LSAT 131 - Section 1 - Question 03

April 21, 2012

In some places, iceberg lilies are the mainstay of grizzly bears’ summer diets. The bears forage meadows for the lilies, uprooting them and eating their bulbs. Although the bears annually destroy a large percentage of the lilies, scientists have determined that the bears’ feeding habits actually promote the survival of iceberg lilies.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Many iceberg lilies are consumed by bears, yet that consumption helps the lilies survive.

Objective
Any hypothesis resolving this discrepancy must explain a mechanism by which bears eating the lilies helps the lily species survive.

A
When grizzly bears forage for iceberg lilies, they generally kill many more lilies than they eat.
It is irrelevant whether the bears eat the lilies they destroy. The lilies are killed regardless, so it remains unexplained why they benefit from the foraging.
B
Iceberg lilies produce so many offspring that, when undisturbed, they quickly deplete the resources necessary for their own survival.
This explains why the foraging bears help the iceberg lily species survive. If bears left the lilies alone, the lilies would deplete their resources and struggle accordingly.
C
A significantly smaller number of iceberg lily flowers are produced in fields where grizzly bears forage than in fields of undisturbed iceberg lilies.
This widens the discrepancy. If foraging bears reduce the number of lily flowers, then the bears make it more difficult for the lilies to reproduce.
D
The geographic regions in which iceberg lilies are most prevalent are those regions populated by grizzly bears.
This explains why many lilies are eaten by the bears, not why the lilies benefit from the bears’ foraging.
E
Iceberg lilies contain plentiful amounts of some nutrients that are necessary for grizzly bears’ survival.
This explains why bears forage for the lilies, not why the lilies benefit from that foraging.

2 comments

LSAT 131 - Section 1 - Question 04

April 21, 2012

Advertisement: Seventy-five percent of dermatologists surveyed prefer Dermactin to all other brands of skin cream. Why? We consulted dermatologists during the development of Dermactin to ensure that you have the best skin cream on the market. So if you need a skin cream, use Dermactin.

Summarize Argument

The advertisement concludes that you should use Dermactin if you need a skin cream. It supports this by saying that dermatologists were consulted during the development of Dermactin and 75% of dermatologists surveyed prefer Dermactin to all other brands.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The advertisement says 75% of surveyed dermatologists prefer Dermactin, but it doesn’t explain the details of the survey. They might have surveyed a small or biased group of dermatologists, which would make the results unreliable. Since the ad doesn’t say how many dermatologists were surveyed or if the survey was random, we can’t be sure that this survey actually supports the advertisement’s conclusion.

A
overlooks the possibility that other types of doctors have cause to use Dermactin, which would render the sample unrepresentative

The sample may indeed be unrepresentative, but not because it fails to include other types of doctors. The argument is only based on the preferences of dermatologists; other types of doctors are irrelevant.

B
fails to state the number of dermatologists surveyed, which leaves open the possibility that the sample of doctors is too small to be reliable

Because the ad doesn’t say how many dermatologists were surveyed, it’s possible that the sample size was too small. “75% of dermatologists surveyed” could simply mean 3 out of 4 dermatologists surveyed, which would mean the sample was too small and the survey is not reliable.

C
presumes, without providing justification, that some dermatologists are less qualified than others to evaluate skin cream

Even if the ad did assume this, (C) doesn’t describe a flaw in the argument. Surely some dermatologists are less qualified to evaluate skin cream; this doesn’t change the fact that 75% preferred Dermactin.

D
relies on an inappropriate appeal to the opinions of consumers with no special knowledge of skin care

The ad relies on an appeal to the opinions of dermatologists who do have a special knowledge of skin care. It never mentions the opinions of consumers.

E
overlooks the possibility that for a few people, using no skin cream is preferable to using even the best skin cream

The ad doesn’t overlook this possibility. The conclusion says, “If you need a skin cream, use Dermactin.”


23 comments

LSAT 131 - Section 1 - Question 05

April 21, 2012

3 comments

LSAT 131 - Section 1 - Question 06

April 21, 2012

Deirdre: Many philosophers have argued that the goal of every individual is to achieve happiness—that is, the satisfaction derived from fully living up to one’s potential. They have also claimed that happiness is elusive and can be achieved only after years of sustained effort. But these philosophers have been unduly pessimistic, since they have clearly exaggerated the difficulty of being happy. Simply walking along the seashore on a sunny afternoon causes many people to experience feelings of happiness.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Deirdre concludes that the philosophers have been unreasonably pessimistic because their argument exaggerates the difficulty of achieving happiness. As an example, she notes that walking along the beach on a sunny day makes many people feel happy.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the author uses the same term in two different ways without acknowledging the shift in meaning.

Here, Deirdre says that the philosophers exaggerate the difficulty of being happy, noting that walking on the beach makes many people feel happy. However, the philosophers define happiness as "the satisfaction derived from fully living up to one’s potential," which is very different from the happy feelings that accompany walking on the beach. Deirdre doesn’t recognize the difference between these two meanings of "happiness."

A
It dismisses a claim because of its source rather than because of its content.
This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the source of an argument rather than the argument itself. Deirdre doesn’t make this mistake; she attacks the philosophers’ argument, not the philosophers themselves.
B
It fails to take into account that what brings someone happiness at one moment may not bring that person happiness at another time.
Even if walking on the beach brings someone happiness one day and not the next, this isn’t a flaw in Deirdre’s reasoning. She just argues that because people sometimes feel happy walking on the beach, it’s untrue that achieving happiness always requires years of sustained effort.
C
It allows the key term “happiness” to shift in meaning illicitly in the course of the argument.
The philosophers argue that it’s difficult to achieve happiness, which they define as the satisfaction of living up to one’s potential. Deirdre then argues that many people feel happy walking down the beach, but this is an entirely different meaning of the key term “happiness.”
D
It presumes, without providing justification, that happiness is, in fact, the goal of life.
The philosophers argue that “the goal of every individual is to achieve happiness,” but Deirdre never assumes that happiness is the goal of life. She just argues that the philosophers are too pessimistic in their argument about achieving happiness.
E
It makes a generalization based on the testimony of a group whose views have not been shown to be representative.
Deirdre doesn't mention the testimony of any group. Instead, she draws a conclusion about the philosophers’ argument based on a factual example about the feelings of many people when they walk on the beach.

27 comments

LSAT 131 - Section 1 - Question 07

April 21, 2012

13 comments

LSAT 131 - Section 1 - Question 08

April 21, 2012

We can now dismiss the widely held suspicion that sugar consumption often exacerbates hyperactivity in children with attention deficit disorder. A scientific study of the effects of three common sugars—sucrose, fructose, and glucose—on children who have attention deficit disorder, with experimental groups each receiving a type of sugar in their diets and a control group receiving a sugar substitute instead of sugar, showed no statistically significant difference between the groups in thinking or behavior.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that sugar consumption doesn’t exacerbate hyperactivity in children with attention deficit disorder. She bases this on a study that showed no difference between children with attention deficit who ate sugar versus those who ate a sugar substitute.

Notable Assumptions
The author believes that the study shows sugar doesn’t affect hyperactivity. She must then assume that sugar substitutes don’t also exacerbate hyperactivity, or else the study would pointless. The author must also assume that sugar consumption can be divorced from the settings in which sugar is consumed. Supposing the children in the study were at Disneyland, we would expect high levels of activity across the board.

A
Only one of the three types of sugar used in the study was ever widely suspected of exacerbating hyperactivity.
We don’t know if children who ate that type of sugar were especially hyperactive.
B
The consumption of sugar actually has a calming effect on some children.
We don’t care if it’s a calming or neutral effect. We’re trying to weaken the claim that it doesn’t have a hyperactive effect.
C
The consumption of some sugar substitutes exacerbates the symptoms of hyperactivity.
It’s very possible there was no important difference between sugar and sugar substitutes in the study. If so, that totally destroys the author’s conclusion.
D
The study included some observations of each group in contexts that generally tend to make children excited and active.
“Some” qualifies what would’ve otherwise been a strong weakener. If only a small portion of the study was done in settings that make children excited and active, then the author’s takeaway from the study still stands.
E
Some children believe that they can tell the difference between the taste of sugar and that of sugar substitutes.
We don’t care if children believed they were using placebos. We care about the effect sugar had on the group that got sugar.

47 comments

LSAT 50 - Section 4 - Question 20

April 21, 2012

19 comments

LSAT 50 - Section 4 - Question 21

April 21, 2012

10 comments

LSAT 50 - Section 4 - Question 22

April 21, 2012

9 comments

LSAT 50 - Section 4 - Question 23

April 21, 2012

38 comments

«‹827828829830831832833834835836837838839840841842843844845846847›»