LSAT 101 - Section 3 - Question 25

October 21, 2012

Economist: In order to decide what to do about protecting the ozone layer, we must determine the monetary amount of the economic resources that we would willingly expend to protect it. Such a determination amounts to a calculation of the monetary value of the ozone layer. Environmentalists argue that the ozone layer does not have a calculable monetary value. However, we would not willingly expend an amount equal to all of the world’s economic resources to protect the ozone layer, so the ozone layer is demonstrably worth less than that amount. Thus, the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The economist concludes that the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value—i.e. the amount of money we would be willing to spend to protect it. This is supported by the claim that we wouldn’t spend all of the world’s economic resources to protect the ozone layer. This leads to the sub-conclusion that there must be an upper limit to how much the ozone layer is worth.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The economist concludes that a certain value is calculable because there is an upper limit to that value. However, even if there is an upper limit to the ozone layer’s value, that still doesn’t establish that the exact monetary value of the ozone layer can be calculated.

A
uses evidence that the monetary value of a particular natural resource is less than a certain amount in order to establish that the monetary value of any natural resource is less than that amount
The economist never discusses natural resources other than the ozone layer, nor makes any claims about other natural resources.
B
presupposes that the ozone layer should not be protected and then argues to that claim as a conclusion
The economist just doesn’t conclude that the ozone layer shouldn’t be protected. The conclusion here is that the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value, not whether or not we should protect it.
C
takes advantage of an ambiguity in the term “value” to deflect the environmentalists’ charge
There is no ambiguity in how the term “value” is used here, by either the economist or the environmentalists. Everyone involved uses “value” to mean “monetary value” and nothing else.
D
gives no reason for thinking that merely establishing an upper limit on a certain monetary value would allow the calculation of that monetary value
The economist establishes that the ozone layer’s monetary value has an upper limit, but doesn’t give us any reason to think that that its exact monetary value can be calculated from there.
E
does not directly address the argument of the environmentalists
The economist does directly address the environmentalists’ argument: the environmentalists claim that the ozone layer does not have a calculable monetary value, and the economist argues directly against that claim.

17 comments

LSAT 25 - Section 4 - Question 07

October 21, 2012

94 comments

LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 07

October 21, 2012

102 comments

LSAT 27 - Section 1 - Question 24

October 21, 2012

127 comments

LSAT 104 - Section 1 - Question 24

October 21, 2012

135 comments

LSAT 29 - Section 4 - Question 12

October 21, 2012

103 comments

LSAT 107 - Section 4 - Question 12

October 21, 2012

Editorialist: Drivers with a large number of demerit points who additionally have been convicted of a serious driving-related offense should either be sentenced to jail or be forced to receive driver re-education, since to do otherwise would be to allow a crime to go unpunished. Only if such drivers are likely to be made more responsible drivers should driver re-education be recommended for them. Unfortunately, it is always almost impossible to make drivers with a large number of demerit points more responsible drivers.

Summary

Drivers who have a large amount of demerit points and were convicted of a serious driving-related offense should either go to jail or receive mandatory driver reeducation. However, driver reeducation should only be available to drivers who are likely to be made more responsible. It is also almost impossible to make drivers with a large number of demerit points more responsible drivers.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Those with a large amount of demerit points who have been convicted of a driving related offense should go to jail.

If someone is not likely to become a more responsible driver, they should go to jail.

A
Drivers with a large number of demerit points who have been convicted of a serious driving-related offense should be sent to jail.

Because it is nearly impossible to make drivers with a large number of demerit points more responsible, driver reeducation should not be recommended. Thus, they should go to jail.

B
Driver re-education offers the best chance of making drivers with a large number of demerit points responsible drivers.

There is no support for a statement this strong. The stimulus says that becoming more responsible is very “unlikely” for these drivers.

C
Driver re-education is not a harsh enough punishment for anyone convicted of a serious driving-related offense who has also accumulated a large number of demerit points.

Nothing in the stimulus mentions anything about “harshness.” For all we know, the reeducation training could be “harsher”

D
Driver re-education should not be recommended for those who have committed no serious driving-related offenses.

The stimulus says nothing about drivers who have not committed serious driving-related offenses. It could be that reeducation is their best option.

E
Drivers with a large number of demerit points but no conviction for a serious driving-related offense should receive driver re-education rather than jail.

The stimulus does not give conditions for those without a serious driving-related offense. You need to make assumptions for this to work.


106 comments

LSAT 30 - Section 2 - Question 16

October 21, 2012

71 comments

LSAT 111 - Section 3 - Question 16

October 21, 2012

Zoos have served both as educational resources and as entertainment. Unfortunately, removing animals from their natural habitats to stock the earliest zoos reduced certain species’ populations, endangering their survival. Today most new zoo animals are obtained from captive breeding programs, and many zoos now maintain breeding stocks for continued propagation of various species. This makes possible efforts to reestablish endangered species in the wild.

Summary
Zoos are both educational and entertaining. However, removing animals from their natural habitats to populate the earliest zoos caused some species’ populations to reduce and endangered their survival. Today, most new zoo animals are bred from captive breeding programs. These programs make possible efforts to restore populations of endangered species in the wild.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
At least some animals bred through captive breeding programs are of an endangered species.

A
Zoos have played an essential role in educating the public about endangered species.
We don’t know whether zoos have played an essential role or not. We only know that zoos have served as an educational resource. Additionally, we don’t know whether these educational resources were specific to endangered species.
B
Some specimens of endangered species are born and bred in zoos.
If captive breeding programs make reestablishing endangered species in the wild possible, it must be that zoos are breeding at least some species of endangered animals.
C
No zoos exploit wild animals or endanger the survival of species.
We don’t know whether there isn’t any zoo that exploits wild animals. We know that most new zoo animals are obtained through breeding programs, but not all of them.
D
Nearly all of the animals in zoos today were born in captivity.
We don’t know whether nearly all zoo animals were born in captivity. We know that most new zoo animals are obtained through breeding programs, but “most” could mean as little as 51 percent of animals.
E
The main purpose of zoos has shifted from entertainment to education.
We don’t know what would be the main purpose of zoos. We only know that they have served as educational resources and as entertainment.

71 comments

LSAT 31 - Section 3 - Question 03

October 21, 2012

69 comments

«‹641642643644645646647648649650651652653654655656657658659660661›»