a different trait — pesticide resistance — can be transferred.
C
Radishes are not representative of crop plants in general with respect to the ease with which various traits are passed among members of closely related species.
This undermines the argument by suggesting the radishes used in the experiment might not support a conclusion about trait transfer in other kinds of plants.
D
The flower color of the domesticated radishes had not been introduced into them via genetic engineering.
If anything, this undermines the argument by pointing out a difference between the trait of flower color and the trait of pesticide resistance. This suggests the transferrability of flower color might not apply to pesticide resistance.
E
It is more difficult for flower color to be transferred between domesticated and wild radishes than it is for almost any other trait to be passed between any two similarly related plant species.
If the transfer of flower color observed in the experiment is more difficult than almost any other kind of transfer of trait between any related plant species, that suggests transfer of pesticide resistance is likely to be easier, which supports the claim that it will occur.

23 comments

LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 24

September 10, 2013

Parents who consistently laud their children for every attempt to accomplish something, whether successful or not, actually erode the youngsters’ sense of self-esteem. Children require commendation for their achievements, but if uniformly praised for both what they have accomplished and what they have merely attempted, they will eventually discount all words of commendation. In effect, such children never hear any praise at all.

Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
Parents who always praise their children for every effort, whether successful or not, can actually hurt their children’s self-esteem. If parents praise their kids for both what they achieve and what they just try, the kids will start to ignore all praise. In the end, it’s like they don’t hear any praise at all.

Identify Conclusion
Parents who constantly praise their children for every effort, whether it succeeds or not, actually harm their children’s self-esteem.

A
Parents should praise their children for their achievements.
The stimulus doesn’t make this argument. It talks about the harmful effects of overpraising kids but doesn’t express an opinion on whether parents should praise their kids for achievements. Moreover, if anything, the passage suggests that parents should praise less.
B
Children whose actions are praised undeservedly eventually learn to discount all words of praise.
This is a premise. The stimulus explains that when kids get too much praise, they start to ignore it. This claim supports the main conclusion that overpraising kids can actually hurt their self-esteem. Since this claim supports the argument, it isn’t the main conclusion.
C
Parents need to distinguish between their own expectations for their children and what their children are actually capable of accomplishing.
The stimulus doesn’t make this claim. It doesn’t tell parents what they should or shouldn’t do. It simply states that a certain behavior can lead to an unwanted outcome. If anything, the passage merely suggests that parents should praise their children less.
D
Children’s self-esteem will suffer if their parents uniformly praise their attempts to accomplish things regardless of their success or failure.
This accurately captures the stimulus’s main conclusion. The stimulus argues that parents who consistently laud or “uniformly praise” their children’s attempts to accomplish something will eventually harm (or “erode”) their children’s self-esteem, causing it to “suffer.”
E
Children will develop low self-esteem if their parents do not praise them when they succeed.
The stimulus does not make this claim. It argues that too much praise harms children's self-esteem, not that too little praise causes low self-esteem. Also, the passage says too much praise lowers self-esteem but does not necessarily mean it leads to "low" self-esteem.

13 comments

LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 25

September 10, 2013

Pauline: Some environmentalists claim that for the salmon to be saved, the hydroelectric dams on the river must be breached. But if the dams are breached, given the region’s growing population and booming industry, electrical costs will skyrocket.

Roger: The dams are already producing electricity at optimal capacity. So regardless of whether they are breached, we will have to find additional energy sources for the region.

Speaker 1 Summary
Pauline concludes that if the dams are breached, electrical costs will skyrocket. This is because the region has a growing population and a booming industry. (The phrase “given the region’s growing population and booming industry” is a premise.)

Speaker 2 Summary
Roger concludes that whether or not the dams are breached, we will have to find additional sources of energy for the region. This is because the dams are already producing electricity at the optimal capacity.

Objective
We’re looking for a point of agreement. The speakers agree that there will likely be growing demand for electricity in the region.

A
production from other energy sources cannot be increased in the near future to compensate for electricity production lost by breaching the dams
Roger doesn’t express an opinion. He says we will need to find additional sources. But he doesn’t say anything suggesting an opinion about whether we can or cannot find an alternative energy source in the near future.
B
there will be no significant decrease in demand for electricity in the region in the near future
This is a point of agreement. Pauline believes electrical costs will skyrocket if the dams are breached. Roger believes we’ll have to find additional energy sources. This suggests they don’t think electricity demand will decrease significantly in the near future.
C
if the dams remain in service but do not operate at optimal capacity, electrical costs in the region will rise
Not a point of agreement. Pauline doesn’t comment on what will happen if dams are not at optimal service. If dams are breached, electric costs will rise. But if dams are not breached, but still in service, we don’t know Pauline’s opinion.
D
some environmentalists who advocate saving the salmon believe that that goal overrides concerns about electrical costs
Roger doesn’t express an opinion. He doesn’t comment on environmentalists and their view concerning saving the salmon.
E
finding additional energy sources will not decrease the electrical costs in the region
Pauline doesn’t express an opinion. She doesn’t discuss finding additional energy sources and what that will do to electrical costs. She acknowledges electrical costs will skyrocket if the dam is breached. But that doesn’t indicate an opinion on other energy sources.

6 comments

LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 05

September 10, 2013

2 comments

LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 06

September 10, 2013

10 comments

LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 07

September 10, 2013

8 comments

LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 08

September 10, 2013

15 comments

«‹539540541542543544545546547548549550551552553554555556557558559›»