All answer keys in this book will indicate the source of the question by giving the month and year the
LSAT was originally administered, the Logical Reasoning section number, and the question number within
that section. Each LSAT has two Logical Reasoning sections, and so the Section 1 and Section 2
designators will refer to the first or second Logical Reasoning section in the test, not the physical section
number of the booklet.
Question #1. Method. December 2002 LSAT, Section 2, #8. The correct answer choice is (D)
The arguments of Jorge and Ruth can be analyzed as follows:
Jorge’s Argument
Premise: Rock music of the 1960s was created by and for people who were then in their teens
and early twenties.
Premise: You were just an infant then [in the 1960s].
Conclusion: You won’t be able to write well about the rock music of the 1960s.
Ruth’s Argument
Premise: There are living writers who write well about ancient Roman culture, even though
those writers are obviously not a part of ancient Roman culture.
Premise: Why should my youth alone prevent me from writing well about the music of a period
as recent as the 1960s?
Conclusion: Your reasoning is absurd.
Note that the question stem asks you to identify how Ruth responded. When two-speaker stimuli are
combined with Method of Reasoning questions, you are typically asked to identify the reasoning of only
one of the speakers (often the second speaker). However, you must still understand the argument of the
other speaker as the answer choices often refer to it.
Now let’s use the answer choices to discuss the structure of the argument.
Answer choice (A): Ruth does not challenge Jorge’s claim about her age. To the contrary, she seemingly
admits he is correct when she says “Why should my youth alone...”
Answer choice (B): Although Ruth uses an example that cites culture, she does not clarify a definition of
popular culture, and certainly not one left implicit in Jorge’s argument.
Answer choice (C): This is a Half Right, Half Wrong answer. The first part of the answer choice—“using
the example of classical culture”—does occur in Ruth’s response, but she does not use that example “in
order to legitimize contemporary culture as an object worthy of serious consideration.”
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. An analogy is a comparison between two items. In
argumentation, analogies are often used to clarify the relationship between the items or reveal a
fundamental truth about one of the items, as in “To better understand the operating system of your
computer, think of it as the brain of your system.” The use of “brain” in the preceding sentence is the
analogy.
Analogies can be used to challenge a position or support a position, but their strength often rests on the
relevant similarities between the two items or scenarios. In the next chapter we will discuss False
Analogies, where an author uses an analogy that is dissimilar enough to be nonapplicable.
As referenced in this answer choice, Ruth analogizes writing about Roman culture to writing about the
1960s to show that it is not unreasonable that someone who was an infant can write about that time period.
Jorge’s assumption is that if a person was not a teen or older during the 1960s, then they cannot write well
about the music of that period. Since all elements described in the answer choice occur and the answer
describes the method used by Ruth, this is the correct answer.
Answer choice (E): Ruth does not attack Jorge’s qualification to make his argument, just his
pronouncement that she will not be able to write well about the rock music of the 1960s.
Question #2. Method-CE. June 2003 LSAT, Section 1, #4. The correct answer choice is (D)
The stimulus in this problem appeared in Chapter Two as an example of a stimulus with two separate
speakers (however, no analysis was given at that time).
The arguments of Anne and Sue can be analyzed as follows:
Anne’s Argument
Premise: Halley’s Comet, now in a part of its orbit relatively far from the Sun, recently flared
brightly enough to be seen by telescope.
Premise: No comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the Sun before.
Conclusion: Such a flare must be highly unusual.
Sue’s Argument
Premise: Usually no one bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun.
Premise: This flare was observed only because an observatory was tracking Halley’s Comet very
carefully.
Conclusion: [Your conclusion is] Nonsense.
As is often the case with two-speaker stimuli, the speakers disagree. In this case, Anne uses causal
reasoning to indicate that the cause of the sighting is unusual activity with Halley’s comet:
FU = the flare is highly unusual
NCO = no comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the sun
C E
FU-------------> NCO
Sue counters by citing an alternate cause: no one has been looking for such a flare.
NO = no one bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun
NCO = no comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the sun
C E
NO-------------> NCO
The problem now becomes an exercise in figuring out how the test makers will describe the alternative
cause cited by Sue.
Answer choice (A): This answer quickly fails the Fact Test. Sue does not comment on tuhsee of the term
“observed” (other than to explain why the flare was observed).
Answer choice (B): Although Sue cites an explanation that is inconsistent with Anne’s claim, she does not
point out an inconsistency between two of Anne’s claims
Answer choice (C): Remember, evidence is the same as premises. Does Sue contradict Anne’s premises?
No, she only contradicts her conclusion. Do not be drawn in by the word “nonsense.” That word is used to
attack the conclusion, not the premises of the argument.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. In this answer, the alternate cause is described as an
“alternative explanation.” In most cases, a causal counterargument can be described as offering an
alternative explanation.
Answer choice (E): This is a Reverse Answer. The answer appears as follows:
“undermining some of Anne’s evidence while agreeing with her conclusion”
If the answer choice was reversed in the following manner, it would be correct:
“undermining her [Anne’s] conclusion while agreeing with some of Anne’s evidence ”
The evidence she agrees with is the first sentence of Anne’s argument (the premise in the second sentence
is not directly addressed).
Question #3. Method-AP, CE. October 2000 LSAT, Section 1, #15. The correct answer choice
is (C)
The argument is structured as follows:
Premise: A rise of just two degrees prevents the vertical mixing of seawater from different strata.
Premise: This restricts the availability of upwelling nutrients to phytoplankton.
Premise: Zooplankton, which feed upon phytoplankton, feed the rest of the food chain.
Conclusion: Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature due to global warming
eventually result in declines in fish and seabird populations.
The conclusion in the first line is echoed again in the final sentence. The argument part referenced in the
question stem is a premise (note the use of the premise indicator “since” in the last line), and your answer
must indicate that the role played by the argument part is that of a premise.
Answer choice (A): The portion referenced in the question stem is not a hypothesis, but rather a statement
of fact.
Answer choice (B): The statement referenced in the question stem is not an example of the way the mixing
of seawater affects feeding habits, but rather another premise that is then combined with the vertical mixing
premise to help support the conclusion.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. The phrase “it helps show” describes a premise, and in this
case the premise is used to support a statement about the effect of temperature changes on fish and
seabirds.
Answer choice (D): The argument does not take a position that global warming should be curtailed.
Instead, the argument shows how small changes in sea temperature lead to population declines, and no
opinion of those effects is stated.
Answer choice (E): This is an Exaggerated Answer. The argument specifically indicates that fish and
seabirds populations will decline. This answer choices states that all organisms are threatened.
Question #4. Method-AP. December 2003 LSAT, Section 2, #18. The correct answer choice is (D)
The nutritionist’s argument can be deconstructed as follows:
Premise: Humans have evolved very little since the development of agriculture.
Subconclusion/
Premise: It is clear that humans are still biologically adapted to a diet of wild foods, consisting
mainly of raw fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, lean meat, and seafood.
Premise: Straying from this diet has often resulted in chronic illness and other physical problems.
Conclusion: Thus, the more our diet consists of wild foods, the healthier we will be.
The statement referenced in the question stem is a subconclusion. Answer choice (D), the correct answer,
describes this role using the phrase “intermediate conclusion.” This is a great example of a question that
allows you to accelerate: if you take the correct steps (fulfill the Primary Objectives) when analyzing the
argument, you already know the correct answer and you simply need to scan the answer choices quickly
for a match.
Answer choice (A): This is a Half Right, Half Wrong answer. The statement is a conclusion, but the only
support offered for this conclusion is that humans have evolved very little since the development of
agriculture. Since this fact contradicts what is stated in the answer choice, the answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (B): Since we know the statement is a subconclusion, there is justification provided and
this answer choice is incorrect. Note that describing the statement as a premise is also accurate, since a
subconclusion is a conclusion for one argument and a premise for another argument.
Answer choice (C): The main conclusion does not explain the statement referenced in the question stem,
so this answer choice is incorrect. The answer would be much improved if it said: “It is a phenomenon that
helps explain the main conclusion of the nutritionist’s argument.”
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer, and the answer you should have been looking for after you
analyzed the argument and read the question stem.
Answer choice (E): This is a Reverse answer. The claim that humans have evolved very little since the
development of agriculture is a premise offered in support of the statement referenced in the question stem.Question #5. Method. October 1994 LSAT, Section 2, #14. The correct answer choice is (D)
The heart of Ingrid’s argument is that durability is measured by how many times a song is recorded, and
using this standard, rock music songs are not as durable as songs from the 1940s.
Jerome admits that rock music songs are not typically recorded multiple times, but he then introduces a
new way of judging durability—one based on the continuing popularity of the original recording.
Answer choice (A): Jerome does not misinterpret the claim. He starts off by saying, “True, rock songs are
usually recorded only once,” and this a perfect characterization of part of Ingrid’s statement.
Answer choice (B): This is a good example of an answer that might be kept as an initial Contender.
However, as you further consider the answer, you must identify the “contradiction” mentioned in the
answer choice. Does Jerome show that Ingrid’s claim must lead to a contradiction? No.
Note that there is a difference between a speaker contradicting an argument (as Jerome does here) and a
person making a statement that leads to an internal contradiction (known as a self-contradiction.) An
example of a self-contradiction would be:
“Everyone should join our country club. After all, it’s an exclusive group that links many of the
influential members of the community.”
The self-contradiction occurs when the speaker says “Everyone should join” and then follows that by
saying that it is “an exclusive group.” Exclusive, by definition, means that some people are excluded.
Answer choice (C): As discussed in answer choice (A), Jerome accepts the evidence presented by Ingrid.
Because he does not undermine the truth of the evidence used by Ingrid, this answer is incorrect. Again,
evidence is another way to say “premise.” We know that Jerome disagrees with Ingrid’s conclusion, but
that does not mean that he disagrees with her premise.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. Jerome’s standard for judging durability is the popularity of
the original. This contrasts with Ingrid’s standard, which is the re-recording of the song. The point at issue
is the definition of durability.
Answer choice (E): Again, use the Fact Test on this answer. Where does Jerome claim that Ingrid’s
knowledge is incomplete? As we discussed previously, he has admitted that her premise is true.
Question #6. Method-AP. June 1995 LSAT, Section 1, #14. The correct answer choice is (B)
The argument has an interesting structure. Visually, the argument appears as follows:
standards set by organizations that issue pedigrees.
Premise: Those standards generally specify the physical appearance necessary for a dog to be
recognized as belonging to a breed but stipulate nothing about other genetic traits, such
as those that enable breeds originally developed as working dogs to perform the work
for which they were developed.
Premise: Dog breeders try to maintain only those traits specified by pedigree organizations, and
traits that breeders do not try to maintain risk being lost.
Subconclusion/
Premise: Certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs.
Conclusion: Therefore, pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability in
pedigreed dogs classified as working dogs.
Given the size of the stimulus, this is a tough problem to analyze. The second to last sentence contains
both a premise and a conclusion. The final sentence contains the main conclusion. Perhaps because of the
size of the problem, the test makers kindly inserted the conclusion indicator “therefore” before the main
conclusion.
Answer choice (A): This is a Half Right, Half Wrong answer. The phrase referenced in the question is a
“claim on which the argument depends,” but it is not one for which no support is given. In fact, several
premises back up the statement.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer. The statement in question is a subconclusion, described in
this answer as a subsidiary conclusion.
Answer choice (C): The phrase in question is in agreement with the argument, and does not reference a
possible objection. If you were to choose this answer, you would have to ask yourself, “What is the
possible objection mentioned in this answer choice?”
Answer choice (D): The argument as a whole works towards supporting the recommendation that
“pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability in pedigreed dogs classified as
working dogs.” The phrase in the question stem does not summarize the antithesis of that position.
Answer choice (E): This answer has the order of the argument backwards. The phrase referenced in the
question stem provides evidence necessary to support a claim stated later in the argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment