Principle Question Review

Principle questions (PR) are not a separate question type but are instead an
“overlay” that appears in a variety of question types.
A principle is a broad rule that specifies what actions or judgments are correct in
certain situations. The degree of generality of principles can vary considerably,
and some are much narrower than others.
Since a principle is by definition a broad rule (usually conditional in nature), the
presence of the Principle indicator serves to broaden the scope of the question.
The question becomes more abstract, and you must analyze the problem to
identify the underlying relationships. Functionally, you must take a broad,
global proposition and apply it in a specific manner, either to the answer choices
(as in a Must or Parallel question) or to the stimulus (as in a Strengthen or
Justify question).
In Must-PR questions you must use the principle presented in the stimulus and
then apply it to the situation in each answer choice (one principle applied to five
situations). The presence of the principle designation broadens the question, and
the answer choice can address a scenario not included in the stimulus.
In Strengthen-PR questions each answer choice contains a principle that acts as
an additional, broad premise that supports or proves the conclusion
(functionally, five different principles are applied to the situation in the
stimulus).
When you encounter a Principle designator in the question stem, prepare to
apply the principle to a situation that falls under the purview of the principle but
is not necessarily directly addressed by the principle. This process of abstraction
consumes more time that the average question and contributes to lengthening
the problem.

Strengthen/Justify Principle Questions

In these questions each answer choice contains a principle that acts as
an additional, broad premise that supports or proves the conclusion.
Functionally, five different principles are applied to the situation in the
stimulus. While reading the stimulus, you must think in abstract terms
and identify an underlying idea or belief that can be used to draw the
conclusion in the stimulus. Then, as you analyze the answer choices, tie
this idea or belief to the structure of the author’s argument and ask
yourself, “If this answer is true, does it support or prove the
conclusion?”
Now read an example of this type of question and get a better sense of
how the inclusion of the Principle concept affects the problem. Please
take a moment to complete the following question:
1. Jeff: Proposed regulations concerning the use of
animals in scientific experimentation would
prohibit experimentation on those species that
humans empathize with: dogs and horses, for
example. But extensive neurological research
on mammals shows that they are all capable of
feeling pain, just as dogs and horses are. Hence,
this proposal should be extended to all
experimentation on all mammals.
Miranda: Yet the issue of pain is not the crux of the
matter. Experimentation on any nonhuman
animal undermines respect for life itself
because only humans are capable of consenting
to an experiment. Since any activity that
undermines respect for life diminishes the
quality of all of our lives, the new regulations
should ban all such experimentation.
Which one of the following is a principle that, if
established, would best support Jeff’s conclusion?
(A) Regulations on the use of animals in scientific
experimentation should be primarily
concerned with respecting the feelings of the
humans who will perform those experiments.
(B) Whatever means are used to determine whether
dogs and horses feel pain should also be used
to determine whether other animals feel pain.
(C) Only those experiments on animals that are
known to cause those animals pain should be
prohibited.
(D) Scientists who perform experiments on animals
should empathize with any mammal as much
as they empathize with dogs or horses.
(E) Scientific experimentation should be
prohibited on any creature that is capable of
feeling pain.
Like the previous question, this is a lengthy and time-consuming
problem. Regardless, do not be intimidated by the size of the question—
some of the longest LSAT problems have been fairly easy.
The question stem in this problem asks for a principle that would
support Jeff’s conclusion. As such, this is a Strengthen-PR question, and
you can ignore Miranda’s argument since it appears after Jeff’s
argument.
Jeff’s argument can be analyzed as follows:
Premise: Proposed regulations concerning the use of animals
in scientific experimentation would prohibit
experimentation on those species that humans
empathize with: dogs and horses, for example.
Premise: But extensive neurological research on mammals
shows that they are all capable of feeling pain, just as
dogs and horses are.
Conclusion: Hence, this proposal should be extended to all
experimentation on all mammals.
On the basis that all mammals can feel pain, Jeff concludes that the
experimentation prohibition should be extended to all mammals. In
drawing this conclusion, Jeff goes beyond the parameters of the first
premise, which indicates that empathy was the basis for the proposed
experimentation prohibition. Jeff’s conclusion ignores the empathy
factor, and uses just the pain element to arrive at the conclusion. Most
students find the argument relatively easy to understand, but it is
important to separate out the exact reason that underlies Jeff’s position
before moving on to the answer choices.
In Strengthen-PR questions, the correct answer provides a broad
premise that can be added to the argument to help prove the conclusion.
In this problem, you must select the principle that, when applied to the
specific situation in the stimulus, helps prove that scientific
experimentation on all mammals should be banned.
Answer choice (A): While this principle provides minor support for the
prohibition discussed in the first premise, this principle would not apply
to Jeff’s conclusion since Jeff did not use empathy as the basis for his
conclusion.
Answer choice (B): Jeff’s argument is not focused on the “means used
to determine whether dogs and horses feel pain.” From his second
premise he knows that all mammals feel pain; they way in which that is
determined is not relevant to his conclusion. Thus, this answer choice
does not help support Jeff’s conclusion.
Answer choice (C): This answer attempts to draw you into a Mistaken
Reversal. The principle in the answer choice states:
EP = experiment should be prohibited
KP = experiment known to cause pain to animals
              EP----------> KP
The assumption in the argument is that scientific experimentation on
animals causes pain, which meets the necessary condition in the
relationship above:
KP
However, the combination of the principle in the answer choice and the
necessary condition from the stimulus does not yield any conclusion.
Hence, this answer does not support Jeff’s conclusion.
Answer choice (D): This is the most frequently selected incorrect
answer choice, with about one in four students selecting (D). As
previously discussed, Jeff’s conclusion is not based on empathizing with
animals. Adding this principle to the argument does not help support the
conclusion that the proposal should be extended to all mammals;
instead, this principle would support the conclusion that researchers
should empathize with all mammals. Since this is a different conclusion
than the one in the argument, this answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer. The principle in the
answer, when combined with the premise, provides overwhelming
support for the conclusion. As with many principles, the one in this
answer choice is conditional:
KP = experiment known to cause pain to any creature
EP = experiment should be prohibited
           KP------------> EP
From the premise we know that all mammals are capable of feeling
pain, so the sufficient condition is met with respect to mammals (M):
KPM
By applying the Repeat conditional form, we have support for Jeff’s
conclusion that experimentation on all mammals should be prohibited:
EPM
Thus, if this principle is established, it would provide a great deal of
support for Jeff’s position.
Note the general nature of the principle in the correct answer. Although
animals are addressed, it is in the broadest fashion possible (“any
creature”). This generality is typical of Strengthen-PR and Justify-PR
answer choices.
Some students are concerned that the answer choice does not mention
mammals. By mentioning “any creature” (which of course includes all
mammals), the answer subsumes the group of mammals and therefore
the principle is still usable. For example, suppose you try to draw a
conclusion that no person should hurt a black cat. A principle stating
that “no cats should be hurt” would apply since “cats” naturally includes
“black cats.” The same type of reasoning is involved in this problem.
When you encounter a Principle designator in the question stem, prepare to
apply the principle to a situation that falls under the purview of the principle but
is not necessarily directly addressed by the principle. This process of abstraction
consumes more time that the average question and contributes to lengthening
the problem completion time. Regardless, if you use the skills you developed
while examining other question types (such as Must Be True and Strengthen),
you can successfully navigate Principle questions.

Principle Questions

The word “proposition” or “precept” can be used in place of “principle.”
Be careful of question stemsusing the word “conform.” Sometimes they ask if the
stimulus conforms (which is a Strengthen-PR question) but other times they ask if the answer choice conforms (which is generally a Must-PR question).
Principle questions (PR) are not a separate question type but are instead an
“overlay” that appears in a variety of question types. For example, there are
Strengthen Principle questions (Strengthen-PR), Justify Principle questions
(Justify-PR), and Cannot Be True Principle questions (Cannot-PR), among
others. In a question stem, the key indicator that the Principle concept is present
is the word “principle.” Here are several examples of Principle question stems:
“Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the
principle above?” (Must-PR)
“Which one of the following judgments best illustrates the principle
illustrated by the argument above?” (Must-PR)
“The principle above, if established, would justify which one of the
following judgments?” (Must-PR)
“Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the
reasoning above?” (Strengthen-PR)
“The information above most closely conforms to which one of the
following principles?” (Strengthen-PR)
“Which one of the following most accurately expresses the principle
underlying the argumentation above?” (Justify-PR)
“Each of the following principles is logically consistent with the
columnist’s conclusion EXCEPT:” (Cannot-PR)
A principle is a broad rule that specifies what actions or judgments are correct in
certain situations. For example, “Some companies are profitable” is not a
principle because no rule is involved and no judgment can be drawn from the
statement. “All companies should strive to be profitable” is a principle, and one
that can be applied to any company.
The degree of generality of principles can vary considerably, and some are
much narrower than others. For example, “Children at Smith Elementary
School must wear uniforms” is a principle restricted to children attending Smith.
The principle does not apply to a child attending a different school. On the other
hand, the principle “Any person of voting age has an obligation to vote” applies
to a large number of people regardless of background, education, wealth, etc.
Since a principle is by definition a broad rule (usually conditional in nature), the
presence of the Principle indicator serves to broaden the scope of the question.
The question becomes more abstract, and you must analyze the problem to
identify the underlying relationships. Functionally, you must take a broad,
global proposition and apply it in a specific manner, either to the answer choices
(as in a Must or Parallel question) or to the stimulus (as in a Strengthen or
Justify question).
 Because principles must retain broad applicability and must typically meet a condition
to apply, they are often conditional statements. However, there are exceptions,
such as with causal principles.

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.

Point at Issue Question Problem Set

1. Hazel: Faster and more accurate order processing would help our business. To increase profits, we should process orders electronically rather than manually, because customers’ orders will then go directly to all relevant parties.
Max: We would lose money if we started processing orders electronically. Most people prefer to interact with human beings when placing orders. If we switch to electronic order
processing, our business will appear cold and inhuman, and we will attract fewer customers. Hazel and Max disagree over whether
(A) electronic order processing is faster and more
accurate than is manual order processing
(B) faster and more accurate order processing
would be financially beneficial to their
business
(C) switching to electronic order processing would
be financially beneficial to their business
(D) their business has an obligation to be as
profitable as possible
(E) electronic order processing would appear cold
and inhuman to most of their customers
2. Councilperson X: We have an obligation to help ensure that electricity rates are the lowest possible. Since the proposed design for a new generating station would clearly allow for the lowest rates, it must be the design we endorse if we agree that we have no choice but to approve construction of a new plant.
Councilperson Y: Helping to ensure the lowest electricity rates is not the council’s only job; we also have an obligation not to lower the quality of life of our community. A plant of the type specified by the design would damage our community’s air quality to such an
extent that the benefit of lower rates would be outweighed.
Which one of the following is an issue about which
the two councilpersons disagree?
(A) The council should recommend the building of
a new generating station.
(B) It is the council’s responsibility to improve the
community’s quality of life.
(C) A plant of the type specified by the design in
question would damage the air quality of the
community.
(D) If a new generating station is to be built, the
council should endorse a plant of the type
specified by the design in question.
(E) A plant of the type specified by the design in
question would allow for the lowest
electricity rates.

Point at Issue Question Review

Point at Issue stimuli are comprised of two speakers who disagree about an
issue that is generally ethical or decision-oriented in nature, not factual. The
question stem directs you to choose the answer that describes the point of
disagreement between the two speakers, or to identify the statement that the two
speakers would disagree is true.
Point at Issue questions are a variant of Must Be True questions and are part of
the First Family Question type.
Because Point at Issue questions require you to select a specific type of
statement, several unique forms of incorrect answer choices tend to appear in
these problems.
1. Ethical versus Factual Situations
2. Dual Agreement or Dual Disagreement
3. The View of One Speaker is Unknown
Because of the specific nature of the correct answer choice, you can doublecheck
answers by using the Agree/Disagree TestTM:
The correct answer must produce responses where one speaker would
say “I agree, the statement is correct” and the other speaker would say,
“I disagree, the statement is incorrect.” If those two responses are not
produced, then the answer is incorrect.
The Agree/Disagree Test crystallizes the essence of Point at Issue questions by
forcing you to concretely identify the elements that determine the correct
answer.

The Agree/Disagree TestTM

Only four question
types allow for a
definitive
confirmation once
you have selected
an answer:
Assumption questions—use the Assumption Negation Technique. Justify questions—use
the Justify Formula. Evaluate the Argument questions—use the Variance Test. at Issue
questions—use the Agree/ Disagree Test.
Because of the specific nature of the correct answer choice, you can double check
answers by using the Agree/Disagree TestTM:
The correct answer must produce responses where one speaker would
say “I agree, the statement is correct” and the other speaker would say,
“I disagree, the statement is incorrect.” If those two responses are not
produced, then the answer is incorrect.
The Agree/Disagree Test crystallizes the essence of Point at Issue questions by
forcing you to concretely identify the elements that determine the correct
answer. Because the correct answer to a Point at Issue question can always be
proven by referring to the viewpoints stated in the stimulus, the Agree/Disagree
Test is actually a variation of the Fact Test expressly created for Point at Issue
questions.
After trying the Agree/Disagree Test, some students become enamored of the
technique and want to apply it to every answer choice. This is an overuse of the
technique! Like other “litmus tests” for answer choices (such as the Assumption
Negation Technique and the Variance Test), the Agree/Disagree Test is designed
to either confirm you have selected the correct answer choice or to decide
between two or three remaining answer choices. Applying the Agree/Disagree
Test to every answer choice will produce the correct answer, but the process
will take too much time. Use the Test judiciously.
Consider the following problem:
1. Shanna: Owners of any work of art, simply by virtue of ownership, ethically have the right to destroy that artwork if they find it morally or aesthetically distasteful, or if caring for it becomes inconvenient.
Jorge: Ownership of unique artworks, unlike ownership of other kinds of objects, carries
the moral right to possess but not to destroy. A unique work of art with aesthetic or
historical value belongs to posterity and so must be preserved, whatever the personal
wishes of its legal owner.
On the basis of their statements, Shanna and Jorge
are committed to disagreeing about the truth of
which one of the following statements?
(A) Anyone who owns a portrait presenting his or
her father in an unflattering light would for
that reason alone be ethically justified in
destroying it.
(B) People who own aesthetically valuable works
of art have no moral obligation to make
them available for public viewing.
(C) Valuable paintings by well-known artists are
seldom intentionally damaged or destroyed
by their owners.
(D) If a piece of sculpture is not unique, its owner
has no ethical obligation to preserve it if
doing so proves burdensome.
(E) It is legally permissible for a unique and
historically valuable mural to be destroyed
by its owner if he or she tires of it.
Shanna argues that ownership of art conveys absolute power to the owner, and
such power includes and allows for the destruction of artwork for any reason.
Jorge asserts that ownership of artwork carries certain restrictions when the art
is unique, has aesthetic value, or has historical value, regardless of the wishes of
the owner. This is clearly an ethical disagreement in which the speakers
disagree on what rights ownership conveys to the owner. The question stem
asks you to select a statement about which the two speakers will disagree,
which is not necessarily the same as identifying the point at issue.
As mentioned in this chapter, certain types of incorrect answers tend to appear
in Point at issue questions:
Because the argument revolves around an ethical issue, wrong answers will
often bring up factual issues. Answer choices (C) and (E) are two such
answers. Answer choice (C) states that valuable paintings are seldom
destroyed by their owners. Whether or not this occurs is a factual issue that
can be determined by examining records, etc. Answer choice (E) discusses
the legal permissibility of destroying a valuable mural. Whether or not it is
legally permissible to destroy the mural is also a factual issue, not a moral
issue.
Other wrong answer choices will supply statements that both speakers
would agree with, or that both speakers would disagree with. Answer
choice (D) is incorrect because both speakers would agree with the
statement. Shanna would agree because her ownership beliefs allow for the
destruction of any owned artwork. Jorge would agree because the sculpture
in question is not unique, and thus does not meet the qualifications Jorge
imposed in his argument. If both speakers have the same opinion about an
answer choice, then that answer choice must be wrong in a Point at Issue
question.
With the elimination of answer choices (C), (D), and (E), only answers (A) and
(B) remain.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer because Shanna would agree
with the statement and Jorge would disagree with the statement. The key to
answer choice (A) is the phrase “for that reason alone.” According to Shanna,
ownership of the portrait automatically allows the owner to destroy the artwork
for any reason. Thus, disliking the portrait is sufficient justification for
destruction. However, for Jorge the art would also have to be proven nonunique,
non-aesthetically valuable, and non-historically valuable before he
would justify its destruction. Thus, answer choice (A) passes the Agree/
Disagree Test where one speaker says “I agree, the statement is correct”
regarding the statement and the other speaker says, “I disagree, the statement is
incorrect” regarding the answer choice.
Answer choice (B): This answer is incorrect because it discusses the obligation
to make artworks available for public viewing, which is not mentioned in the
stimulus.
Let us continue examining answer types in Point at Issue questions. Please take
a moment to complete the following problem:

Incorrect Answers in Point at Issue Questions

Point at Issue stimuli almost always contain two separate arguments. Because you must
assess more than one argument, these questions are generally difficult.
Finding the correct answer in most Point at Issue questions requires you to
examine the conclusion of each speaker. But, because Point at Issue questions
require you to select a specific type of statement, several unique forms of
incorrect answers tend to appear in these problems.
1. Ethical versus Factual Situations
When a stimulus addresses an issue that is ethical in nature, answer
choices that are factual in nature cannot be true. For example, imagine
that two speakers are having a disagreement about whether doctors
should inform their patients of a terminal illness. An answer such as the
following would clearly be incorrect:
Every medical school includes ethics training in their curriculum.
This answer, factual in nature, cannot address the underlying judgment
issues that form an ethical or moral debate.
The reverse is also true: when a stimulus addresses an issue that is
factual in nature, answer choices that are ethical in nature cannot be true.
However, disagreements over facts occur infrequently because they are
generally easy for students to spot. For example, consider the following
abbreviated example:
Damon: World War I began in 1910.
Tania: No, World War I began in 1914.
The gist of a disagreement is clear: did the war begin in 1910 or 1914?
(1914 is correct). In a factual disagreement issue like this example, an
answer choice that addresses an ethical issue (such as “should nations
go to war?”) would be incorrect.
2. Dual Agreement or Dual Disagreement
Often, incorrect answer choices will supply statements that both
speakers will agree with, or that both speakers will disagree with. These
answer choices are typically quite attractive because they raise issues
that are addressed in the stimulus and therefore they require some
analysis. Remember, just because both speakers discuss the issue does
not mean that it is an issue about which the two would disagree.
3. The View of One Speaker is Unknown
Another crafty trick used by the test makers is to create an answer where
the view of only one of the speakers is known. In these instances the
view of the speaker is unknown because the speaker’s comments did not
address the issue in the answer choice. Since the correct answer must
contain a point of disagreement, these “one unknown” answers are
always incorrect since there is no way to determine that the other
speaker disagrees.

Point at Issue Questions

Last but not least, we arrive at Point at Issue questions, the thirteenth and final
question type on the LSAT. Point at Issue stimuli are comprised of two speakers
who disagree about an issue that is generally ethical or decision-oriented in
nature, not factual. The question stem directs you to choose the answer that
describes the point of disagreement between the two speakers, or to identify a
statement that the two speakers would disagree is true.
Point at Issue questions are a variant of Must Be True questions and are part of
the First Family Question type. Like all First Family questions, you can only
use the information in the stimulus to evaluate the answer choices. Accordingly,
the Fact Test applies to Point at Issue questions, with a modification accounting
for the two speaker construction. We will discuss this idea in more detail
momentarily.
The question stem of a Point at Issue question typically refers to a disagreement
or the point at issue between the two speakers.
Question stem examples:
“Which one of the following most accurately expresses the point at issue
between Tom and Mary?”
“Which one of the following most accurately represents what is at issue
between Jorge and Ruth?”
“The dialogue above lends the most support to the claim that Sherrie
and Fran disagree with each other about which one of the following
statements?”
“On the basis of their statement, Logan and Mendez are committed to
disagreeing over whether”

Cannot Be True Question Problem Set & Answer Key

Problem Set 
1. For a ten-month period, the total monthly sales of new cars within the country of Calistan remained constant. During this period the monthly sales of new cars manufactured by Marvel Automobile Company doubled, and its share of the new car market within Calistan increased correspondingly. At the end of this period, emission standards were imposed on new cars sold within Calistan. During the three months following this imposition, Marvel Automobile Company’s share of the Calistan market declined substantially even though its monthly sales within Calistan remained constant at the level reached in
the last month of the ten-month period.
If the statements above are true, which one of the
following CANNOT be true?
(A) The total monthly sales within Calistan of new
cars by companies other than Marvel
Automobile Company decreased over the
three months following the imposition of the
emission standards.
(B) Over the three months before the imposition of
the emission standards, the combined market
share of companies other than Marvel
Automobile Company selling new cars in
Calistan decreased.
(C) If the emission standards had not been imposed,
Marvel Automobile Company would have
lost an even larger share of the number of
new cars sold in Calistan than, in fact, it did.
(D) A decrease in the total monthly sales of new
cars within Calistan will occur if the emission
standards remain in effect.
(E) Since the imposition of the emission standards,
Marvel Automobile Company’s average
profit on each new car sold within Calistan
has increased.
2. Two things are true of all immoral actions. First, if they are performed in public, they offend public sensibilities. Second, they are accompanied by feelings of guilt.
If all the statements above are true, then which one of
the following must be false?
(A) Some immoral actions that are not performed in
public are not accompanied by feelings of
guilt.
(B) Immoral actions are wrong solely by virtue of
being accompanied by feelings of guilt.
(C) Some actions that offend public sensibilities if
they are performed in public are not
accompanied by feelings of guilt.
(D) Some actions that are accompanied by feelings
of guilt are not immoral, even if they
frequently offend public sensibilities.
(E) Every action performed in public that is
accompanied by feelings of guilt is immoral.
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. Cannot-#%. June 2000 LSAT, Section 1, #15. The correct answer choice is (A)
This question is a repeat of a question that appeared on the March 1985 LSAT (remember, on the LSAT
past is prologue). The topic of the original question was also the car market, but the company in question
was called Superb Automobile. Several of the answer choices, including the correct answer, were virtually
identical to the answers in this problem.
Let us first review the facts given in the stimulus:
Statement: For a ten-month period, the total monthly sales of new cars within the country of
Calistan remained constant.
The wording of this statement should alert you that numbers and percentages in the form of market
share (“monthly sales...remained constant”) may be an issue in this problem. Note that the
statement is a simple fact; no explanation is given for why the total sales stayed constant.
Statement: During this period the monthly sales of new cars manufactured by Marvel Automobile
Company doubled, and its share of the new car market within Calistan increased
correspondingly.
If total monthly sales of new cars remains constant and Marvel’s sales doubled, then Marvel’s share
of the new car market must also have doubled. Again, no explanation for Marvel’s increase is
given; the increase is just stated as a fact.
Statement: At the end of this period, emission standards were imposed on new cars sold within
Calistan.