Sociologist: The more technologically advanced a society is, the more marked its members’ resistance to technological innovations. This is not surprising, because the more technologically advanced a society is, the more aware its members are of technology’s drawbacks. Specifically, people realize that sophisticated technologies deeply affect the quality of human relations.

Summarize Argument
A sociologist contends that it is not surprising that the more technologically advanced a society is, the more resistant it becomes to further innovations. This resistance is because people in advanced societies are more aware of the drawbacks of technology, particularly how it affects the quality of human relationships.

Identify Argument Part
This is an explanation (premise) that supports the sociologist’s main conclusion that his findings are unsurprising.

A
It is a conclusion supported by the claim that people realize that sophisticated technologies deeply affect the quality of human relations.
This is not a conclusion. It is an explanation that supports the conclusion about why the sociologist’s findings are unsurprising. Technology affecting the quality of human relations *also* supports the main conclusion, but not this part of the argument.
B
It is offered as an explanation of why people’s resistance to technological innovations is more marked the more technologically advanced the society in which they live is.
This statement explains *why* resistance to technological innovations is unsurprising in advanced societies. The author argues that members of these societies are more aware of the drawbacks of technology, which leads to resistance. This awareness is the reason for resistance.
C
It is a premise in support of the claim that the quality of human relations in technologically advanced societies is extremely poor.
The sociologist never claims that human relations in technologically advanced societies is “extremely poor.” The argument only says that technology affects the quality of human relationships.
D
It is a generalization based on the claim that the more people resist technological innovations, the more difficult it is for them to adjust to those innovations.
The argument does not discuss how people “adjust” to innovations. It is focused on people's awareness of technological drawbacks and the resistance that results from this increasing awareness.
E
It is an example presented to illustrate the claim that resistance to technological innovations deeply affects the quality of human relations.
This answer choice has the content of the argument somewhat jumbled. Furthermore, this statement is not an example, it is an explanation of why a phenomenon exists.

21 comments

To win democratic elections that are not fully subsidized by the government, nonwealthy candidates must be supported by wealthy patrons. This makes plausible the belief that these candidates will compromise their views to win that support. But since the wealthy are dispersed among the various political parties in roughly equal proportion to their percentage in the overall population, this belief is false.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author believes that nonwealthy candidates in democratic elections that aren’t fully subsidized by the government will not compromise their views in order to win the support of wealthy patrons. This is based on the fact that wealthy people are distributed among different political parties in equal proportion to their proportion among the overall population.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that winning the support of wealthy people might require changing one’s own views, even if one can find wealthy people in one’s own political party. For example, a Democratic billionaire’s views might be different from a Democratic candidate. That candidate may then need to change her views to win the billionaire’s support.

A
the primary function of political parties in democracies whose governments do not subsidize elections might not be to provide a means of negating the influence of wealth on elections
The purpose of parties irrelevant. We’re concerned with whether having the wealthy in various parties shows that the nonwealthy don’t need to change their views to get a wealthy person’s support. Why parties exist doesn’t affect whether a candidate might have to change her views.
B
in democracies in which elections are not fully subsidized by the government, positions endorsed by political parties might be much less varied than the positions taken by candidates
This possibility shows why a nonwealthy person might need to change their views to win a wealthy person’s support. Even if a wealthy person is part of the candidate’s party, that doesn’t mean the views of the party or the wealthy person in the party are shared by the candidate.
C
in democracies, government-subsidized elections ensure that the views expressed by the people who run for office might not be overly influenced by the opinions of the wealthiest people in those countries
The argument concerns democratic elections that are NOT fully subsidized by the government. Even if countries with subsidized elections ensure against being “overly influenced” by the wealthiest, that doesn’t suggest anything about countries without subsidized elections.
D
in democracies in which elections are not fully subsidized by the government, it might be no easier for a wealthy person to win an election than it is for a nonwealthy person to win an election
The argument concerns whether a nonwealthy candidate needs to change her views to win support of a wealthy person. Whether an election is easier to win for a wealthy person than for a nonwealthy person has no impact on whether a nonwealthy person needs to change her views.
E
a democracy in which candidates do not compromise their views in order to be elected to office might have other flaws
The argument concerns whether a nonwealthy candidate needs to change her views to win support of a wealthy person. Whether there are other flaws in a democracy has no bearing on whether a nonwealthy candidate must change her views.

Kudos to the LSAT writers. They've out done themselves with this question. I hope you didn't spend too much time getting this one wrong.

The passage is tough to understand. The writers make us think that a problem was solved when really, the problem still exists, just pushed one layer down. Crafty, crafty!

Let's pretend you're a painter name van Gogh. You're fucking awesome and you know it. Problem is, no one else knows it. But, alas, despite your god like skills with a brush, your body still needs mortal nourishment, clothing, and shelter. That means you need money. That means (because this is the stupid 1800's), you need to find a wealthy patron... who wants you to paint his ugly children. You'd like to not compromise your artistic genius, to not sell out, so to speak. But of course, that's a highly probably occurrence since no wealthy patron recognizes or agrees with your godly aesthetics.

Here's where the LSAT writers come to "the rescue". They say, "wait, the wealthy are dispersed among the various schools of art in roughly equal proportion to their percentage in the overall population". So no worries van Gogh. Just join up with one of those schools of art and you're all set. You know, maybe that one over there, on the corner with the flashing neon sign.

You see how this doesn't solve your problem? Previously, it's the patrons that you'd have to pander to. Now, it's the schools of art you'd have to pander to. What's the difference? You have to pander either way. The problem was not solved, just pushed one layer down.

But, of course, it certainly felt like it was solved when you were reading the original passage didn't it? Good job, LSAT writers.


46 comments

In modern “brushless” car washes, cloth strips called mitters have replaced brushes. Mitters are easier on most cars’ finishes than brushes are. This is especially important with the new clear-coat finishes found on many cars today, which are more easily scratched than older finishes are.

Summary
Modern car washes use mitters rather than brushers. Mitters are easier on most cars’ finishes than brushes are. This is important today, because many cars have clear-coat finishes that are more easily scratched than older finishes.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
If brushes were used on cars today instead of mitters, more cars would have scratched finishes today than is currently the case.

A
When car washes all used brushes rather than mitters, there were more cars on the road with scratched finishes than there are today.
Unsupported. This doesn’t account for potential increases in population and car use. In the past, although there may have been a higher rate of scratches on cars, there may have been fewer cars overall. So, the overall number of scratched cars might have been lower in the past.
B
Modern “brushless” car washes were introduced as a direct response to the use of clear-coat finishes on cars.
Unsupported. We’re not told the reason modern car washes were introduced. The fact modern car washes are better for clear-coat finishes does not imply the clear-coat finishes caused modern washes to come about.
C
Modern “brushless” car washes usually do not produce visible scratches on cars with older finishes.
Strongly supported. Mitters are easier on most cars’ finishes than brushes. This is important because clear-coat finishes are more easily scratched. This suggests that when used on older finishes, mitters aren’t likely to produce scratches, at least not any we can see.
D
Brushes are more effective than mitters and are preferred for cleaning cars with older finishes.
Unsupported. We’re not told whether brushes or mitters are more effective for cleaning. We’re only told which one is easier on cars’ finishes.
E
More cars in use today have clear-coat finishes rather than older finishes.
Unsupported. We know that many cars today have clear-coat finishes. But we don’t know whether most (over half) cars today have such finishes.

39 comments

It is widely believed that lancelets—small, primitive sea animals—do not have hearts. Each lancelet has a contracting vessel, but this vessel is considered an artery rather than a heart. However, this vessel is indeed a heart. After all, it strongly resembles the structure of the heart of certain other sea animals. Moreover, the muscular contractions in the lancelet’s vessel closely resemble the muscular contractions of other animals’ hearts.

Summary
The author concludes that lancelets have hearts, because they have a vessel that is similar to other hearts in their structure and contractions.

Missing Connection
The conclusion is about having a heart, but we aren’t given information on what qualifies as having a heart. The support only comes from the structure and behavior of the lancelet’s vessel bearing similarity to other hearts. We can make the argument valid if we know for sure that one or both of these qualities (structure or behavior) having commonality with other hearts is enough to qualify as having a heart.

A
Only animals that have contracting vessels have hearts.
This is switching sufficient and necessary. (A) can only support a conclusion about having contracting vessels or, through contrapositive, not having a heart. We need something that would support a conclusion about having a heart.
B
Some primitive animals other than lancelets have what is widely held to be a heart.
Irrelevant. Just because other animals with one similarity to the lancelet have a heart, it does not strengthen the argument that lancelets have a heart. Even in a Strengthen question, this answer is problematic.
C
A vessel whose structure and actions closely resemble those of other animal hearts is a heart.
This links the vessel of the lancelet to a conclusion about having a heart. This means the traits of the lancelet’s vessel qualify for having a heart.
D
For a vessel in an animal to be properly considered a heart, that vessel must undergo muscular contractions.
Similar to (A), a reversal of what we need. We need for “properly considered a heart” to be a necessary condition. We need to conclude that something has a heart, and we cannot do that when it is in the sufficient condition.
E
No animal that has a heart lacks an artery.
Phrased another way, this is “If an animal has a heart, then it has an artery.” This has the same issue as (A) and (D)— We need to conclude that something has a heart, and we cannot do that when it is in the sufficient condition.

3 comments

Manager: I recommend that our company reconsider the decision to completely abandon our allegedly difficult-to-use computer software and replace it companywide with a new software package advertised as more flexible and easier to use. Several other companies in our region officially replaced the software we currently use with the new package, and while their employees can all use the new software, unofficially many continue to use their former software as much as possible.

Summary

The manager recommends that the company reconsider the decision to replace current software with a new software package. This is because several other companies in the region have done such replacement, but many employees at these companies continue to use their old software as much as possible.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Many employees at the manager’s company would probably continue to use the now-current software if it is replaced by the new software package.

The advantages of the new software package are unlikely to compel every employee to use it over the now-current software.

A
The current company software is as flexible as the proposed new software package.

Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t tell us the flexibility of the current software or how it compares to the flexibility of the new software package.

B
The familiarity that employees have with a computer software package is a more important consideration in selecting software than flexibility or initial ease of use.

Unsupported. Although the manager suggests many will continue to use the current software, that could be due to its flexibility or ease of use. The new software is “advertised” as more flexible, but that doesn’t mean it is more flexible.

C
The employees of the manager’s company would find that the new software package lacks some of the capabilities of the present software.

Unsupported. Although the manager suggests many will continue to use the current software, we don’t know whether this will be due to any difference in capabilities of the software. It could be due to greater familiarity with current software.

D
Adopting the new software package would create two classes of employees, those who can use it and those who cannot.

Unsupported. There’s no indication that anyone will be unable to use the new software. Many will likely prefer to use the current software, but that doesn’t imply they lack the ability to use the new software.

E
Many of the employees in the manager’s company would not prefer the new software package to the software currently in use.

Strongly supported. The manager cites to the fact many employees from other companies chose to use their old software instead of the new software. The manager uses this to suggest that a similar phenomenon will occur at the manager’s company.


46 comments

Examine (D) closely to understand what it's actually saying.

According to the passage: The BWR makes enough money from sales of its anthologies to cover most operating expenses.

Say its "operating expenses" are $105. That's internet, rent, electricity, etc. costs. Further, say, income from "sales of anthologies" is $100. That means "most" ($100) of the $105 is covered by income from anthology sales.

We still have $5 left that's not covered. Let's give this $5 a name. How about "operating expenses not covered by income from anthology sales?" Because that's what it is. 

Now look at (D).

The BWR depends on donations to cover most operating expenses not covered by income from anthology sales.

In other words, (D) says: The BWR depends on donations to cover most of $5. So... what, like $3.67? 

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

(E) is right. Drawing relevant distinctions is how we weaken arguments by analogy. (E) draws the distinction between "your" magazine's anthology and the BWR's anthology. We just kind of presumed that the BWR's anthology would contain only a reprint of stuff already previously printed, which brings up the question "why in the world would anyone spend money on the anthology when it contains only stuff that I already have in separate editions of the magazine?" (E) tells wrecks that presumption. There's new stuff in the BWR's magazine. That's maybe (likely) why people are paying money to buy it. That means the original suggestion in the passage for "your" magazine to just do a reprint will result in an anthology very much unlike the BRW's anthology.

(A) is also incorrect. Parse out what (A) is saying. Like in (D) we have this concept of "most operating expenses". (A) tells us the money that covers "most operating expenses" isn't donation money. Okay, so what about the remaining expenses? Is that donation covered? We don't know. So could it be that the BWR and your magazine still depend on donations? Yes.

That's even besides the point. The point is what I said in (E) about how you weaken arguments by analogy.


39 comments