Section Types Logical Reasoning

LSAT 131 - Section 3 - Question 07

May 13, 2012

Although most people know what their bad habits are and want to rid themselves of them, a majority of these people find it very difficult to do so. This is because cessation of habitual behavior is immediately and vividly painful, while whatever benefit is to be gained by the absence of the habit is perceived only dimly because it is remote.

Summary

Most people know what their bad habits are and want to get rid of them. However, most people find it difficult to get rid of bad habits. This is because stopping bad behavior is immediately painful and the benefits to be gained are dimly perceived.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

People who are most successful at getting rid of their bad habits are people who can more clearly see the benefits.

A

can vividly imagine remote but attainable benefit

This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that most people find it difficult to get rid of bad habits because they have difficulty perceiving the benefits. In the absence of this difficultly, people are likely to find it easier to get rid of bad habits.

B

can vividly imagine their present pain being felt in the future

This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is not about the ability to imagine present pain in the future.

C

have succeeded in the past at modifying their behavior

This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is not about people who have succeeded in the past.

D

are relatively unaware of their own behavioral characteristics

This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is limited to people who are aware of their bad habits.

E

can vividly remember the pain caused them in the past by their bad habits

This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is not about people who remember their experiences.

5 comments

LSAT 131 - Section 3 - Question 08

May 13, 2012

The more modern archaeologists learn about Mayan civilization, the better they understand its intellectual achievements. Not only were numerous scientific observations and predictions made by Mayan astronomers, but the people in general seem to have had a strong grasp of sophisticated mathematical concepts. We know this from the fact that the writings of the Mayan religious scribes exhibit a high degree of mathematical competence.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that the Mayan people in general had a strong understanding of math. He supports this by pointing out that the writings of their religious scribes showed a strong understanding of math.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization, where the author draws a broad conclusion from too little evidence or an unrepresentative sample. Here, the author makes the generalization that all Mayans understood math based only on a sample of Mayan religious scribes. But the religious scribes may not be representative of the people in general.

A

fails to provide an adequate definition of the term “intellectual achievement”

The author doesn't define “intellectual achievement,” but he doesn’t need to. So (A) does not describe why his argument is vulnerable to criticism.

B

bases a generalization on a sample that is likely to be unrepresentative

The author bases a generalization— that Mayan people in general had a strong understanding of math— based on a sample of Mayan religious scribes that is likely to be unrepresentative.

C

overlooks the impressive achievements of other past civilizations

The author’s argument is only about the Mayan civilization. The achievements of other civilizations are irrelevant.

D

relies on two different senses of the term “scientific”

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the argument uses the same term in different ways. The author doesn’t make this mistake; he uses the term “scientific” clearly. Also, his conclusion is about the Mayans’ mathematical knowledge, not their scientific knowledge.

E

takes a mere correlation to be evidence of a causal relationship

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that correlation proves causation. The author doesn’t make this mistake; his argument doesn’t use causal reasoning at all.

11 comments

LSAT 59 - Section 2 - Question 14

May 13, 2012

10 comments

LSAT 59 - Section 2 - Question 15

May 13, 2012

3 comments

LSAT 59 - Section 2 - Question 16

May 13, 2012

8 comments

LSAT 59 - Section 2 - Question 17

May 13, 2012

2 comments

LSAT 59 - Section 2 - Question 18

May 13, 2012

55 comments

LSAT 59 - Section 2 - Question 19

May 13, 2012

We have an MBT question which we can glean from the question stem which reads: If the statements above are true, which one of the following statements must also be true?

We’re told there are 3 sets of people at this gathering: bankers, athletes, and lawyers. Sounds like a pretty nice gathering! Then we get a pair of very straightforward conditional statements that we can map out: Bankers→Athletes and Lawyers→/Bankers. So what do we know about our three categories of attendees? If you’re a banker then you are definitely an athlete and you are definitely not a lawyer. If you are a lawyer you are definitely not a banker. And if you’re an athlete—well, we don’t know much. We know that all bankers are athletes, and therefore some athletes are bankers. We can’t say anything more than that.

This question is a test of your ability to understand conditional logic. There’s not much more to break down about this stimulus. I suppose we could spend more time asking questions about this gathering—where is it being held? Who are these hybrid banker/athletes? What are these titans of industry and sport gathering to discuss? But that’s not really what you’re here to learn about, so let’s move onto the answer choices:

Answer Choice (A) We know all the bankers are athletes, but if you know your conditional rules, you know that we can’t simply flip this around without negating both sides. This is a very simple case of sufficiency/necessity confusion. Case closed! Moving on.

Answer Choice (B) We know that none of the lawyers are bankers. Other than that, we have no information to go off of. This is wholly unsupported.

Correct Answer Choice (C) Here we go! If you think back to our analysis of the stimulus we concluded that some athletes are bankers. What do we know about bankers? They are definitely not lawyers. Therefore some athletes are not lawyers. Simple as that!

Answer Choice (D) This is just the opposite of what we know to be true. No bankers are, in fact, lawyers.

Answer Choice (E) We don’t know anything about the relationship between lawyers and athletes so we cannot conclude anything about whether there are or are not any lawyers who are athletes.

31 comments

LSAT 131 - Section 2 - Question 14

May 13, 2012

10 comments

LSAT 131 - Section 2 - Question 15

May 13, 2012

Bowers: A few theorists hold the extreme view that society could flourish in a condition of anarchy, the absence of government. Some of these theorists have even produced interesting arguments to support that position. One writer, for example, contends that anarchy is laissez-faire capitalism taken to its logical extreme. But these theorists’ views ignore the fundamental principle of social philosophy—that an acceptable social philosophy must promote peace and order. Any social philosophy that countenances chaos, i.e., anarchy, accordingly deserves no further attention.

Summarize Argument

The author’s implicit conclusion is that the theorists’ view that society can flourish in a condition of anarchy (in the sense of absence of government) isn’t acceptable. This is based on the premise that any acceptable social philosophy must promote peace and order. The author believes the theorists’ view is something that promotes anarchy (in the sense of chaos), which is why he believes the view isn’t acceptable.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author inappropriately interprets the term “anarchy” in a different way from how the theorists used it. The theorists defined anarchy as the absence of government. But the author mistakenly thinks the theorists’ view condoned anarchy in the sense of chaos (absence of order). This misrepresents the theorists’ view and renders the author’s criticism unpersuasive.

A

the meaning of a key term shifts illicitly during the course of the argument

The meaning of “anarchy” inappropriately shifts. The theorists used “anarchy” to mean absence of government. But in arguing against the theorists’ view, the author uses “anarchy” in the sense of chaos.

B

the argument fails to show that laissez-faire capitalism deserves to be rejected as a social philosophy

The author isn’t attempting to reject laissez-faire capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism is simply mentioned as part of an illustration of the kind of arguments some theorists make in support of the idea that society can flourish without government.

C

the truth or falsity of a view is not determined by the number of people who accept it as true

The author does not reject the theorists’ view on the basis of the number of people who believe it.

D

the argument presumes, without providing justification, that any peaceful society will flourish

The author argues against the idea that society can flourish in a condition of anarchy. But the author doesn’t take any position on what is sufficient to make a society flourish.

E

it is unreasonable to reject a view merely because it can be described as extreme

Although the author does mention that the view is extreme, he does not reject the view on the basis of its being extreme. The basis is the mistaken belief that the view countenances anarchy (in the sense of chaos).

75 comments