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. Weaken. June 1999 LSAT, Section #2, #15. The correct answer choice is (B) This is a nice straightforward question to start the problem set. The conclusion of the argument appears at the end of the stimulus: human beings “cannot be made happy by anything that does not involve gratification of these [cognitive] faculties.” To weaken the argument we must show that individuals can be made happy without gratification of the cognitive faculties. If you do not know the meaning of “cognitive,” the problem can be challenging. Cognitive means “relating to the mental process of knowing, including reasoning and judgment.” In other words, cognitive faculties are thinking and analyzing, etc. Answer choice (A): This answer attempts to attack the first premise, but fails. Although it is fantastic news that dolphins and chimps can rationally communicate, this fact has no impact on the argument at hand. Even though they have this communication ability, human cognitive faculties can still be superior.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer, and a somewhat risqué one at that. By showing that many people enjoy the physical more than the cognitive, the answer shows that people can be made happy by gratification of something other than cognitive faculties. Cognitive faculties, being mental in nature, are of course distinct from physical pleasures.
Additionally, this answer has the benefit of addressing the phrase in the stimulus regarding awareness of cognitive faculties: “once humans become aware of these...” In this answer, unlike others, the individuals are known to be familiar with cognitive faculties. While we believe that recognition of cognitive faculties is inherent in adults (or some of the named types in other answers, such as serious athletes, who by definition would have to be teens or adults), this answer is stronger because it explicitly addresses the issue.
Answer choice (C): A preference for a certain type of music is likely a cognition-driven preference, and this preference is expressed by an adult who would certainly be aware of cognitive faculties. And, since no suggestion is made that individuals can be made happy without gratification of the cognitive faculties, this answer is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): This can be an attractive answer at first, but it depends on the assumption that the serious athletes are happy due to their athletic endeavors. However, that connection is not explicitly stated, and it could be that the serious athletes are happy because of some gratification of their cognitive faculties, in their respective sport or otherwise.
Answer choice (E): This answer is similar to answer choice (D). A gourmet is a connoisseur of food and drink, and a connoisseur is a person with deep or special knowledge of a subject. In this sense, there would be a cognitive element to the enjoyment of gourmet food. As such, this answer may serve to slightly strengthen the argument because it shows that an individual with experience with the non-cognitive still retains a love of the cognitive.
Question #2. October 2002 LSAT, Section #2, #15. The correct answer choice is (D)
The argument uses the premise that Baja turtles and Japanese turtles share ninety-five percent of their DNA to conclude that Baja turtles hatch in Japanese waters 10,000 kilometers away. This sounds like convincing statistical evidence unless you realize that many organisms share DNA. For example, humans and chimpanzees share about 98% of their DNA (we share about 75% of our DNA with dogs, for that matter). Since Baja and Japanese turtles come from the same species, it is not surprising that they would share a high percentage of their DNA. Regardless of whether or not you saw this connection, you should
have been skeptical of the reference to juvenile turtles travelling 10,000 kilometers. Such a lengthy trip by a juvenile animal is unlikely, and calls into question the soundness of the argument.
Answer choice (A): This answer does not impact the argument because no details—DNA or otherwise— are given about the turtles at these nesting sites off the Pacific coast of North America.
Answer choice (B): The fact that Atlantic turtles have nesting and feeding sites no more than 5,000
kilometers apart does not attack the argument because the argument is about Baja turtles.
Answer choice (C): This answer attempts to weaken the argument by inducing you to conclude that if the
Japanese hatchlings are declining but Baja sites are constant, then the Baja sites cannot be supplied by the
Japanese hatchlings. But, the answer choice moves from the number of hatchlings to the number of sites.
Even with a declining number of hatchlings, the number of sites could remain constant, albeit with fewer
turtles at each. Because of this possibility, the answer does not undermine the argument.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. The answer shows that all turtles in the argument have the
same ninety-five percent DNA, meaning that the Baja turtles did not have to take the 10,000 kilometer trip.
Answer choice (E): The breeding between species was not an issue in the stimulus.
Question #3. December 2003 LSAT, Section #1, #20. The correct answer choice is (B)
The first sentence is a premise, and the second sentence is the conclusion of this argument. To attack this
conclusion, look for an answer choice that shows that the exclusion of knowledgeable individuals from
scientific or technical issue trials is a fair way of proceeding in these trials.
Answer choice (A): This is an Opposite answer that strengthens the conclusion. If specialized knowledge
of these issues makes it more likely that the juror can comprehend the testimony being given, then these
individuals should not be excluded from juries, and their exclusion makes trial by jury an unfair means of
resolving a dispute.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer. If the specialized knowledge is likely to produce a
prejudice in a juror, then by all means they should be excluded from the jury. Thus, instead of trial by jury
being an unfair means, it is made more fair by the exclusion of these individuals. The answer is a tricky
one because most people initially think the answer agrees with the argument. It agrees with the principle of
the premise, but not with the conclusion drawn from that premise. Answer choice (C): This answer simply notes that arbitrators are not a fair means of settling scientific or
technical issue debates. This has no impact on the fairness of jury trials involving these same issues.
Answer choice (D): This answer is about the experts testifying at scientific or technical issue trials. This
information does not attack the claim that jury trials are unfair because of the exclusion of jurors with
knowledge of these issues.
Answer choice (E): This answer can be eliminated by reasoning similar to that used to eliminate answer
choice (D).
Question #4. June 2001 LSAT, Section #1, #12. The correct answer choice is (A)
The conclusion is in the last sentence, that some people “have senses that do not respect the usual
boundaries between the five recognized senses.” Instead of keeping their senses distinct, these individuals
have an overlap.
Incidentally, the condition discussed in the stimulus is not made up: synesthesiacs (or synesthetes) have a
real condition known as synesthesia. Regardless of that fact, you must find an answer choice that
undermines the conclusion of the argument, something that would suggest their senses do respect the usual
boundaries.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer. If the synesthesiacs have a systematic impairment in their
use of language it may not be that their senses overlap but rather that they lack the ability to properly
express themselves. Thus, their claim to taste a banana and see blue might not be a reflection of that
actually occurring but rather a reflection of the words they use to describe taste. If so, this would
undermine the conclusion that the senses of synesthesiacs do overlap. This is a difficult answer to identify
as correct, and less than 50% of test takers are able to do so.
Answer choice (B): The appeal of this answer—and many students keep this as a Contender—is that it
suggests that perhaps other senses are operating, and some test takers make the judgment that these
additional senses account for the sensory overlap in synesthesiacs. Unfortunately, that judgment is not
supported by the answer choice. Not enough information is provided by the answer choice to say what
role, if any, is played by these other senses.
Answer choice (C): This is the most popular wrong answer choice. Do not forget to personalize the
argument and consider how the author would react if faced with this answer. Would he or she surrender
and admit the answer overpowers the argument? Doubtful. The author would probably react to this answer
by saying something along these lines, “Exactly. Since all the individuals are synesthesiacs and suffer from
the same condition, it is not surprising that there would be patterns in the way the senses overlap. Just as
everyone afflicted with emphysema has difficulty breathing, the sensory patterns exhibited by
synesthesiacs are just a product of the condition. The fact that their senses do not follow the usual
boundaries and do so in certain ways is to be expected.” So, instead of surrendering to the answer, the
author would indicate that the answer agrees with the conclusion. Answer choice (D): This answer is out of the scope of the argument. The “legendary” status of
synesthesiacs does not shed any light on the operation of their five senses.
Answer choice (E): If anything, this may strengthen the argument by indicating that the synesthesiacs are
experiencing some type of phenomenon. Beyond that point, however, no information is given to suggest
that their senses do not respect the usual boundaries.
Question #5. October 2001 LSAT, Section #2, #20. The correct answer choice is (A)
The stimulus sets up an interesting argument that appears fairly reasonable. A mastodon skeleton has been
found containing a human-made projectile dissimilar to those of the part of Eurasia closest to North
America and because Eurasians did not settle in North America until shortly before the peak of the Ice
Age, the first Eurasian settlers of North America probably came from a more distant part of Eurasia than
the area nearest North America. To make a very rough analogy using dialects, it is like a resident of
Washington, D.C. saying, “The visitors we just met did not sound like they were from Virginia, so they
must be from a much more distant part of the U.S.” Reading that rough analogy, you can see that the
speaker has assumed that the visitors are from the U.S. Of course, that does not have to be the case—they
could be from England or France or elsewhere. The same form of assumption has occurred in the
argument, and the author has assumed that the projectile is of Eurasian origin.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer. This answer hurts the argument by indicating that the
projectile is apparently not Eurasian, suggesting that the first Eurasian settlers could have come from any
part of Eurasia, including the area closest to North America.
Answer choice (B): This is the most attractive wrong answer, but regardless, this answer does not hurt the
argument. Some students attempt to conclude that since the people were nomadic, they could have moved
to areas farther away and found projectiles like the one in the mastodon. However, even though these
individuals remained nomadic, they were apparently nomadic within the area of Eurasia closest to North
America because the answer clearly states, “The people who occupied the Eurasia area closest to North
America...” Hence, they did not necessarily occupy other areas and this answer does not hurt the
argument.
Answer choice (C): This Opposite answer supports the argument by showing that the projectile in the
mastodon was not a one-time, anomalous occurrence. If other, similar projectiles come to light, then the
author’s position would be strengthened.
Answer choice (D): This Opposite answer supports the argument by connecting other artifacts of the same
age as the projectile to parts of Eurasia more distant than the area of Eurasia closest to North America. This
adds further evidence to the idea that the first Eurasian settlers of North America probably came from a
more distant part of Eurasia than the area nearest North America.
Answer choice (E): This Opposite answer supports the argument by indicating that the part of Eurasia
closest to North America may not have been inhabited just before the Ice Age. If this area was
uninhabitable, then it is more likely that settlers coming to North America came from more distant regions. Question #6. October 2001 LSAT, Section #1, #8. The correct answer choice is (E)
This is a great separator question, and approximately one in three students answers this question correctly.
However, some students are able to annihilate this question because they see a reference in the first line
that raises an important issue that goes unanswered. That reference is to lobsters “eaten by humans.” The
argument asserts that diverting the sewage in the harbor is a moot point because hardly any lobsters live
long enough to be harmed by the diseases caused by the sewage. This may be, but what about the humans
who eat the lobsters that live in the sewage-contaminated environment? The author fails to address this
point.
The conclusion of the argument is near the end: “the proposal is pointless,” and this is based on the
premise that “hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.”
Answer choice (A): The argument is based on the sewage contamination of the harbor. Although other
contaminants may be present, they are not addressed by the argument, and thus this answer does not
undermine the author’s position.
Answer choice (B): This answer has no impact because the argument is about lobsters that are caught in
the harbor. So, while lobsters in the open ocean may live longer, the author’s point about lobsters in the
harbor not living long enough to contract a gill disease is untouched.
Answer choice (C): The issue is not breeding frequency but longevity. So, while we are pleased to hear
that lobsters in sewage-contaminated waters breed frequently, this fact does not impact an argument based
on the age and disease contraction.
Answer choice (D): Although whether the lobsters contract a gill disease is a critical issue in the argument,
the method of determining whether a lobster has a disease is not a critical issue. Again, keep in mind the
heart of the argument:
Premise: “hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.”
Conclusion: “the proposal [to reroute harbor sewage] is pointless.”
Nothing in that argument concerns the detection of the gill diseases.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer. As discussed above, the author fails to address the effect of
the contaminated lobsters on humans who consume them, and this answer attacks that hole. If humans
become ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases, and gill diseases are more likely to arise when the
lobsters live in the sewage-contaminated waters, then the conclusion that the proposal is pointless is incorrect.
No comments:
Post a Comment