LSAT 107 - Section 1 - Question 18

August 16, 2012

Some planning committee members—those representing the construction industry—have significant financial interests in the committee’s decisions. No one who is on the planning committee lives in the suburbs, although many of them work there.

Summary
Some planning committee members have sig. financial interests in the decisions. (The members who represent the construction industry have sig. financial interests in the decisions.)
Anyone on the planning committee does not live in the suburbs.
Some planning committee members work in the suburbs.

Notable Valid Inferences
Some people with significant financial interests do not live in the suburbs.
Some people who represent the construction industry do not live in the suburbs.
(If you know All A is B, and Some A is C, you can conclude Some B is C.)

A
No persons with significant financial interests in the planning committee’s decisions are not in the construction industry.
Could be false. We don’t know that everyone with sig. financial interests is in the construction industry. We only know that the PC members who represent the construction industry have sig. financial interests. Could be many people with sig. fin. int. outside of construction.
B
No person who has a significant financial interest in the planning committee’s decisions lives in the suburbs.
Could be false. This goes too far. We don’t know there are “no” people who have sig. financial interests who live in the suburbs. We know there are SOME who have sig. financial interests who don’t live in the suburbs.
C
Some persons with significant financial interests in the planning committee’s decisions work in the suburbs.
Could be false. Although we know some PC members have significant financial interests, and some PC members work in the suburbs, these members don’t have to overlap. No inference from 2 “some” statements.
D
Some planning committee members who represent the construction industry do not work in the suburbs.
Could be false. We don’t know anything about anyone who does NOT work in the suburbs. We only know that some PC members work in the suburbs.
E
Some persons with significant financial interests in the planning committee’s decisions do not live in the suburbs.
Must be true. All PC members do not live in the suburbs. Some PC members have sig. financial interests. So, some people who don’t live in the suburbs have sig. financial interests. (And you can reverse this — some people with sig. financial interests don’t live in the suburbs.)

50 comments

LSAT 31 - Section 3 - Question 26

August 16, 2012

107 comments

LSAT 114 - Section 2 - Question 26

August 16, 2012

110 comments

LSAT 22 - Section 4 - Question 13

August 14, 2012

69 comments

LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 13

August 14, 2012

Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted. My support of this bill is motivated by a concern for public safety. Using a car phone seriously distracts the driver, which in turn poses a threat to safe driving. People would be deterred from using their car phones while driving if it were illegal to do so.

Summary
The author concludes that the bill should be adopted. This is because the bill would deter people from doing something that poses a threat to safe driving.

Missing Connection
We don’t have any premise that tells us when a bill should be adopted. So we want to get from what we learn in the existing premise — that the bill deters people from doing something that poses a threat to safe driving — to the idea that a bill should be adopted.

A
The more attention one pays to driving, the safer a driver one is.
(A) doesn’t establish when a bill should be adopted. So it can’t establish the conclusion.
B
The only way to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones is through legislation.
(B) establishes that SOME KIND of legislation is required in order to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones. But it doesn’t establish that THE SPECIFIC BILL referenced in the conclusion SHOULD be adopted. Just because legislation is required doesn’t mean THIS bill is required. And even if this bill were required, we still wouldn’t know that it SHOULD be adopted, because we don’t know that reducing threats to public safety are things that we should do.
C
Some distractions interfere with one’s ability to safely operate an automobile.
(C) doesn’t establish when a bill should be adopted. So it can’t establish the conclusion. (Don’t pick this answer just because you think it’s supported by the stimulus. This is not a Must Be True or Most Strongly Supported question.)
D
Any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted.
(D) establishes that if a proposed law (bill) would reduce a threat to public safety, then it should be adopted. We know from the premises that the bill referenced in the conclusion reduces a threat to public safety because it deters people from doing something that poses a threat (using car phones while driving). Based on (D) this bill should be adopted.
E
Car phone use by passengers does not distract the driver of the car.
(E) doesn’t establish when a bill should be adopted. So it can’t establish the conclusion.

73 comments

LSAT 28 - Section 1 - Question 15

August 14, 2012

51 comments

LSAT 106 - Section 1 - Question 15

August 14, 2012

The town of Springhill frequently must declare a water emergency, making it temporarily unlawful to use water for such nonessential purposes as car washing. These emergencies could be avoided if Springhill would introduce permanent economic incentives for water conservation. Actually, Springhill discourages conservation because each household pays a modest monthly flat fee for any amount of water below a certain usage threshold, and a substantial per-liter rate only after the threshold is reached.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Springhill discourages water conservation. This is because households in Springhill pay a low monthly flat rate for their water.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the threshold is high enough that most households don’t end up paying the substantial per-liter rate once the threshold is exceeded.

A
The Springhill authorities do a poor job of enforcing its water emergency laws and many people break the laws without incurring a penalty.
We’re looking to strengthen the premise about the water usage threshold. We don’t care about enforcing water emergency laws.
B
The town council of Springhill recently refused to raise the threshold.
We have no idea how high the threshold was to begin with. Refusing to raise the threshold in fact suggests that the town council is concerned with conserving water.
C
The threshold is kept at a high enough level to exceed the water requirements of most households in Springhill.
Most households never hit the threshold, which means they never pay the per-liter fee. Thus, Springhill isn’t encouraging people to cut back on their water usage.
D
The threshold is not as high in Springhill as it is in neighboring towns.
This doesn’t give us enough information. The threshold may still be high enough that most people never pay the per-liter fee.
E
The threshold remains at the predetermined level specified by law until a change is approved by the Springhill town council.
This simply tells us how the threshold is set. We need to know if it’s set high enough that most households never pay the per-liter rate.

52 comments

LSAT 30 - Section 2 - Question 23

August 9, 2012

92 comments

LSAT 111 - Section 3 - Question 23

August 9, 2012

Tony: A new kind of videocassette has just been developed. It lasts for only half as many viewings as the old kind does but costs a third as much. Therefore, video rental stores would find it significantly more economical to purchase and stock movies recorded on the new kind of videocassette than on the old kind.

Anna: But the videocassette itself only accounts for 5 percent of the price a video rental store pays to buy a copy of a movie on video; most of the price consists of royalties the store pays to the studio that produced the movie. So the price that video rental stores pay per copy would decrease by considerably less than 5 percent, and royalties would have to be paid on additional copies.

Summary

In light of Tony’s conclusion that the new kind of videocassette tape would be significantly more economical to video rental stores, Anna claims that the videocassette tape itself only accounts for 5 percent of the total price paid by video rental stores for a copy of a movie. Most of the price video rental stores pay for each videocassette tape consists of royalties, therefore the price video rental stores will pay per tape would decrease considerably less than 5 percent.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

The new kind of videocassette tape would not be significantly more economical for video rental stores.

A
The royalties paid to movie studios for movies sold on videotape are excessively large.

We don’t know whether Anna believes the royalties paid to movie studios are excessively large. We only know that royalties account for the majority of the price per videotape copy.

B
Video rental stores should always stock the highest-quality videocassettes available, because durability is more important than price.

We don’t know what Anna believes video rental stores should do.

C
The largest part of the fee a customer pays to rent a movie from a video rental store goes toward the royalties the store paid in purchasing that movie.

We don’t know what a customer’s fees for renting a movie pay for. Anna states that most of the price video rental stores pay for a videotape go toward royalties, but we don’t know what portion of customers’ rental fees cover those royalties.

D
The cost savings to video rental stores that buy movies recorded on the cheaper videocassettes rather than movies recorded on the more durable ones will be small or nonexistent.

Anna believes that switching to the new kind of videocassette tape will not be significantly more economical for video rental stores, since the cost of the tape itself is only a small fraction of the price rental stores pay per copy.

E
If the price a video rental store pays to buy a movie on videocassette does not decrease, the rental fee the store charges on the movie will not decrease.

We don’t know what factors would cause video rental fees to increase, decrease, or stay the same.


95 comments

LSAT 35 - Section 4 - Question 14

August 9, 2012

36 comments

«‹670671672673674675676677678679680681682683684685686687688689690›»