Question #1. PI. June 2002 LSAT, Section 2, #7. The correct answer choice is (C)
Hazel argues that because electronically processed orders go directly to all relevant parties (as opposed to
manual processing), profits will increase. Max argues that money will be lost if orders are processed
electronically because the dehumanizing effect of electronic order-taking will lead to fewer customers. The
conclusion of each speaker’s argument illustrates the disagreement (italics added):
Hazel’s conclusion: “To increase profits, we should process orders electronically rather than
manually.”
Max’s conclusion: “We would lose money if we started processing orders electronically.”
Although this question is considered relatively easy, you must read carefully to avoid being drawn to
cleverly worded incorrect answers.
Answer choice (A): Hazel agrees with the statement since she compares electronic processing and manual
processing in her argument. But Max’s position is unknown—he does not directly address the issue, and
instead focuses on the lack of customer service involved in electronic order-taking.
Answer choice (B): This answer is tricky, and the attractive nature of the answer works as a well-placed
trap as this wrong answer appears just before the correct answer (remember—read all five answer
choices!). Hazel clearly agrees with the statement since she makes virtually the same assertion in the first
sentence of her argument. Max’s position is unknown since he does not comment on the speed and
accuracy of order processing. Since his position is unknown, this answer is automatically incorrect.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. As highlighted in the two conclusions, the disagreement is
about whether electronic order-taking would help the bottom line of the company.
Answer choice (D): Neither speaker addresses the topic of whether their business has an obligation to be
profitable, only whether electronic ordering would help profitability.
Answer choice (E): Max would likely agree with this statement (it’s not certain he would agree since he
says the business would attract fewer customers and this answer choice uses the word “most,” which is a
bit strong). Regardless, Hazel does not mention the effect of the ordering system on customers, and since
her viewpoint is unknown, this answer must be incorrect.
Question #2. PI. December 2002 LSAT, Section 1, #23. The correct answer choice is (D)
This question is more challenging than the previous question. Councilperson X’s argument is that if a
generating plant is to be built, the proposed design should be used since that design allows for the lowest
rates. Councilperson Y’s argument is that the proposed design would create such poor air quality that the
benefits of the lower rates would be outweighed. Like the previous problem, the conclusion of each
speaker’s argument is critical:
X’s conclusion: “It must be the design we endorse if we agree that we have no choice but to
approve construction of a new plant.”
Y’s argument is a bit more difficult to analyze because the conclusion is left unstated. Y’s implicit
conclusion is that the proposed plant design should not be used since the negatives of the proposed plant
would outweigh the benefits.
Answer choice (A): This is the most attractive wrong answer, and about one in five students select this
answer. Councilperson X’s statement makes it clear that there is no certainty regarding the council’s
actions: “if we agree that we have no choice but to approve construction of a new plant.” Hence, X’s
position on whether the council should recommend a new station is at best uncertain. The answer choice is
also problematic because it does not specify the “proposed design.” Both speakers refer specifically to the
new design, whereas this answer choice refers to “a new generating station” and not necessarily a new
station with the proposed design.
Answer choice (B): Councilperson Y agrees with this statement, as indicated in Y’s second sentence.
However, X’s position on this statement is uncertain (no mention of quality of life is made), so this answer
is incorrect.
Answer choice (C): Similar to answer choice (B), councilperson Y agrees with this statement, as indicated
in the second half of Y’s first sentence. However, X’s position on this statement is uncertain (no mention of
air quality is made), and thus this answer is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. Using the Agree/Disagree Test, Councilperson X would
agree with the statement whereas Councilperson Y would disagree with the statement.
Answer choice (E): Councilperson X agrees with this statement, as indicated in X’s second sentence.
Councilperson Y’s position on this statement is less certain. Y appears to agree with the statement,
although a case can be made that Y’s opening comments simply indicate that searching for low rates is not
the only job the council has. Regardless, there is no disagreement present and this answer is incorrect.
Question #3. PI. October 1999 LSAT, Section 2, #16. The correct answer choice is (D)
Franklin’s argument is that since sports celebrities and Nobel laureates both have rare talents and work
hard, sports celebrities should not be paid ten times as much. Tomeka responds that sports celebrities earn
more for their employers than do Nobel laureates. Tomeka’s statement is clearly meant to provide a reason
for the salary difference, and from that we can infer that Tomeka disagrees with Franklin’s conclusion.
The questions in this problem set get progressively harder, and the difficulty in this problem results from
two challenging incorrect answer choices. Remember, just because the disagreement is easy to characterize
does not mean that the question will be easy. The test makers always have the ability to create truly
difficult answers.
Answer choice (A): Neither speaker addresses the issue of whether Nobel laureates should be “taken more
seriously.” In that same vein, it would be a mistake to equate salary with seriousness, as in a lesser salary
means Nobel laureates are taken less seriously. Further, do not equate a lower salary with a low salary:
Nobel laureates could make millions of dollars a year, but the sports celebrities simply make much more.
Answer choice (B): This is the most commonly selected wrong answer. The key word in the answer
choice is “more.” Franklin makes no assertion or implication that Nobel laureates should make more than
celebrities. Instead, his argument makes the case that sports celebrities should not be paid ten times the pay
of Nobel laureates.
Answer choice (C): Franklin would agree with this statement, but Tomeka makes no mention of working
hard—instead, she only mentions that sports celebrities earn millions of dollars for their employers. Since
Tomeka’s view on the statement is unknown, this answer is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. Franklin notes that the salary disparity is inconsistent and
both have talent and work hard. He would agree with the statement in this answer choice. On the other
hand, Tomeka cites a reason for the pay disparity, and she would disagree with the statement. Because the
two speakers disagree over the truth of the statement, this is the correct answer.
Answer choice (E): Neither speaker addresses the social contributions of celebrities, and you should not
infer that a comparison is made simply because the other group in the discussion is composed of Nobel
laureates.
Question #4. PI. June 2001 LSAT, Section 2, #15. The correct answer choice is (D)
Statistically, this is the most difficult question of the chapter, and only about one in three students selects
the correct answer. In part, this difficulty rises from the fact that the disagreement identified in the correct
answer does not arise from the conclusion, but from the premises of each speaker.
Lea argues that contemporary art is big business and that the work of contemporary artists lacks
spontaneity and creativity, and this can be proven by visiting any art gallery. Susan counters by stating that
spontaneous and creative work is present in most of the smaller, independent galleries, and on that basis
she concludes that Lea is incorrect.
Answer choice (A): Both speakers would disagree with this statement, and dual disagreement is grounds
for eliminating the answer.
Answer choice (B): This is a difficult answer choice, and one that most students reasonably hold as a
Contender. Lea would obviously agree with this statement. Susan’s position is less certain, and a large part
of the uncertainty revolves around the phase “most galleries” in the answer choice. Susan states that “One
can still find spontaneous, innovative new artwork in most of the smaller, independent galleries.” If
smaller, independent galleries make up the vast majority of all galleries, then Susan would likely disagree
with the statement in the answer choice. But there is no assurance that smaller, independent galleries make
up the majority of all galleries (they could be outnumbered by the larger galleries), and under that
circumstance Susan could agree with the statement. Since Susan’s position is uncertain, this answer is
incorrect.
There is a second issue underlying Susan’s statement that has an impact on our assessment of this answer.
Susan states that “one can still find” creative artwork in most small galleries. But finding such artwork in
those galleries does not exclude the possibility that other artwork in the same gallery lacks spontaneity and
creativity. If that were the case, both speakers would agree with the statement.
Answer choice (C): Apply the Agree/Disagree Test: Lea agrees with the statement, but Susan does not
comment on whether contemporary art is big business. Her statement that there are smaller, independent
galleries is not an implicit admission that the whole field has become overly commercialized. This answer
is incorrect because there is no way to know Susan’s position, and thus this answer fails the Test.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. Again, the Agree/Disagree Test crystallizes the issue:
Susan clearly agrees with the statement whereas Lea, who said that a visit to any art gallery shows that
contemporary artists utterly lack creativity and spontaneity, disagrees with the statement.
Note that the reference to “new artwork” in the answer choice is important because it eliminates any
discussion about older creative and spontaneous artwork that may be in galleries. The quantity indicator
“some” also plays a role since it allows for a single example to suffice (see answer choice (B) for the
impact a quantity indicator can have).
Answer choice (E): Lea would likely agree with the statement in this answer choice because she states that
“nowadays art has less to do with self-expression.” Susan’s position is again uncertain. Although she states
that innovative contemporary artwork is available in galleries, she does not make a comparison between
the self-expression of contemporary art and the self-expression of older art. There is no assumption in her
argument that spontaneous, innovative new artwork is not less concerned with self-expression, let alone
“much less.”
Hazel argues that because electronically processed orders go directly to all relevant parties (as opposed to
manual processing), profits will increase. Max argues that money will be lost if orders are processed
electronically because the dehumanizing effect of electronic order-taking will lead to fewer customers. The
conclusion of each speaker’s argument illustrates the disagreement (italics added):
Hazel’s conclusion: “To increase profits, we should process orders electronically rather than
manually.”
Max’s conclusion: “We would lose money if we started processing orders electronically.”
Although this question is considered relatively easy, you must read carefully to avoid being drawn to
cleverly worded incorrect answers.
Answer choice (A): Hazel agrees with the statement since she compares electronic processing and manual
processing in her argument. But Max’s position is unknown—he does not directly address the issue, and
instead focuses on the lack of customer service involved in electronic order-taking.
Answer choice (B): This answer is tricky, and the attractive nature of the answer works as a well-placed
trap as this wrong answer appears just before the correct answer (remember—read all five answer
choices!). Hazel clearly agrees with the statement since she makes virtually the same assertion in the first
sentence of her argument. Max’s position is unknown since he does not comment on the speed and
accuracy of order processing. Since his position is unknown, this answer is automatically incorrect.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. As highlighted in the two conclusions, the disagreement is
about whether electronic order-taking would help the bottom line of the company.
Answer choice (D): Neither speaker addresses the topic of whether their business has an obligation to be
profitable, only whether electronic ordering would help profitability.
Answer choice (E): Max would likely agree with this statement (it’s not certain he would agree since he
says the business would attract fewer customers and this answer choice uses the word “most,” which is a
bit strong). Regardless, Hazel does not mention the effect of the ordering system on customers, and since
her viewpoint is unknown, this answer must be incorrect.
Question #2. PI. December 2002 LSAT, Section 1, #23. The correct answer choice is (D)
This question is more challenging than the previous question. Councilperson X’s argument is that if a
generating plant is to be built, the proposed design should be used since that design allows for the lowest
rates. Councilperson Y’s argument is that the proposed design would create such poor air quality that the
benefits of the lower rates would be outweighed. Like the previous problem, the conclusion of each
speaker’s argument is critical:
X’s conclusion: “It must be the design we endorse if we agree that we have no choice but to
approve construction of a new plant.”
Y’s argument is a bit more difficult to analyze because the conclusion is left unstated. Y’s implicit
conclusion is that the proposed plant design should not be used since the negatives of the proposed plant
would outweigh the benefits.
Answer choice (A): This is the most attractive wrong answer, and about one in five students select this
answer. Councilperson X’s statement makes it clear that there is no certainty regarding the council’s
actions: “if we agree that we have no choice but to approve construction of a new plant.” Hence, X’s
position on whether the council should recommend a new station is at best uncertain. The answer choice is
also problematic because it does not specify the “proposed design.” Both speakers refer specifically to the
new design, whereas this answer choice refers to “a new generating station” and not necessarily a new
station with the proposed design.
Answer choice (B): Councilperson Y agrees with this statement, as indicated in Y’s second sentence.
However, X’s position on this statement is uncertain (no mention of quality of life is made), so this answer
is incorrect.
Answer choice (C): Similar to answer choice (B), councilperson Y agrees with this statement, as indicated
in the second half of Y’s first sentence. However, X’s position on this statement is uncertain (no mention of
air quality is made), and thus this answer is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. Using the Agree/Disagree Test, Councilperson X would
agree with the statement whereas Councilperson Y would disagree with the statement.
Answer choice (E): Councilperson X agrees with this statement, as indicated in X’s second sentence.
Councilperson Y’s position on this statement is less certain. Y appears to agree with the statement,
although a case can be made that Y’s opening comments simply indicate that searching for low rates is not
the only job the council has. Regardless, there is no disagreement present and this answer is incorrect.
Question #3. PI. October 1999 LSAT, Section 2, #16. The correct answer choice is (D)
Franklin’s argument is that since sports celebrities and Nobel laureates both have rare talents and work
hard, sports celebrities should not be paid ten times as much. Tomeka responds that sports celebrities earn
more for their employers than do Nobel laureates. Tomeka’s statement is clearly meant to provide a reason
for the salary difference, and from that we can infer that Tomeka disagrees with Franklin’s conclusion.
The questions in this problem set get progressively harder, and the difficulty in this problem results from
two challenging incorrect answer choices. Remember, just because the disagreement is easy to characterize
does not mean that the question will be easy. The test makers always have the ability to create truly
difficult answers.
Answer choice (A): Neither speaker addresses the issue of whether Nobel laureates should be “taken more
seriously.” In that same vein, it would be a mistake to equate salary with seriousness, as in a lesser salary
means Nobel laureates are taken less seriously. Further, do not equate a lower salary with a low salary:
Nobel laureates could make millions of dollars a year, but the sports celebrities simply make much more.
Answer choice (B): This is the most commonly selected wrong answer. The key word in the answer
choice is “more.” Franklin makes no assertion or implication that Nobel laureates should make more than
celebrities. Instead, his argument makes the case that sports celebrities should not be paid ten times the pay
of Nobel laureates.
Answer choice (C): Franklin would agree with this statement, but Tomeka makes no mention of working
hard—instead, she only mentions that sports celebrities earn millions of dollars for their employers. Since
Tomeka’s view on the statement is unknown, this answer is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. Franklin notes that the salary disparity is inconsistent and
both have talent and work hard. He would agree with the statement in this answer choice. On the other
hand, Tomeka cites a reason for the pay disparity, and she would disagree with the statement. Because the
two speakers disagree over the truth of the statement, this is the correct answer.
Answer choice (E): Neither speaker addresses the social contributions of celebrities, and you should not
infer that a comparison is made simply because the other group in the discussion is composed of Nobel
laureates.
Question #4. PI. June 2001 LSAT, Section 2, #15. The correct answer choice is (D)
Statistically, this is the most difficult question of the chapter, and only about one in three students selects
the correct answer. In part, this difficulty rises from the fact that the disagreement identified in the correct
answer does not arise from the conclusion, but from the premises of each speaker.
Lea argues that contemporary art is big business and that the work of contemporary artists lacks
spontaneity and creativity, and this can be proven by visiting any art gallery. Susan counters by stating that
spontaneous and creative work is present in most of the smaller, independent galleries, and on that basis
she concludes that Lea is incorrect.
Answer choice (A): Both speakers would disagree with this statement, and dual disagreement is grounds
for eliminating the answer.
Answer choice (B): This is a difficult answer choice, and one that most students reasonably hold as a
Contender. Lea would obviously agree with this statement. Susan’s position is less certain, and a large part
of the uncertainty revolves around the phase “most galleries” in the answer choice. Susan states that “One
can still find spontaneous, innovative new artwork in most of the smaller, independent galleries.” If
smaller, independent galleries make up the vast majority of all galleries, then Susan would likely disagree
with the statement in the answer choice. But there is no assurance that smaller, independent galleries make
up the majority of all galleries (they could be outnumbered by the larger galleries), and under that
circumstance Susan could agree with the statement. Since Susan’s position is uncertain, this answer is
incorrect.
There is a second issue underlying Susan’s statement that has an impact on our assessment of this answer.
Susan states that “one can still find” creative artwork in most small galleries. But finding such artwork in
those galleries does not exclude the possibility that other artwork in the same gallery lacks spontaneity and
creativity. If that were the case, both speakers would agree with the statement.
Answer choice (C): Apply the Agree/Disagree Test: Lea agrees with the statement, but Susan does not
comment on whether contemporary art is big business. Her statement that there are smaller, independent
galleries is not an implicit admission that the whole field has become overly commercialized. This answer
is incorrect because there is no way to know Susan’s position, and thus this answer fails the Test.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. Again, the Agree/Disagree Test crystallizes the issue:
Susan clearly agrees with the statement whereas Lea, who said that a visit to any art gallery shows that
contemporary artists utterly lack creativity and spontaneity, disagrees with the statement.
Note that the reference to “new artwork” in the answer choice is important because it eliminates any
discussion about older creative and spontaneous artwork that may be in galleries. The quantity indicator
“some” also plays a role since it allows for a single example to suffice (see answer choice (B) for the
impact a quantity indicator can have).
Answer choice (E): Lea would likely agree with the statement in this answer choice because she states that
“nowadays art has less to do with self-expression.” Susan’s position is again uncertain. Although she states
that innovative contemporary artwork is available in galleries, she does not make a comparison between
the self-expression of contemporary art and the self-expression of older art. There is no assumption in her
argument that spontaneous, innovative new artwork is not less concerned with self-expression, let alone
“much less.”
No comments:
Post a Comment