1. Psychiatrist: Take any visceral emotion you care to consider. There are always situations in which it is healthy to try to express that emotion. So, there are always situations in which it is healthy to try to express one’s anger.
The conclusion of the argument follows logically if
which one of the following is assumed?
(A) Anger is always expressible.
(B) Anger is a visceral emotion.
(C) Some kinds of emotions are unhealthy to
express.
(D) All emotions that are healthy to express are
visceral.
(E) An emotion is visceral only if it is healthy to
express.
2. Marian Anderson, the famous contralto, did not take success for granted. We know this because Anderson had to struggle early in life, and anyone who has to struggle early in life is able to keep a good perspective on the world.
The conclusion of the argument follows logically if
which one of the following is assumed?
(A) Anyone who succeeds takes success for
granted.
(B) Anyone who is able to keep a good perspective
on the world does not take success for
granted.
(C) Anyone who is able to keep a good perspective
on the world has to struggle early in life.
(D) Anyone who does not take success for granted
has to struggle early in life.
(E) Anyone who does not take success for granted
is able to keep a good perspective on the
world.
3. Columnist: Almost anyone can be an expert, for there are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know. Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area—whatever those may be—is an expert.
The columnist’s conclusion follows logically if
which one of the following is assumed?
(A) Almost anyone can convince some people of
his or her qualifications in some area.
(B) Some experts convince everyone of their
qualifications in almost every area.
(C) Convincing certain people that one is qualified
in an area requires that one actually be
qualified in that area.
(D) Every expert has convinced some people of his
or her qualifications in some area.
(E) Some people manage to convince almost
everyone of their qualifications in one or
more areas.
4. Vague laws set vague limits on people’s freedom, which makes it impossible for them to know for certain whether their actions are legal. Thus, under vague laws people cannot feel secure.
The conclusion follows logically if which one of the
following is assumed?
(A) People can feel secure only if they know for
certain whether their actions are legal.
(B) If people do not know for certain whether their
actions are legal, then they might not feel
secure.
(C) If people know for certain whether their actions
are legal, they can feel secure.
(D) People can feel secure if they are governed by
laws that are not vague.
(E) Only people who feel secure can know for
certain whether their actions are legal.
Justify the Conclusion Problem Set Answer Key
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. Justify. October 2000 LSAT, Section 2, #4. The correct answer choice is (B)
The first step in solving a Justify question is to analyze the structure of the argument:
Premise: There are always situations in which it is healthy to try to express that [visceral]
emotion.
Conclusion: There are always situations in which it is healthy to try to express one’s anger.
A quick mechanistic analysis reveals that the correct answer should contain “anger” and “visceral
emotion.” Only answer choice (B) contains these two elements, and as it turns out, (B) is correct. Answer
choice (B) must also solve the Justify Formula:
Premise: There are always situations in which it is healthy to try to express that [visceral]
emotion.
Answer choice (B): Anger is a visceral emotion.
Does the combination of these two elements lead to the conclusion? Yes, and so the answer must be
correct. The Justify Formula can also be used to eliminate each of the other answer choices.
Question #2. Justify. October 2001 LSAT, Section 2, #14. The correct answer choice is (B)
The structure of the argument is:
Premise: Anyone who has to struggle early in life is able to keep a good perspective on the
world.
Premise: Anderson had to struggle early in life.
Conclusion: Marian Anderson, the famous contralto, did not take success for granted.
A mechanistic analysis reveals that “Anderson” is common to the conclusion and a premise, and “struggle
early in life” is common to the two premises. Thus, we would not expect to see either in the correct
answer. New elements that should be in the correct answer are “able to keep a good perspective on the
world” and “did not take success for granted.” Only answer choices (B) and (E) contain both elements.
Since (B) and (E) are Reversals of each other, let us look at the conditional relationship present in the
stimulus:
Premise: Struggle early in life---------> able to keep a good perspective on the world
Premise: Struggle early in life Anderson
Conclusion: Did not take success for granted Anderson
Clearly, we need a connection that moves from “able to keep a good perspective on the world” to “did not
take success for granted,” such as the following:
able to keep a good perspective on the world------> did not take success for granted
This relationship, which is the same as that presented in answer choice (B), ultimately creates a chain that
can be used to prove the conclusion:
struggle-----> keep a good perspective----------> did not take success for granted
The addition of the premise “Anderson struggled early in life” to the chain above yields the conclusion
“Anderson did not take success for granted.” Hence, answer choice (B) is correct. Answer choice (E) is a
Mistaken Reversal of the correct answer.
Question #3. Justify. October 2001 LSAT, Section 1, #20. The correct answer choice is (A)
The argument can be analyzed as follows:
Premise: Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an
area—whatever those may be—is an expert.
Conclusion: Almost anyone can be an expert.
The argument contains a classic conditional form: In abstract form:
Premise: Convince some people------> Expert (A---------> B)
Conclusion: Expert (Almost anyone) (B)
The element that must be added to justify the conclusion is:
Convince some people (Almost anyone) (A)
Answer choice (A) contains this element and is the correct answer. Use the Justify Formula to confirm the
answer if it is still unclear.
Many students mistakenly select answer choice (D). Answer choice (D) is the Mistaken Reversal of the
premise. Use the Justify Formula to reveal why this answer fails:
Premise: Convince some people----------> Expert
Answer choice (D): Expert-----------> Convince some people
Does the combination of these two statements prove that almost anyone can be an expert? No, and
therefore the answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (E) is incorrect because it only justifies the conclusion that some people are experts.
Question #4. Justify. December 2001 LSAT, Section 2, #12. The correct answer choice is (A)
The argument can be analyzed as follows:
Premise: Vague laws set vague limits on people’s freedom.
Premise: Vague limits on people’s freedom makes it impossible for them to know for certain
whether their actions are legal.
Conclusion: Under vague laws people cannot feel secure.
There is a new element in the conclusion—“cannot feel secure”—that must be justified. There is also an
unconnected element in the premise—“know for certain whether their actions are legal”—that will likely
appear in the answer choice. Unfortunately, four of the answer choices contain those two elements. Only
answer choice (D) does not contain both, and as (D) also contains the “vague law” element that appears in
both a premise and the conclusion, we can eliminate (D) for the moment.
Given the plethora of answers that remain in contention, first examine the conditional structure that is
extant in the stimulus:
Premises: Vague laws--------> Vague limits------> Know actions are legal
Conclusion: Vague laws-------->Secure
Abstractly, this relationship is similar to:
Premises: A-------> B---------> C
Conclusion: A---------> D
The relationship that must be added to the premise to prove the conclusion is:
C ----------> D
Translating the diagram back to the terms used in our premise and conclusion, we need a statement like the
following:
Know actions are legal------------> Secure
Of course, the contrapositive of this statement would also be acceptable. Answer choice (A) is the
contrapositive and thus (A) is correct.
Answer choice (B): This answer is incorrect because it has a different level of certainty than the
conclusion: this answer uses the phrase “might not” when the conclusion uses “cannot.” If this flaw were
corrected, the answer would be correct.
Answer choice (C): This answer is the Mistaken Reversal of the correct answer.
Answer choice (D): This answer was eliminated previously.
Answer choice (E): This answer is also the Mistaken Reversal of the correct answer.
If you found yourself in trouble on this question, understanding that answers such as (C) and (E) are
identical would allow you to eliminate them under the Uniqueness Rule of Answer Choices (that the
correct answer must have unique properties).
The conclusion of the argument follows logically if
which one of the following is assumed?
(A) Anger is always expressible.
(B) Anger is a visceral emotion.
(C) Some kinds of emotions are unhealthy to
express.
(D) All emotions that are healthy to express are
visceral.
(E) An emotion is visceral only if it is healthy to
express.
2. Marian Anderson, the famous contralto, did not take success for granted. We know this because Anderson had to struggle early in life, and anyone who has to struggle early in life is able to keep a good perspective on the world.
The conclusion of the argument follows logically if
which one of the following is assumed?
(A) Anyone who succeeds takes success for
granted.
(B) Anyone who is able to keep a good perspective
on the world does not take success for
granted.
(C) Anyone who is able to keep a good perspective
on the world has to struggle early in life.
(D) Anyone who does not take success for granted
has to struggle early in life.
(E) Anyone who does not take success for granted
is able to keep a good perspective on the
world.
3. Columnist: Almost anyone can be an expert, for there are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know. Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area—whatever those may be—is an expert.
The columnist’s conclusion follows logically if
which one of the following is assumed?
(A) Almost anyone can convince some people of
his or her qualifications in some area.
(B) Some experts convince everyone of their
qualifications in almost every area.
(C) Convincing certain people that one is qualified
in an area requires that one actually be
qualified in that area.
(D) Every expert has convinced some people of his
or her qualifications in some area.
(E) Some people manage to convince almost
everyone of their qualifications in one or
more areas.
4. Vague laws set vague limits on people’s freedom, which makes it impossible for them to know for certain whether their actions are legal. Thus, under vague laws people cannot feel secure.
The conclusion follows logically if which one of the
following is assumed?
(A) People can feel secure only if they know for
certain whether their actions are legal.
(B) If people do not know for certain whether their
actions are legal, then they might not feel
secure.
(C) If people know for certain whether their actions
are legal, they can feel secure.
(D) People can feel secure if they are governed by
laws that are not vague.
(E) Only people who feel secure can know for
certain whether their actions are legal.
Justify the Conclusion Problem Set Answer Key
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. Justify. October 2000 LSAT, Section 2, #4. The correct answer choice is (B)
The first step in solving a Justify question is to analyze the structure of the argument:
Premise: There are always situations in which it is healthy to try to express that [visceral]
emotion.
Conclusion: There are always situations in which it is healthy to try to express one’s anger.
A quick mechanistic analysis reveals that the correct answer should contain “anger” and “visceral
emotion.” Only answer choice (B) contains these two elements, and as it turns out, (B) is correct. Answer
choice (B) must also solve the Justify Formula:
Premise: There are always situations in which it is healthy to try to express that [visceral]
emotion.
Answer choice (B): Anger is a visceral emotion.
Does the combination of these two elements lead to the conclusion? Yes, and so the answer must be
correct. The Justify Formula can also be used to eliminate each of the other answer choices.
Question #2. Justify. October 2001 LSAT, Section 2, #14. The correct answer choice is (B)
The structure of the argument is:
Premise: Anyone who has to struggle early in life is able to keep a good perspective on the
world.
Premise: Anderson had to struggle early in life.
Conclusion: Marian Anderson, the famous contralto, did not take success for granted.
A mechanistic analysis reveals that “Anderson” is common to the conclusion and a premise, and “struggle
early in life” is common to the two premises. Thus, we would not expect to see either in the correct
answer. New elements that should be in the correct answer are “able to keep a good perspective on the
world” and “did not take success for granted.” Only answer choices (B) and (E) contain both elements.
Since (B) and (E) are Reversals of each other, let us look at the conditional relationship present in the
stimulus:
Premise: Struggle early in life---------> able to keep a good perspective on the world
Premise: Struggle early in life Anderson
Conclusion: Did not take success for granted Anderson
Clearly, we need a connection that moves from “able to keep a good perspective on the world” to “did not
take success for granted,” such as the following:
able to keep a good perspective on the world------> did not take success for granted
This relationship, which is the same as that presented in answer choice (B), ultimately creates a chain that
can be used to prove the conclusion:
struggle-----> keep a good perspective----------> did not take success for granted
The addition of the premise “Anderson struggled early in life” to the chain above yields the conclusion
“Anderson did not take success for granted.” Hence, answer choice (B) is correct. Answer choice (E) is a
Mistaken Reversal of the correct answer.
Question #3. Justify. October 2001 LSAT, Section 1, #20. The correct answer choice is (A)
The argument can be analyzed as follows:
Premise: Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an
area—whatever those may be—is an expert.
Conclusion: Almost anyone can be an expert.
The argument contains a classic conditional form: In abstract form:
Premise: Convince some people------> Expert (A---------> B)
Conclusion: Expert (Almost anyone) (B)
The element that must be added to justify the conclusion is:
Convince some people (Almost anyone) (A)
Answer choice (A) contains this element and is the correct answer. Use the Justify Formula to confirm the
answer if it is still unclear.
Many students mistakenly select answer choice (D). Answer choice (D) is the Mistaken Reversal of the
premise. Use the Justify Formula to reveal why this answer fails:
Premise: Convince some people----------> Expert
Answer choice (D): Expert-----------> Convince some people
Does the combination of these two statements prove that almost anyone can be an expert? No, and
therefore the answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (E) is incorrect because it only justifies the conclusion that some people are experts.
Question #4. Justify. December 2001 LSAT, Section 2, #12. The correct answer choice is (A)
The argument can be analyzed as follows:
Premise: Vague laws set vague limits on people’s freedom.
Premise: Vague limits on people’s freedom makes it impossible for them to know for certain
whether their actions are legal.
Conclusion: Under vague laws people cannot feel secure.
There is a new element in the conclusion—“cannot feel secure”—that must be justified. There is also an
unconnected element in the premise—“know for certain whether their actions are legal”—that will likely
appear in the answer choice. Unfortunately, four of the answer choices contain those two elements. Only
answer choice (D) does not contain both, and as (D) also contains the “vague law” element that appears in
both a premise and the conclusion, we can eliminate (D) for the moment.
Given the plethora of answers that remain in contention, first examine the conditional structure that is
extant in the stimulus:
Premises: Vague laws--------> Vague limits------>
Conclusion: Vague laws-------->
Abstractly, this relationship is similar to:
Premises: A-------> B--------->
Conclusion: A--------->
The relationship that must be added to the premise to prove the conclusion is:
Translating the diagram back to the terms used in our premise and conclusion, we need a statement like the
following:
Of course, the contrapositive of this statement would also be acceptable. Answer choice (A) is the
contrapositive and thus (A) is correct.
Answer choice (B): This answer is incorrect because it has a different level of certainty than the
conclusion: this answer uses the phrase “might not” when the conclusion uses “cannot.” If this flaw were
corrected, the answer would be correct.
Answer choice (C): This answer is the Mistaken Reversal of the correct answer.
Answer choice (D): This answer was eliminated previously.
Answer choice (E): This answer is also the Mistaken Reversal of the correct answer.
If you found yourself in trouble on this question, understanding that answers such as (C) and (E) are
identical would allow you to eliminate them under the Uniqueness Rule of Answer Choices (that the
correct answer must have unique properties).
No comments:
Post a Comment