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. Assumption-SN. June 2001 LSAT, Section 2, #5. The correct answer choice is (D)
The stimulus contains conditional reasoning, and can be diagrammed as follows:
DS = democratic society exists
SB = citizens establish strong bonds of mutual trust
PCO = participation in civic organizations, political parties, and other groups outside the family
Premises: DS-----------> SB-----------> PCO
Conclusion: Widespread reliance on movies and electronic media for entertainment has an
inherently corrosive effect on democracy.
The conclusion brings in a new element—reliance on movies and electronic media—and you should
expect to see that element in the correct answer choice. First, let us take a moment to closely examine the
conclusion. The wording in the conclusion is interesting: “has an inherently corrosive effect on
democracy.” We know from the premises that a democratic society relies on both citizens and participation
in groups outside the family. How then can the author suggest that democracy is being corroded? Since
corrosion implies an undermining force, democracy can be undermined by attacking the conditions it relies
upon. If, for example, the participation in organizations outside the family was curtailed, this would
eventually enact a contrapositive that would undermine the existence of democratic society. The
assumption that is needed therefore, is to show that movies and other electronic media somehow lead to a
lessening of participation in civic organizations, political parties, and other groups outside the family. This
is the connection made in answer choice (D), the correct answer.
Answer choice (A): This was the most commonly selected wrong answer, and this answer is incorrect
because it exaggerates the situation. The author does not assume that anyone would be unable to form a
strong bond of trust. The argument was clear about a corrosive effect on democracy. This answer, if it
were an assumption, would lead to the end of democracy. That result is too strong for the author’s
conclusion.
Answer choice (B): The author makes no assumption regarding organizations advancing their agenda.
Answer choice (C): The argument is not about newspapers and print media.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. This Supporter assumption connects the new element in the
conclusion back to the conditional relationship in the premises.
Answer choice (E): The author does not assume that closeness to the family is a bad thing, but that one
must also participate outside the family. This answer does not suggest otherwise, and it is not an
assumption of the argument.
Question #2. Assumption. October 1999 LSAT, Section 1, #5. The correct answer choice is (C)
The stimulus to this problem contains a Shell Game, and you must read closely in order to identify it: in the
first sentence the author equates “new employees” with “inexperienced workers.” Of course, a new
employee is not necessarily inexperienced (the employee could have transferred from another company,
etc.). The assumption that new employees are inexperienced is reflected in the correct answer, (C).
Answer choice (A): The author notes that the duties of the two new employees are too complex for them,
but the author does not compare or imply a comparison to the tasks of other workers.
Answer choice (B): The author makes no assumption as to why the two new employees are being paid the
salary they receive, only that their salary should be reduced. For example, the reason the employees are
paid more could be that they are related to the owner of the company.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer, a Supporter.
Answer choice (D): This answer is an immediate Loser. No discussion or assumption is made about
Barnes’ salary.
Answer choice (E): This answer would hurt the argument, and therefore it can never be an assumption of
the argument.
Question #3. Assumption. October 2001 LSAT, Section 1, #18. The correct answer choice is (B)
The structure of the argument is as follows:
Premise: There is only so much metal ore available.
Subconclusion/ Ultimately we must either do without or turn to renewable resources to take its
Premise: place.
Conclusion: The current pattern of human consumption of resources, in which we rely on
nonrenewable resources, for example metal ore, must eventually change.
At first glance the argument does not seem to have any holes. This would suggest a Defender answer is
coming, and indeed that is the case.
Answer choice (A): The author does not need to assume this statement because the stimulus specifically
indicates that “we must either do without or turn to renewable resources.” Since doing without is an option,
the author is not assuming there are renewable replacements for all nonrenewable resources currently
being consumed.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer. This answer defends the conclusion that the consumption
pattern must change by indicating that it would not be possible to simply replace one nonrenewable
resource with another nonrenewable resource. If this answer did not make sense at first glance, you should
have noted the negative language and then negated the answer. Using the Assumption Negation
Technique, the following would clearly attack the conclusion: “We can indefinitely replace exhausted
nonrenewable resources with other nonrenewable resources.” If the nonrenewable resources can be
indefinitely replaced, why do we need to change our consumption habits?
Answer choice (C): The author’s argument concerns changing current consumption habits. Although the
author does suggest turning to renewable resources, this alone would represent a change. The author does
not make a long-term assumption that renewable resources can never be depleted. When faced with the
negation of the answer choice, the author would likely reply: “If that eventuality does occur, then perhaps
we will have to do without. In the meantime, we still need to change our consumption habits.” As you can
see, the negation has not undermined the author’s position, and so this answer is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): The author does not make statements or assumptions about actual consumption
patterns in the near future, only statements regarding what must eventually occur.
Answer choice (E): This answer, when rephrased to eliminate the double negative, reads as “Ultimately
we must have nonrenewable resources.” Because this answer hurts the argument, the answer is incorrect.
Question #4. Assumption. October 2002 LSAT, Section 2, #22. The correct answer choice is (D)
The importance of this problem is not just in answering it correctly, but also in answering it quickly. A
major portion of LSAT success is speed related, and a question like this is an opportunity to gain time. The
first step is to recognize the argument structure:
Premise: In humans, ingested protein is broken down into amino acids, all of which must
compete to enter the brain.
Premise: Subsequent ingestion of sugars leads to the production of insulin, a hormone that breaks
down the sugars and also rids the bloodstream of residual amino acids, except for
tryptophan.
Premise: Tryptophan then slips into the brain uncontested and is transformed into the chemical
serotonin, increasing the brain’s serotonin level.
Conclusion: Sugars can play a major role in mood elevation, helping one to feel relaxed and
anxiety-free.
At this point in your preparation, you should constantly be on the lookout for new elements that appear in
the conclusion. This problem contains the new conclusion element of “a major role in mood elevation,
helping one to feel relaxed and anxiety-free.” Because this element immediately follows the assertion that
the brain’s serotonin level has been increased, you should attack the answer choices by looking for an
answer that fits the Supporter relationship that an increase serotonin leads to an elevated mood. Only
answer choices (A) and (D) contain these two elements, and you should examine them first as you seek to
accelerate through this problem:
Answer choice (A): Although the author assumes that raising the level of serotonin is sufficient to elevate
mood, this answer claims that it is necessary. Hence, this answer is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. The author states that after the action of the sugars, more
serotonin enters the brain. The author then concludes that this leads to a mood elevation. Thus, the author
assumes that serotonin has an effect on the mood level.
Answer choice (B): The argument refers to what happens when sugars are ingested. No assumption is
made about what occurs when foods rich in sugars are not ingested.
Answer choice (C): Although the argument states that tryptophan is transformed into serotonin, no
assumption is made that this is the only way serotonin is produced.
Answer choice (E): The author does not assume the statement in this answer. We know from the first
sentence of the stimulus that ingested protein is broken down into amino acids which compete to enter the
brain. This competition could result in mood elevation even without the ingestion of sugars since some
amino acids will enter the brain (some could be tryptophan, for example). Thus, since the author’s
argument contains a scenario that would allow for the opposite of this answer choice to occur, this answer
is not an assumption of the argument.
Question #5. Assumption. October 2001 LSAT, Section 2, #16. The correct answer choice is (A)
This is a challenging problem because two of the wrong answer choices are attractive. The argument itself
is not overly complex, but you must pay attention to the language. Consider the conclusion of the
argument:
“Publicity campaigns for endangered species are unlikely to have much impact on the most
important environmental problems.”
Ask yourself, why is it that these campaigns are unlikely to have much impact on the most important
problems? According to the premises, the reason is that “it is more difficult to elicit sympathy for other
kinds of organisms [than large mammals].” The reasoning shows that the author believes there is a
connection between the important problems and organisms that are not large mammals. This Supporter
connection is perfectly reflected in answer choice (A), the correct answer. Again, when faced with an
Assumption question, remember to look for connections between rogue elements in the argument, and
then seek that connection in the answer choices.
Answer choice (B): The argument is about eliciting sympathy, and no assumption is made about
microorganisms experiencing pain.
Answer choice (C): This is a Shell Game answer. The conclusion is specific about “publicity campaigns
for endangered species” as they relate to environmental problems. This answer refers to “publicity
campaigns” in general—a different concept. It may be that the most effective publicity campaign for the
environment has nothing to do with organisms. Consequently, this answer is not an assumption of the
argument.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice is worded too strongly and is an Exaggerated answer. “Ignore”
goes further than what the author implies. The author indicates that it is “more difficult to elicit sympathy
for other kinds of organisms,” but the author does not say it is impossible to get sympathy from individuals
if a non-large mammal is involved. Further, the argument is specific about the impact on the “most
important” problems, and this answer goes well beyond that domain.
Answer choice (E): The microorganisms discussed at the end of the argument are an example (“such as”);
therefore, the author does not assume this type of relationship must be true in order for the conclusion to be
true.
Question #6. Assumption. June 2000 LSAT, Section 1, #14. The correct answer choice is (E)
The conclusion of the argument asserts that Leibniz and Newton each independently discovered calculus,
and in drawing the conclusion the author addresses the possibility Newton may have influenced Leibniz,
and then rejects that possibility. A review of the argument does not reveal any conspicuous flaws, and so
upon encountering the question stem, you should expect to see a Defender answer. As such, do not spend
time trying to prephrase an answer—just make sure you know the facts of the argument.
Answer choice (A): The argument is about the independent discovery of calculus; the author makes no
assumption that Leibniz did not tell anyone else, and indeed the fact that Newton did tell Leibniz is not
accepted by the author as undermining the conclusion.
Answer choice (B): Negate the answer: “A third person independently discovered calculus prior to
Newton and Leibniz.” Would this negated answer attack the argument? No, the author would just assert
that three different parties independently discovered calculus.
Answer choice (C): The author cites Newton’s letter as evidence that Newton felt he had disclosed ideas to
Leibniz prior to Leibniz’s publication date. No assumption is made that Newton felt that what was
disclosed allowed Leibniz to learn something important. If you are uncertain of this answer, negate the
choice to see if it weakens the argument.
Answer choice (D): This is clearly not an assumption of the argument because the author discusses
Newton’s letter to Leibniz prior to Leibniz’s publication date.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer. The answer can be difficult because it is somewhat similar
to answer choice (B), which many people already eliminated by the time they reached this answer. Answer
(E) is different from answer (B) because it involves learning details from a third source. This is important
because the conclusion references the independent discovery of calculus, and so the author must believe
that neither Newton nor Leibniz learned anything substantial about calculus from other sources.
This elimination of an idea that weakens the argument is the essence of a Defender answer choice. To
further confirm the answer, consider the negation of this answer choice (“neither...nor” becomes
“either...or”): “Either Newton or Leibniz learned crucial details about calculus from some third source.”
This negated answer undermines the assertion that Leibniz and Newton each independently discovered
calculus. Consequently, this is the correct answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment