LSAT 123 - Section 3 - Question 09

March 19, 2013

9 comments

LSAT June 2007 - Section 3 - Question 08

March 19, 2013

3 comments

LSAT 123 - Section 3 - Question 08

March 19, 2013

Advertisement: Fabric-Soft leaves clothes soft and fluffy, and its fresh scent is a delight. We conducted a test using over 100 consumers to prove Fabric-Soft is best. Each consumer was given one towel washed with Fabric-Soft and one towel washed without it. Ninety-nine percent of the consumers preferred the Fabric-Soft towel. So Fabric-Soft is the most effective fabric softener available.

A
any of the consumers tested are allergic to fabric softeners

Irrelevant— the ad concludes that Fabric-Soft is the most effective softener. Whether some consumers are allergic to it doesn’t impact its effectiveness. Also, even if some of the tested consumers were allergic, 99% still preferred the Fabric-Soft towel to the other towel.

B
Fabric-Soft is more or less harmful to the environment than other fabric softeners

Irrelevant— the advertisement concludes that Fabric-Soft is the most effective softener. It doesn’t matter if it’s more or less environmentally harmful.

C
Fabric-Soft is much cheaper or more expensive than other fabric softeners

Irrelevant— the advertisement concludes that Fabric-Soft is the most effective softener. It doesn’t matter if it’s more or less expensive than other softeners.

D
the consumers tested find the benefits of using fabric softeners worth the expense

Irrelevant— the ad concludes that Fabric-Soft is the most effective softener. Whether some of the tested consumers think it isn’t worth its price doesn’t impact its effectiveness. Also, even if some of them did think this, 99% still preferred the Fabric-Soft towel.

E
the consumers tested had the opportunity to evaluate fabric softeners other than Fabric-Soft

The tested consumers compared a Fabric-Soft towel to one washed without it. It’s unclear whether they evaluated any other softener. If they didn’t evaluate every other softener, the ad can’t claim that Fabric-Soft is more effective than any other softeners.


5 comments

LSAT June 2007 - Section 3 - Question 07

March 19, 2013

6 comments

LSAT 123 - Section 3 - Question 07

March 19, 2013

Antonio: One can live a life of moderation by never deviating from the middle course. But then one loses the joy of spontaneity and misses the opportunities that come to those who are occasionally willing to take great chances, or to go too far.

Marla: But one who, in the interests of moderation, never risks going too far is actually failing to live a life of moderation: one must be moderate even in one’s moderation.

Speaker 1 Summary
Antonio argues that living a life of moderation means missing out on spontaneity and the opportunities that come from taking chances. To support this, Antonio defines a life of moderation as one which always stays on the middle course.

Speaker 2 Summary
Marla disagrees with Antonio’s definition, and instead argues that a life of moderation must actually include sometimes going too far (and thus straying from the middle course). How so? Because someone living moderately must even be moderate in their moderation. In other words, to be truly moderate, one must sometimes be immoderate.

Objective
We’re looking for something Antonio and Marla disagree about. Their disagreement is about what constitutes a life of moderation, specifically whether it ever includes immoderate actions.

A
whether it is desirable for people occasionally to take great chances in life
As with (D) and (E), neither Antonio nor Marla talks about what is desirable for people to do in life. Their discussion is just about what counts as a life of moderation, but neither one claims that moderation or any other lifestyle is actually desirable.
B
what a life of moderation requires of a person
Antonio thinks that a life of moderation means always staying on the middle course, and Marla thinks that it requires sometimes taking chances or going too far. This, then, is what the speakers disagree about: the definition of a “life of moderation.”
C
whether it is possible for a person to embrace other virtues along with moderation
Neither speaker brings up other virtues or talks about how they interact with moderation. Both Antonio and Marla discuss how moderation is affected by sometimes going too far, but no one suggests that going too far is a virtue.
D
how often a person ought to deviate from the middle course in life
Like with (A) and (E), neither speaker talks about what people ought to do. Antonio and Marla are just discussing what it means to live a life of moderation, but they don’t bring up if that’s what people should do or not.
E
whether it is desirable for people to be moderately spontaneous
Similarly to (A) and (D), Antonio and Marla never mention whether spontaneity (or anything else) is desirable. Their conversation is about what moderation means, not about whether people should be moderate, spontaneous, or anything else.

6 comments

LSAT June 2007 - Section 3 - Question 06

March 19, 2013

5 comments

LSAT 123 - Section 3 - Question 06

March 19, 2013

Jablonski, who owns a car dealership, has donated cars to driver education programs at area schools for over five years. She found the statistics on car accidents to be disturbing, and she wanted to do something to encourage better driving in young drivers. Some members of the community have shown their support for this action by purchasing cars from Jablonski’s dealership.

Summary
Jablonski was disturbed by car accident statistics and wanted to encourage better driving for young drivers. She owns a car dealership and has donated cars to driver education programs for several years. As a result, some members of the community have purchased cars from Jablonski’s dealership in order to show support for her.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Some actions that are intended to benefit others can have positive impacts on the person performing that action.

A
The only way to reduce traffic accidents is through driver education programs.
This answer is unsupported. Saying that driver education programs are the “only” way to reduce traffic accidents is too strong. We don’t even know from the stimulus if Jablonski’s actions actually reduced traffic accidents.
B
Altruistic actions sometimes have positive consequences for those who perform them.
This action is strongly supported. Jablonski donated cars from her dealership for a public benefit and ended up benefitting from members of the community buying cars from her.
C
Young drivers are the group most likely to benefit from driver education programs.
This answer is unsupported. Saying that young drivers are “most likely to benefit” from these programs is too strong.
D
It is usually in one’s best interest to perform actions that benefit others.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know whether these actions are “usually” in one’s best interest. The stimulus only covers one example of Jablonski donating cars.
E
An action must have broad community support if it is to be successful.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus if broad community support is required for an action to be successful. We also don’t know whether Jablonski was successful through her actions to reduce traffic accidents.

7 comments

LSAT June 2007 - Section 3 - Question 01

March 16, 2013

5 comments

LSAT 123 - Section 3 - Question 01

March 16, 2013

5 comments

LSAT June 2007 - Section 3 - Question 02

March 16, 2013

4 comments

«‹573574575576577578579580581582583584585586587588589590591592593›»