Conclusion: That’s wrong.
Premise: Wolves, foxes, and domesticated dogs are capable of obeying moral rules.
A
provide counterexamples to refute a premise on which a particular conclusion is based
B
establish inductively that all animals possess some form of morality
C
cast doubt on the principle that being capable of obeying moral rules is a necessary condition for having rights
D
establish a claim by showing that the denial of that claim entails a logical contradiction
If animals didn’t have rights, a logical contradiction would result. We can’t accept logical contradictions. Therefore, animals have rights.
That’s not the author’s argument.
E
provide evidence suggesting that the concept of morality is often applied too broadly
The Question Stem reads: The philosopher's argument proceeds by attempting too… This is a Method of Reasoning question.
The philosopher begins by describing the phenomenon that wolves don't like when a wolf attacks another wolf showing its neck as a form of submission. The philosopher also claims that foxes and domesticated dogs exhibit the same behavior.
The philosopher says, "It would be erroneous to deny that animals have rights based on the grounds that only human beings are capable of obeying moral rules." That was a mouthful, so let's break it down. The philosopher concludes that a specific argument is bad. What is that argument? The argument is that animals do not have rights because only humans obey moral rules. We will call this argument "X." We can rephrase X to say:
Premise 1: Animals do not obey moral rules (because only humans do).
Conclusion: Animals do not have rights.
By now, you should be comfortable enough with Necessary Assumption to realize that X relies on assuming that obeying moral rules is necessary for having rights. However, we do not need to dive that deep. Argument X's premise that animals do not obey moral rules seems to contradict the philosopher's wolf example. The philosopher has used examples that deny the first premise of Argument X, which is why the philosopher rejects Argument X on the basis that it is not a sound argument (sound arguments are logically valid and have true premises). Importantly, we do not know whether or not the philosopher believes that animals have rights. All we know is the philosopher argues that Argument X is bad because the philosopher rejects a premise of Argument X.
Correct Answer Choice (A) is exactly what we discussed. The philosopher's wolf example directly contradicts the first premise of Argument X.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect. The philosopher's position is that Arugment X is not sound. The philosopher does not attempt to show that all animals have morality. (B) would be correct if that philosopher tried to argue that all animals have morality by giving the example that wolves and dogs exhibit moral attitudes.
Answer Choice (C) talks about the wrong premise. The philosopher casts doubt that only humans obey moral rules, not that moral rules are necessary for rights.
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect because the philosopher might believe that Argument X is logically valid. Philsopher rejects the argument because they believe that one of the premises is false. This means that the argument is not sound.
Answer Choice (E) is antithetical to the philosopher's argument. If anything, the philosopher would argue that morality is not applied broadly enough. The argument the philosopher criticizes says that animals do not obey morality, which the philsopher rejects by giving the example of wolves.
A
Automated flight technology does not always function correctly.
B
Smaller aircraft do not always have their automated flight technology updated regularly.
C
If a plane’s automated flight technology malfunctions, crew members have to operate the plane manually.
D
Some airplane crashes are due neither to human error nor to malfunction of automated flight technology.
E
Automated flight technology invariably executes exactly the commands that humans give it.
The question stem reads: The argument does which of the following? This is a Method of Reasoning question.
The argument begins by stating, "When a nation is on the brink of financial collapse, its government does not violate free market principles if, in order to prevent financial collapse, it limits the extent to which foreign investors and lenders can withdraw their money." That was a mouthful, so let's break it down. We can remove the embedded clause "in order to prevent financial collapse" and add it to the end of the premise. Now we have: "The government does not violate free market principles if it limits the extent to which foreign investors and lenders can withdraw their money in order to prevent financial collapse." Ok, that makes more sense. It seems like limiting withdrawals violates the free market, so let's see what evidence they offer us. The author describes how the right to free speech does not include the right to yell fire in a crowded theater because there might be harm resulting from the "stampede" to exit the theater. The author claims that yelling fire is analogous to allowing investors to withdraw money during a financial collapse. On the author's accounts, the mad dash to withdraw money can cause just as much harm as the stampede to exit the theater. The author has made an argument by analogy. Arguably a poor analogy, but our job is not to evaluate the strength of the author's argument; it is merely to determine how the argument proceeds.
Correct Answer Choice (A) is precisely what we are looking for. When we map the stimulus to (A), we get: "tries to show that a set of principles (the free market) is limited in a specific way (limiting investors ability withdraw money during financial collapse) by using an analogy to a similar principle (free speech) that is limited in a similar way (not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater), precisely what we prephased.
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect. It would be difficult to map the stimulus onto this answer choice. What facts are we trying to explain? There are none, so we can ignore this answer choice.
Answer Choice (C) can be quickly crossed off because the argument contains no experimental results.
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect because the argument does not claim that a certain explanation of an observed phenomenon is wrong.
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect because there is no empirical generalization. The author makes an analogy to the limits of free speech. However, that would not be considered an empirical generalization.
The question stem reads: The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on grounds that the argument fails to consider the possibility that… This is a Flaw question.
The author begins with context, claiming that people who need to decrease their fat intake and consume fewer calories often turn to fat substitutes, especially zero calory sweeteners such as N5. Next, we turn to the author’s argument with the context indicator “but.” The author concludes, “Studies indicate N5 is of no use to such people (people who need to decrease their fat intake and consume fewer calories).” As evidence, the author cites that subjects who ate foods prepared with N5 felt hungrier than those who ate foods prepared with real fat. Because they felt hungrier, those who used N5 consumed more calories, and their extra calories made up for the calories initially saved. So while preparing food with N5 might save you calories for that meal, you do not reduce the total calories consumed.
The study suggests that replacing fat with N5 would not save you calories in the long run. However, if we turn to the author’s conclusion, we see that the author said N5 was useless to both people who needed to save calories and reduce fat intake. While the study claims that subjects who used N5 did not reduce caloric intake, perhaps the subjects reduced total fat intake. They replaced fat with N5, and even though they ate more later, perhaps they ate fat-free foods. The calories that would have been spent on fat instead get spent on carbs and protein. As a result, N5 might be useful to people who need to reduce fat and consumer fewer calories, but only with respect to N5’s ability to reduce fat intake. Now that we have our flaws let’s move to the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) is arbitrary. What foods can be prepared with N5 does not affect the argument. Additionally, (A) mildly helps the argument. As we increase the number of foods that cannot be prepared with N5, the less useful N5 becomes
Answer Choice (B) is arbitrary. The side effects of N5 are arbitrary to the argument. Similar to (A), (B) would mildly help the argument. As we increase the number of unpleasant side effects of N5, the less useful N5 becomes.
Answer Choice (C) is arbitrary. The argument is only concerned with people who need to reduce fat intake and consume fewer calories.
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect. (D) says that of the people who consumed food with N5, those who knew N5 contained zero calories tended to consume more food than those who didn’t know N5 was calorie-free. However, both groups are subsets of a superset: people who eat foods prepared with N5. And we know that people who ate N5 saved no calories in the long run. So while those who did not know N5 contained zero calories ate less food, they still will not have saved any calories.
Correct Answer Choice (E) is what we prephrased. While the N5 subjects might not have saved any calories, they were able to decrease fat intake. So even though they did not accomplish their goal of reducing calories, N5 was able to help them accomplish their other goal: reducing fat.
The question stem reads: The music historian's statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following? This is a Most Strongly Supported question.
The historian claims that impoverished post-war recording studios forced bebop musicians to record extremely short solos, which is a fact that some critics find upsetting. Those critics find it upsetting because the short solo is a "misrepresentation" of their music. However, the historian counters that claim by explaining that the extreme shortness of the solos makes them "superb artistic works instead of mere representations of their live music." In other words, the historian actually thinks that short solos are not just a shortened version of the bebop musicians' live music, but that the short recordings stand on their own as beautiful music. The historian continues by saying that the concise characteristic of the early (post-war) bebop musicians' solo recording influenced the "compactness" of their live music, which the following generation of bebop musicians lacks. What makes music compact? We’re not sure, but according to the historian, live postwar bebop music had “compactness,” while later live bebop music did not. To recap, post-war bebop solo recordings were short because the studios didn't have money. The short solos were pretty good because they were beautifully concise. The short recordings of solos influenced a "compactness" to post-war live music. The later generations' bebop music was not compact.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect because the stimulus does not suggest that representations of live solos are bad, only that the short live recordings were quite good. Furthermore, even if the stimulus claimed that representations of bebop live solos were bad, (A) would still be incorrect for drawing a general rule (about all music) from a specific instance (claims about bebop music).
Correct Answer Choice (B) claims that the post-war conditions had some beneficial consequences for bebop. The post-war conditions forced the recordings of solos to be short. The recordings, which were quite good on their own, influenced the compactness of the live music. So on the historian's account, the postwar conditions did benefit bebop.
Answer Choice (C) is incorrect. The stimulus claims that during the postwar period, the solos of bebop recordings were short. We don't know if the duration of the entire song was shorter. Even if we conceded that the tracks themselves were shorter, (C) would still be incorrect. The historian does not compare short and long bebop recordings; she simply claims that the short recordings (of solos) were quite good. We do not know what the historians think of long recordings; it's possible that she might think that longer is always better.
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect because it makes too strong of a claim. The historian claims that the next generation of bebop music lacks "compactness." While it is plausible to assume that the historian believes "compactness" is good and the lack thereof is bad, "compactness" is only one characteristic of music. While the next generation falls short in compactness, they might make up for it in other parts of their music. This is an example of a fallacy of composition (part to whole).
Answer Choice (E) makes a similar mistake as (A) by drawing a general rule about musicians from specific claims about bebop music. Additionally, even if (E) made a more limited claim about bebop musicians, it would still be incorrect. We know that post-war bebop solo recordings were short due to the impoverished conditions of the studios. But maybe bebop musicians now choose to record short solos for aesthetic reasons.
The question stem reads: Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion of the city councilperson's argument to be properly inferred? This is a Sufficient Assumption question.
The councilperson begins by stating that many residents oppose the city's proposal to purchase a stone edifice. The residents oppose the purchase because art critics are divided over whether the edifice qualifies as art. We then get the context indicator "but," indicating a turn to the author's argument. The councilperson claims that the purpose of art is to cause experts to debate ideas, including what counts as art. They then say, "Since the edifice has caused experts to debate about what constitutes art itself, it (the edifice) does qualify as art." The indicator "since" is usually attached to both a premise and a conclusion. So "the edifice has caused experts to debate" is a premise, and "the edifice does qualify as art" is our conclusion. Let's outline the argument:
P1: The purpose of art is to cause debate among experts
P2: The edifice has caused debate among experts
______________________________________________
C: The edifice qualifies as art.
We can make the inference P3 that the edifice has fulfilled the purpose of art since the edifice has caused debate among experts (which is the purpose of art). We now get
P1: The purpose of art is to cause debate among experts
P2: The edifice has caused debate among experts
P3 The edifice has fulfilled the purpose of art
______________________________________________
C: The edifice qualifies as art.
In the Core Curriculum, we discussed how ideas contained in the conclusion must also be contained in the premises. The councilperson's conclusion is that the edifice qualifies as art, but we have no premise to tell us what qualifies as art. So we need a conditional with "qualifies as art" in the necessary condition: ( _) -> qualifies as art. As a matter of "logic," any sufficient condition that is satisfied by the stimulus will complete the councilperson's argument. As a matter of what actually happens on the LSAT, the sufficient condition will usually be an inference we made using the premises. We made the inference that the edifice has fulfilled the purpose of art. So our most likely sufficient assumption will be:
P1: The purpose of art is to cause debate among experts
P2: The edifice has caused debate among experts
P3 The edifice has fulfilled the purpose of art
SA: fulfills the purpose of art -> qualifies as art
______________________________________________
C: The edifice qualifies as art.
I'll note that the sufficient condition does not have to be "fulfills the purpose of art," but we absolutely need "qualifies as art" in the necessary condition. We can screen the answer choices by asking ourselves: Does the AC have "qualifies as art" in the necessary? If yes, then Does sufficient get satisfied by the stimulus? Let's take a look at the AC's
Answer Choice (A) fails our test. Translated, we get: "qualifies as art -> causes debate." Here we have "qualifies as art" in the sufficient condition when we want it in the necessary condition.
Answer Choice (B) does not have the necessary condition we are looking for. You might think that (B) would contradict our conclusion. The sufficient condition is met, so we would get: "experts cannot be certain about whether the edifice qualifies as art." However, the fact that "experts cannot be certain about whether the edifice qualifies as art" does not affect whether or not the edifice actually qualifies as art. There is a distinction between what we think is true and what actually is true. In the past, people were not sure whether the Earth was the center of the universe. That did not mean the Earth was or was not the center of the universe. In any case, (B) is wrong. Don't pick it.
Answer Choice (C) is irrelevant. If you picked (C), you likely thought the city councilperson was advocating for the purchase of the edifice. However, we do not know his position on that matter. What we do know is that he thinks the edifice is art. The councilperson may think the edifice qualifies as art and that the city should not purchase the edifice because it is too expensive. (C) is an example of why it is so vital to separate the context from the argument.
Correct Answer Choice (D) is our prephase. The edifice fulfills the purpose of art; therefore, it qualifies as art. Pick it and move.
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect for the same reason that (C) is: they are irrelevant. Again, the councilperson's argument has nothing to do with whether or not the city should purchase the edifice, only whether or not the edifice qualifies as art.