Point at Issue Question Problem Set Answer Key

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.

Numbers and Percentages Problem Set Answer Key

All answer keys in this book 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. Flaw-#%. December 2003 LSAT, Section 1, #12. The correct answer choice is (D)
The politician’s argument is that the claims that price increases have averaged less than 3 percent are
wrong, and in support of that position the politician cites several examples of price increases, each of
which is greater than 3 percent. As mentioned in one of the chapter sidebars, “an average is a composite
number, and within the average there can be a significant degree of variation and no single entity need
embody the exact characteristic of the average (for example, the average weight of a 1 pound rock and a
99 pound rock is 50 pounds).” In making the argument, the politician has focused in on several individual
examples while ignoring the fact that an average is a compilation of many different numbers. Answer
choice (D) perfectly captures the essence of this sampling error.
Answer choice (A): The argument does not contain a source or ad hominem attack. Simply stating that a
position is wrong is different than criticizing the character of that person.
Answer choice (B): To properly claim that the economists are wrong does not require showing that they
are not pricing experts, and hence this answer is incorrect
Answer choice (C): The politician attempts to refute the position by providing evidence about large price
increases for certain products. This process, which involves facts, is different than inferring that a claim is
false because it has not been shown to be true. This answer choice would better describe an argument such
as the following: “you have not proven that God exists, so there must be no God.”
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. Citing several examples to refute an average is a doomed
strategy.
Answer choice (E): There is no appeal to emotion present; percentages are used to make the argument.
Question #2. Must-#%. December 1995 LSAT, Section 2, #24. The correct answer choice is (E)
The situation in Ditrama is as follows:
Under the federal revenue-sharing plan, each region receives a share of federal revenues equal to
the share of the total population of Ditrama residing in that region, as shown by a yearly
population survey.
Last year, the percentage of federal revenues Korva received for its share decreased somewhat
even though the population survey on which the revenue-sharing was based showed that Korva’s
population had increased.
If the total population of Korva increased but at the same time they experienced a decrease in revenue
allocation, the only possible solution is that the total population of Ditrama increased by more than the
Korva increase. Thus, you must seek an answer that indicates that the total population increased more than
Korva’s population increased. But be careful: this question is one of high difficulty, and the test makers do
not make it easy to spot the correct answer.
Answer choice (A): Either Mitro or Guadar could have a smaller number of residents than Korva.
Answer choice (B): This answer is impossible to prove because we do not have information about the
population growth of Korva in the years prior to the last one.
Answer choice (C): This is the most popular wrong answer choice. The key error is the claim that “Mitro
and Guadar each increased by a percentage that exceeded” Korva’s increase. Although it must be true that
at least one exceeded Korva’s increase, it does not have to be true that both exceeded Korva, as shown by
the following example:

Flaw in the Reasoning Question Problem Set Answer Key

All answer keys in this book 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. Flaw. October 2000 LSAT, Section 2, #6. The correct answer choice is (C)
As with all Flaw in the Reasoning questions, you must closely examine the relationship between the
premises and the conclusion. In this argument, the editorial concludes that the advice of the economic
advisor is untrustworthy and “the premier should discard any hope of reducing taxes without a significant
decrease in government services.” What support is offered for this position? Is a discussion of taxation
issued presented? Is a discussion of the cost of government service provided? Is the position of the
economic advisor dissected? No. According to the editorial, the only reason for ignoring the economic
advisor’s advice is that the advisor was convicted in his youth of embezzlement. This fact has no bearing
on the argument made by the advisor, and focuses instead on attacking the person making the argument.
This is a classic Source or ad hominem argument, and you should immediately seek an answer choice that
reflects this fact.
Answer choice (A): A proposal is not rejected in the stimulus; rather, a goal is advocated by the advisor
and then the author questions whether that goal can be met by examining the background of the advisor.
There is no discussion of a “particular implementation” that is likely to fail.
Answer choice (B): This answer fails the Fact Test because there is no discussion of “what could happen
otherwise” and no discussion of people’s fears.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. The answer is a perfect description of a Source argument.
Answer choice (D): This answer describes an evidence error in which a lack of evidence for a position is
considered to hurt the claim. In the argument, the author improperly used evidence about the advisor, and
this mistake is the error in the argument. Even though this introduced a flaw into the argument, from the
author’s perspective this was an attempt to use evidence against a position to hurt the position. The
editorial did not state or indicate that there was a lack of evidence when forming the conclusion. Put
simply, the editor thought he had a reason that undermined the claim; no argument was made that there
was a lack of evidence.
Answer choice (E): This answer describes Circular Reasoning. But, because the argument in the stimulus
gives reasons for its position (albeit weak ones), the argument is not circular.
Question #2. Flaw. December 2001 LSAT, Section 1, #10. The correct answer choice is (C)
As always, look closely at the structure of the argument—specifically the relationships between the
premises and conclusion. This breakdown presents the pieces in the order given in the argument:
Conclusion: Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality.
Subconclusion/
Premise: The most compelling pieces of evidence for this are those few of the numerous articles
submitted by Cotrell that are superior.
Premise: Cotrell, who is incapable of writing an article that is better than average, must obviously
have plagiarized superior ones.
Examine the language in the conclusion (“Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average
quality”) and the premise (“Cotrell, who is incapable of writing an article that is better than average”). The
two are identical in meaning, and thus we have an argument with circular reasoning. Do not be distracted
by the plagiarism argument in the middle of the text—that is a tool used to physically separate the
conclusion and premise, making it harder to recognize that the two are identical.
Answer choice (A): The argument does not ignore the potential counterevidence to the conclusion. The
potential counterevidence is the few articles submitted by Cotrell that are superior, and the author dismisses
them by claiming they are plagiarized. Although the reasoning used to dismiss the good articles is flawed,
it is an attempt to address the evidence, and thus the argument cannot be said to “simply ignore the
existence of potential counterevidence.”
Answer choice (B): This answer choice describes an Overgeneralization. The answer is wrong because
the argument generalizes by dismissing the atypical occurrences (the superior articles), as opposed to
generalizing from them.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer, and one of several different ways to describe Circular
Reasoning (note that in the first problem in this set Circular Reasoning was an incorrect answer). More
often than not, when you see Circular Reasoning it will be an incorrect answer choice, but you cannot be
complacent and simply assume it will be wrong every time you see it. This problem proves that it does
appear as the correct answer on occasion.
Answer choice (D): This answer describes an Appeal to Authority. The answer fails the Fact Test because
there is no reference to the judgment of experts.
Answer choice (E): This answer is similar to answer choice (B). The answer starts out reasonably well—
“it infers limits on ability.” The argument does attempt this (depending on your definition of “infer”). But,
does the argument make this inference based on a “few isolated lapses in performance?” No, the argument
dismisses the few superior performances. In this sense the answer is Half Right, Half Wrong. Therefore, it
is incorrect.
Question #3. Flaw. October 2002 LSAT, Section 1, #23. The correct answer choice is (A)
The structure of the argument is as follows:
Premise: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life.
Premise: Five animal studies were recently conducted to investigate whether this process alters
food in a way that could be dangerous to people who eat it. The studies concluded that
irradiated food is safe for humans to eat.
Premise: These studies were subsequently found by a panel of independent scientists to be
seriously flawed in their methodology.
Conclusion: Irradiated food is not safe for human consumption.
The author uses the fact that the studies were flawed to conclude that irradiated food is not safe for human
consumption. Is this a reasonable conclusion? No. The studies purported to prove that irradiated food is
safe. The fact that the studies used flawed methodology should have been used to prove that the studies
did not prove that irradiated food was safe. Instead, the activist takes the argument too far, believing that
because the studies did not prove that irradiated food is safe, therefore irradiated food is not safe. This is
the third errorin the Errors in the Use of Evidence section, where “Some evidence against a position is
taken to prove that position is false.” Answer choice (A) perfectly describes this mistake.
Answer choice (B): Use the Fact Test to easily eliminate this answer. Although past studies were shown to
have methodological flaws, this evidence is not used to prove that methodologically sound alternatives are
impossible to achieve.
Answer choice (C): It’s true, the argument does fail to consider the possibility that a non-flawed study
might provide only weak support for its conclusion. But—and this is the critical question—is that a flaw in
the reasoning of the activist? No, it is perfectly acceptable for the author to ignore an issue (non-flawed
studies) that does not relate to his argument. Remember, the correct answer choice must describe a flaw in
the reasoning of the argument, not just something that occurred in the argument.
Answer choice (D): As with answer choice (C), the author has failed to consider the statement in this
answer choice. But is this a flaw? No. The fact that animal testing is widely done and the results are
accepted as indicative of possible problems with humans falls under the “commonsense information”
discussed back in Chapter Two. Testing products on animals is a current fact of life, and the author made a
reasoning error by failing to consider the possibility that what is safe for animals might not always be safe
for human beings.
Another way of looking at this answer is that it effectively states that the author has failed to consider that
there is a False Analogy between animals and humans. He fails to consider it because the analogy between
animals and humans is not false.
Answer choice (E): Again, the activist does fail to establish this, but it is not necessary since the
independent scientists only commented on the methodology of the study, not the irradiated food itself.
Question #4. Flaw. October 2001 LSAT, Section 2, #18. The correct answer choice is (B)
This argument contains an error of composition, one where the status-enhancing activities of most
scientists are said to prove that the scientific community as a whole acts to enhance its status.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice describes a compositional error, but not the one that occurs in the
stimulus. The stimulus makes a judgment about the scientific community as a whole whereas this answer
states that a judgment is made about each and every scientist. The community as a whole is different than
each and every scientist, and thus this answer is incorrect.
If you are thinking about the difference between the community as a whole and each member within the
community, consider this statement: “Our community is against stealing.” While that may be true, there
may also be individual members of the community who are thieves and have no qualm about stealing.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer, and the answer describes the correct compositional error
made by the philosopher.
Answer choice (C): The answer is wrong—the author does not presume that the aim of personal career
enhancement never advances the pursuit of truth. Consider the second sentence: “Accordingly, the
professional activities of most scientists are directed toward personal career enhancement, and only
incidentally toward the pursuit of truth. The portion that states “only incidentally toward the pursuit of
truth” indicates that the author allows for the possibility that career-enhancement activities can result in
activities that pursue truth, even if only a little bit. But, since that contradicts the force of never, this answer
is incorrect.
This is the most frequently chosen wrong answer, as about 20% of test takers select this choice.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice describes the Uncertain Use of a Term. The term “self-interested”
is used only once in the argument (at the end of the first sentence), and the remainder of the argument is
consistent with the generally accepted meaning of “self-interested” and uses that meaning unambiguously.
Answer choice (E): The argument in the stimulus is about the relationships of parts and wholes, not about
cause and effect. This answer, which describes reasoning from an effect in order to infer its cause, is
therefore incorrect. An example of the reasoning described in this answer choice would be: “We know this
window was broken this afternoon, and only one pane of the window was broken. We also know the pane
was broken by a circular object. Therefore, a baseball was the cause of the broken window.

Method of Reasoning Problem 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. 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.

Method of Reasoning Problem 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. 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.

Assumption 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. 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.

Causal Reasoning 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. Weaken-CE. December 2000 LSAT, Section 1, #25. The correct answer choice is (D)
The stimulus commits the classic error of assuming that because two events occur simultaneously that one
must cause the other. The phrase used to indicate the causality is “responsible for.”
D = anticollision device
SD = sudden disappearance of key information
C                           E
D----------------------> SD
The question stem asks you to weaken the argument, and according to the “How to Attack a Causal
Conclusion” section you should be on the lookout for one of several primary methods of attacking the
argument.
Answer choice (A): This answer presents another effect of the cause, but this additional effect does not
weaken the argument. To analogize this answer to the argument, imagine a scenario where a speaker
concludes that playing football makes a person more prone to sustaining a leg injury. Would suggesting
that playing football makes a person more prone to a head injury (another effect) undermine the first
statement? No.
Answer choice (B): This is an Opposite answer that supports the conclusion. By showing that the key
information did not disappear prior to the appearance of the anticollision device, the argument is
strengthened because the likelihood that the device is at fault is increased.
Answer choice (C): This information has no effect on determining if the device causes the information to
disappear from the screen because it references an event that has yet to occur.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer, and this answer falls into the third category for weakening
a causal argument: “Show that although the effect exists, the cause did not occur.” In this instance, the
effect of information disappearing from the screen occurred prior to the creation of the supposed causal
agent, the anticollision device.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice has no impact on the argument. We cannot make a judgment
based on the size of the airport because the argument did not mention airport size or anything directly
related to airport size.
Question #2. Must-CE. December 2001 LSAT, Section 1, #4. The correct answer choice is (C)
The causal relationship in this problem appears in the premise, and the argument is structured as follows:
Premise: Most antidepressant drugs cause weight gain.
Premise: Dieting can help reduce the amount of weight gained while taking such antidepressants
Conclusion: Some weight gain is unlikely to be preventable.
Note that the causal premise specifically states that “most” antidepressants cause weight gain, not
necessarily all antidepressants. Also, the second premise specifically refers to antidepressants causing
weight gain (the use of “such” indicates this). The second premise also indicates that the amount gained
can be reduced, not that dieting can stop weight gain. Perhaps the antidepressants cause a twenty pound
weight gain, but dieting can reduce that to a ten pound total gain.
The question stem is a Must Be True, and thus you must accept the stimulus information and find an
answer that is proven by that information.
Answer choice (A): This is an Exaggerated answer. The stimulus indicates that most antidepressants cause
weight gain, leaving open the possibility that some do not. This answer choice references any
antidepressant drug. Further, the stimulus does not address the role of a physician or the advisability of
prescribing certain drugs under certain conditions. The benefits of prescribing an antidepressant that causes
weight gain to an overweight patient may well outweigh the negatives (pun intended).
Answer choice (B): This is also an Exaggerated answer. The stimulus allows for antidepressants that do
not cause weight gain.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. Some individuals taking antidepressants that cause weight
gain will gain weight even though dieting can reduce the amount of the gain.
Answer choice (D): This is an Opposite answer. The stimulus and correct answer both indicate that people
taking the weight gain-causing antidepressants will gain weight regardless of whether they diet. Thus, the
weight gain cannot be attributed to a lack of dieting.
Answer choice (E): This answer is too strong. Not all patients necessarily take antidepressants that cause
weight gain, so those that do not might not need to diet to maintain their weight.
Question #3. Weaken-CE. December 2003 LSAT, Section 2, #6. The correct answer choice is (C)
The premise contains information concerning a rise in the number of calls involving violent crimes
compared to last year. This is where smart LSAT reading comes into play: does the argument say there is
more crime, or does it say there are more calls reporting crime? Recognizing the difference is critical for
successfully solving this problem. The conclusion about citizens being more likely to be victimized by a
violent crime indicates the author believes the following causal relationship:
GNC = greater number of violent crimes
MC = more calls involving violent crimes
C                           E
GNC-------------------> MC
Literally, the author believes that there are more violent crimes and therefore the police are responding to
more violent crime calls.
The question stem asks you to weaken the argument, and the correct answer falls into one of the five basic
methods for weakening a causal argument.
Answer choice (A): This is an Opposite answer that strengthens the argument.
Answer choice (B): Because the argument is about “the average citizen of this town,” information about
victims of a certain age is not relevant.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. By showing that people are more willing to report crimes
(and thus call them in for response), an alternate cause for the rise in the number of calls is given.
Answer choice (D): This answer only addresses an effect of the concern over crime, and does not address
the causal relationship that underlies the argument.
Answer choice (E): This answer does not address a possible rise in crime or the reasons for the rise in
responses to calls involving violent crime.
Question #4. Weaken-CE. October 1999 LSAT, Section 2, #24. The correct answer choice is (B)
The premises contain correlations, and the conclusion makes a causal claim:
PC = adequate prenatal care
DR = decrease risk of low birth weight babies
C                      E
PC----------------> DR
The question stem asks you to weaken the argument, and the correct answer falls into one of the five basic
methods for weakening a causal argument.

Weaken Question 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. 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.

Must Be True Problem Set Answer Key

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. Must. October 2003 LSAT, Section #2, #6. The correct answer choice is (A)
Unlike many Must Be True question stimuli, this stimulus contains an argument. The conclusion is in the
second sentence: “the primary function of law is surely to help order society so that its institutions,
organizations, and citizenry can work together harmoniously, regardless of any further moral aims of the
law.” The stimulus also begins with the “Some argue that...” construction, and as usual, is followed by a
conclusion that argues against the position established in the first sentence (see “A Commonly Used
Construction” in Chapter Two if this sounds unfamiliar). The last sentence is a premise that proves to be
key for choosing the correct answer.
Answer choice (A): This correct answer is largely a paraphrase of the last sentence.
Answer choice (B): While the author certainly agrees with the first part of the sentence, in the second part
the phrase “devoid of moral aims” is too strong to be supported by the information in the stimulus. The last
sentence indicates that morality has some effect on the law and invalidates the “devoid” claim.
Answer choice (C): This is an Exaggerated answer. Although the last sentence indicates that religious faith
has been grounds for making exceptions in the application of law, the stimulus does not indicate that
actions based on religious or moral belief tend to receive the protection of the highest courts.
Answer choice (D): The author indicates that the “primary function” of law is to help order society; the
author does not indicate that this is the one and only function of law. The answer choice overstates the case
by saying that a society ordered by law should not reflect any moral convictions about the ordering.
Answer choice (E): No mention is made of the “best way” to promote cooperation, only that the primary
function of law is to promote such cooperation.
Question #2. Must. June 2002 LSAT, Section #1, #7. The correct answer choice is (B)
The stimulus tells the story of recent physics theories: Newtonian physics was preeminent for over two
centuries, and despite widespread acknowledgment and confirmation it was surpassed by Einsteinian
physics in the early 1900s.

Answer Key

Identify The Question Stem Drill
The typical student misses about half of the questions in this drill. Do not worry about how many you
miss; the point of this drill is to acquaint you with the different question stems. As you see more
examples of each type of question, your ability to correctly identify each stem will improve.
1. Question Type: Resolve the Paradox
Stem drawn from the June 2003 LSAT. The presence of the phrase “Which one of the following, if true,”
indicates that this question stem must be from either the second or third question family. Because the
third family is Weaken, and the question stem asks you to “explain,” the question cannot be from the
third family. Thus, the question must be from the second family and can only be an Assumption, Justify,
Strengthen, or Resolve question. The idea of explaining is most closely aligned with Resolving the
Paradox.
2. Question Type: Must Be True
Stem drawn from the June 2002 LSAT. The word “inferred” means “must be true,” hence that is the
classification of this question.
3. Question Type: Weaken
Stem drawn from the October 2002 LSAT. The presence of the phrase “Which one of the following, if
true,” indicates that this question stem must be from either the second or third question family. The
presence of the word “weakens” indicates that this is a Weaken question.
4. Question Type: Assumption
Stem drawn from the December 2003 LSAT. The key words in this stem are “required” and
“assumption,” making this an Assumption question. You must be careful when you see the word
“assumption” because that word can also be used in Justify the Conclusion questions. That usage will be
discussed in more detail in Chapter Nine.
5. Question Type: Parallel
Stem drawn from the October 2003 LSAT. The key phrases in this stem are “most similar” and “to the
argument above.” Because the argument in the stimulus is used as a model for one of the answers, this is
a Parallel Reasoning question.
6. Question Type: Main Point
Stem drawn from the December 2001 LSAT. Because the stem asks you to find the main point, this
question is categorized as Main Point.
7. Question Type: Strengthen
Stem drawn from the December 2003 LSAT. The presence of the phrase “Which one of the following, if
true,” indicates that this question stem must be from either the second or third question family. Because
the third family is Weaken, and the question stem asks you to “support,” the question cannot be from the
third family. Thus, the question must be from the second family and can only be an Assumption, Justify,
Strengthen, or Resolve question. The idea of supporting is the same as Strengthening.
8. Question Type: Flaw
Stem drawn from the June 2002 LSAT. The presence of the word “flawed” could indicate either a
Weaken question or a Flaw in the Reasoning question. In this case, the stem requests you to identify the
flaw in the argument (or reasoning), hence this question is a Flaw in the Reasoning question.
9. Question Type: Point at Issue
Stem drawn from the October 2002 LSAT. The presence of two speakers—Tony and Raoul—and the
phrase “disagree about” indicates that this is a Point at Issue question.
10. Question Type: Cannot Be True
Stem drawn from the December 2003 LSAT. The phrase “must be false” is equivalent to “cannot be
true.” Thus, this question is properly classified as Cannot Be True. Note that the phrase “If the statements
above are true” indicates that this question stem must come from either the first or fourth question
family.
11. Question Type: Method
Stem drawn from the June 2003 LSAT. By asking how the advertisement “proceeds,” the test makers
wish to know the way in which the argument is made, in other words, the method of the reasoning.
12. Question Type: Justify
Stem drawn from the October 2003 LSAT. In some ways, this is an unfair question to ask so early in the
book (sorry!). On the surface this appears to be an Assumption question, so if you listed that as your
answer, do not feel badly. As we will discuss in Chapter Nine, the presence of the words “if” and
“properly drawn” along with “assumed” normally indicate a Justify question, as they do here.
13. Question Type: Evaluate
Stem drawn from the December 2001 LSAT. The key phrase is “evaluating the columnists’s argument,”
which indicates that the test makers require you to find the question that would best help in evaluating
the author’s argument. Thus, the question is classified as Evaluate the Argument.
14. Question Type: Method
Stem drawn from the June 2003 LSAT. Although the question stem uses the word “challenges,” this is
not a Weaken question because the stem asks for a description of the way Anne’s reasoning was
challenged. Thus, you are asked to identify Sue’s method of reasoning.
15. Question Type: Must Be True
Stem drawn from the October 2003 LSAT. The phrase “The statements above, if true,” indicates that this
question must come from either the first or fourth question family. In this case, the “most strongly
support” is used with the intent of proving one of the answers as correct. Hence, this is a Must Be True
question. Note how the use of the word “support” in this question stem differs from the usage in problem
#7.

Answer Key

Premise and Conclusion Analysis Drill
Question #1. Stimulus drawn from the October 2002 LSAT.
Conclusion: From these contradictory opinions, we see that experts are useless for guiding one’s
decisions about one’s health.
Premise: Every year, new reports appear concerning the health risks posed by certain substances,
such as coffee and sugar.
Premise: One year an article claimed that coffee is dangerous to one’s health.
Premise: The next year, another article argued that coffee has some benefits for one’s health.
The conclusion is introduced by the phrase “we see that.”
The argument is weak. The conclusion is far too strong in saying that “experts are useless.” Just because
the different articles about substances disagree does not prove that experts cannot help you with your
health (a much broader field than the substances cover). In addition, the articles about coffee could have
covered differing aspects of coffee, some of which are beneficial and some of which are detrimental.
Question #2. Stimulus drawn from the October 2002 LSAT.
Conclusion: The incentive of grades, therefore, serves no essential academic purpose.
Premise: Some teachers claim that students would not learn curricular content without the
incentive of grades.
Premise: But students with intense interest in the material would learn it without this incentive,
while the behavior of students lacking all interest in the material is unaffected by such an
incentive.
The conclusion contains the conclusion indicator, “therefore.” Note also the use of the “Some teachers
claim...” device discussed earlier in the chapter. This construction raises a viewpoint that the author
eventually argues against.
The argument is weak. When discussing the students, the author makes the mistake of discussing only
the extremes—those with intense interest and those lacking all interest. No effort is made to address the
students who fall between these extremes.
Question #3. Stimulus drawn from the October 2002 LSAT.
Conclusion: Building a dam would yield no overall gain in agricultural productivity in the region
as a whole.
Premise: Damming the Merv River would provide irrigation for the dry land in its upstream
areas.
Premise: Unfortunately, a dam would reduce agricultural productivity in the fertile land
downstream by reducing the availability and quality of water there.
Premise: The productivity loss in the downstream area would be greater than the productivity
gain upstream.
The conclusion is introduced in the last sentence by the indicator “so.”
The argument is strong. The author discusses both the upstream and downstream areas, showing that the
gain from the dam in the upstream area would not offset the loss of productivity in the downstream area.
In fact, it appears an even stronger conclusion would be warranted, such as “building a dam would yield
an overall loss of productivity. Since the author directly addresses overall productivity, possible
objections about acreage and volume produced are rendered moot. The author even goes so far as to
indicate that the downstream land is fertile, deflecting another possible objection about the work
involved in making the land productive.
Note that this is a good example of a fantasy stimulus, one that is based on a scenario that does not exist
in the real world. There is no “Merv River” anywhere in the world (although there was an ancient city of
Merv in Turkmenistan). Stimuli like this one are often created to portray a certain reasoning form or
situation. While fantasy stimuli are often obvious (containing fake countries, etc.), you should not
approach them any differently than real-world, fact-based stimuli because Logical Reasoning is about
argumentation, and argumentation can be portrayed equally well in real world or fantasy stimuli.