LSAC LSAC Certifications LSAT-TEST Questions & Answers

• Question 311:

  In 1976, Sichan Siv was crawling through the jungle, trying to escape from Cambodia. By 1989, however, Siv was working in the White House, in Washington D. C., as an advisor to the President of the United States. How did this strange journey come about? Like millions of Cambodians, Siv was a victim of a bloody civil war. One of the sides in this war was the Cambodian government. The other was a group called the Khmer Rouge. When the Khmer Rouge won the war, the situation in Cambodia got worse. Many people were killed, while others were forced into hard labor. Sometimes entire families were wiped out. Siv came from a large family that lived in the capital of Cambodia. After finishing high school, Siv worked for a while with a Cambodian airline company. Later, he taught English. After that, he took a job with CARE, an American group that was helping victims of the war. Siv had hoped to leave Cambodia before the Khmer Rouge took over the country. Unfortunately, he was delayed. As a result, he and his family were taken from their homes and forced to labor in rice fields. After a while, Siv managed to escape. He rode an old bicycle for miles, trying to reach Thailand where he would be free and safe. For three weeks he slept on the ground and tried to hide from the soldiers who were looking for him. Caught at last, he was afraid he would be killed. Instead, he was put into a labor camp, where he worked eighteen hours each day without rest. After several months, he escaped again; this time he made it. The journey, however, was a terrifying one. After three days of staggering on foot through mile after mile of thick bamboo, Siv finally made his way to Thailand. Because he had worked for an American charity group, Siv quickly found work in a refugee camp. Soon he was on his way to the states. He arrived in June of 1976 and got a job-first picking apples and then cooking in a fast-food restaurant. Siv, however, wanted more than this; he wanted to work with people who, like himself, had suffered the hardship of leaving their own countries behind. Siv decided that the best way to prepare for this kind of work was to go to college. He wrote letters to many colleges and universities. They were impressed with his school records from Cambodia, and they were impressed with his bravery. Finally, in 1980, he was able to study at Columbia University in New York City.

  After finishing his studies at Columbia, Siv took a job with the United Nations. He married an American woman and became a citizen. After several more years, he felt that he was very much a part of his new country. In 1988, Siv was offered a job in the White House working for President Reagan's closest advisors. It was a difficult job, and he often had to work long hours. However, the long hard work was worth it, because Siv got the opportunity to help refugees in his work.

  What is the main idea of this passage?

  A. Persistence and courage are global ideas.

  B. Siv covered a large area during his life.

  C. Siv persevered to become an American citizen

  D. Siv overcame numerous challenges to come to American and help others.

  E. Siv persevered to become an American citizen.

  Correct Answer: D

• Question 312:

  The raisin business in America was born by accident. It happened in 1873 in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Many farmers raised grapes in this valley. That year, just before the grape harvest, there was a heat wave. It was one of the worst heat waves ever known. It was so hot the grapes dried on the vines. When they were picked, California had its first raisin crop. People were surprised to find how good raisins were. Everybody wanted more. So the San Joaquin farmers went into the raisin business. Today, of course, they do not let the grapes dry on the vines. They treat them with much more care. In late August the grapes start to ripen. They are tested often for sweetness. The growers wait until the sugar content is twenty-one percent. Then they know the grapes are ripe enough to be picked. Skilled workers come to the vineyards. They pick the bunches of grapes by hand. The workers fill their flat pans with grapes. They gently empty the pans onto squares of paper. These squares lie between the long rows of vines. They sit in the sun. Here the grapes stay while the sun does its work. It may take two weeks or longer. The grapes are first dried on one side. When they have reached the right color, they are turned to dry on the other side. The grapes are dried until only fifteen percent of the moisture is left. Then they have turned into raisins. The raisins are rolled up in the paper on which they have dried. Trucks take them from the fields. They are poured into big boxes called sweatboxes. Each box holds one hundred and sixty pounds of raisins. Here, any raisins that are a bit too dry take moisture from those that have a bit too much. After a while they are all just moist enough. The big boxes are trucked next to the packaging plant. They are emptied onto a conveyor belt that shakes the raisins gently. This knocks them from their stems. A blast of air whisks the stems away. The water bath is next. Then the plump brown raisins have a last inspection. They are again checked for moisture and sugar. Then they go on a belt to packing machines. Here they are poured into packages, which are automatically weighed and sealed. The raisins are now ready for market.

  What is the main idea of this passage?

  A. The creation of raisins in America was an accident.

  B. The process of raisin development requires multiple steps.

  C. Raisins on the grocery store shelf undergo a brief fermentation process.

  D. Raisins are cleaned thoroughly at the packing plant.

  E. California has been the leader in American raisin development.

  Correct Answer: B

• Question 313:

  Most people think its fine to be "busy as a beaver." Little do they know. Beavers may work hard, but often they don't get much done. Beavers are supposed to be great tree cutters. It is true that a beaver can gnaw through a tree very quickly. (A six-inch birch takes about ten minutes.) But then what? Often the beaver does not make use of the tree. One expert says that beavers waste one out of every five trees they cut. For one thing, they do not choose their trees wisely. One bunch of beavers cut down a cottonwood tree more than one hundred feet tall. Then they found that they could not move it. In thick woods a tree sometimes won't fall down. It gets stuck in the other trees. Of course, doesn't think to cut down the trees that are in the way. So a good tree goes to waste. Some people think that beavers can make a tree fall the way they want it to. Not true. (In fact, a beaver sometimes gets pinned under a falling tree.) When beavers cut a tree near a stream, it usually falls into the water. But they do not plan it that way. The fact is that most trees lean toward the water to start with. Now what about dam building? Most beaver dams are wonders of engineering. The best ones are strongly built of trees, stones, and mud. They are wide at the bottom and narrow at the top. Beavers think nothing of building a dam more than two hundred feet long. One dam, in Montana, was more than two thousand feet long. The largest one ever seen was in New Hampshire. It stretched four thousand feet. It made a lake large enough to hold forty beaver homes. So beavers do build good dams. But they don't always build them in the right places. They just don't plan. They will build a dam across the widest part of the stream. They don't try to find a place where the stream is narrow. So a lot of their hard work is wasted. Beavers should learn that it's not enough to be busy. You have to know what you're doing, too. For example, there was one Oregon beaver that really was a worker. It decided to fix a leak in a man-made dam. After five days of work it gave up. The leak it was trying to block was the lock that boats go through. What is the main idea of this passage?

  A. Beaver's may be hard working animals, but they don't always choose the most efficient mechanisms.

  B. Beavers are excellent dam builders.

  C. New Hampshire was the site of the largest beaver dam.

  D. Beavers are well developed tree cutters.

  E. Beavers are poor surveyors of aquatic environments in some cases.

  Correct Answer: A

• Question 314:

  What does the word patent mean to you? Does it strike you as being something rather remote from your interests? If it does, stop and think a moment about some of the commonplace things that you use every day, objects that you take for granted as part of the world around you. The telephone, radio, television, the automobile, and the thousand and one other things (even the humble safety pin) that enrich our lives today once existed only as ideas in the minds of men. If it had not been possible to patent their ideas and thus protect them against copying by others, these inventions might never have been fully developed to serve mankind. If there were no patent protection there would be little incentive to invent and innovate, for once the details of an invention became known, hordes of imitators who did not share the inventor's risks and expenses might well flood the market with their copies of his product and reap much of the benefit of his efforts. The technological progress that has made America great would wither rapidly under conditions such as these. The fundamental principles in the US. patent structure came from England. During the glorious reign of Queen Elizabeth I in England, the expanding technology was furthered by the granting of exclusive manufacturing and selling privileges to citizens who had invented new processes or tools- a step that did much to encourage creativity. Later, when critics argued that giving monopoly rights to one person infringed on the rights of others, an important principle was added to the patent structure: The Lord Chief Justice of England stated that society had everything to gain and nothing to lose by granting exclusive privileges to an inventor, because a patent for an invention was granted for something new that society never had before. Another basic principle was brought into law because certain influential people in England had managed to obtain monopoly control over such age-old products as salt, and had begun charging as much as the traffic would bear. The public outcry became so great that the government was forced to decree that monopoly rights could be awarded only to those who created or introduced something really unique. These principles are the mainstays of our modern patent system in the United States. In colonial times patent law was left up to the separate states. The inconsistency, confusion, and unfairness that resulted clearly indicated the need for a uniform patent law, and the men who drew up the Constitution incorporated one. George Washington signed the first patent law on April 10, 1790, and less than four months later the first patent was issued to a man named Samuel Hopkins for a chemical process, an improved method of making potash for use in soapmaking. In 1936 the Patent Office was established as a separate bureau. From the staff of eight that it maintained during its first year of operation it has grown into an organization of over 2500 people handling more than 1600 patent applications and granting over 1000 every week. The Patent Office in Washington, DC., is the world's largest library of scientific and technical data, and this treasure trove of information is open for public inspection. In addition to more than 3 million U. S. patents, it houses more than 7 million foreign patents and thousands of volumes of technical literature. Abraham Lincoln patented a device to lift steam vessels over river shoals, Mark Twain developed a self-pasting scrapbook, and millionaire Cornelius Vanderbilt invented a shoe- shine kit. A patent may be granted for any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter (a chemical compound or combinations of chemical compounds), or any distinct and new variety; of plant, including certain mutants and hybrids. The patent system has also helped to boost the wages of the American worker to an unprecedented level; he can produce more and earn more with the computer, adding machines, drill press or lathe. Patented inventions also help keep prices down by increasing manufacturing efficiency and by stimulating the competition that is the foundation of our free enterprise system. The decades of history have disclosed little need for modification of the patent structure. Our patent laws, like the Constitution from which they grew, have stood the test of time well. They encouraged the creative processes, brought untold benefits to society as a whole and enabled American technology to outstrip that of the rest of the civilized world.

  What is the main idea of this passage?

  A. The patent system encourages free enterprise.

  B. The Constitution protects the patent system.

  C. The patent system in England has been influential in American patent development.

  D. Patents are important tools for inventors.

  E. Patented inventions protect the inventor, free enterprise, and the creative process.

  Correct Answer: E

• Question 315:

  Of the many kinds of vegetables grown all over the world, which remains the favorite of young and old alike? Why, the potato, of course. Perhaps you know them as "taters," "spuds," or "Kennebees," or as "chips," "Idahoes," or even "shoestrings." No matter, a potato by any other name is still a potato- the world's most widely grown vegetable. As a matter of fact, if you are an average potato eater, you will put away at least a hundred pounds of them each year. That's only a tiny portion of the amount grown every year, however. Worldwide, the annual potato harvest is over six billion bags- each bag containing a hundred pounds of spuds, some of them as large as four pounds each. Here in the United States, farmers fill about four hundred million bags a year. That may seem like a lot of "taters," but it leaves us a distant third among world potato growers. Polish farmers dig up just over 800 million bags a year, while the Russians lead the world with nearly 1.5 billion bags. The first potatoes were grown by the Incas of South America, more than four hundred years ago. Their descendants in Ecuador and Chile continue to grow the vegetable as high as fourteen thousand feet up in the Andes Mountains. (That's higher than any other food will grow.) Early Spanish and English explorers shipped potatoes to Europe, and they found their way to North America in the early 1600s. People eat potatoes in many ways-baked, mashed, and roasted, to name just three. However, in the United States most potatoes are devoured in the form of French fries. One fast-food chain alone sells more than $1 billion worth of fries each year. No wonder, then, that the company pays particular attention to the way its fries are prepared. Before any fry makes it to the people who eat at these popular restaurants, it must pass many separate tests. Fail any one and the spud is rejected. To start with, only russet Burbank potatoes are used. These Idaho potatoes have less water content than other kinds, which can have as much as eighty percent water. Once cut into "shoestrings" shapes, the potatoes are partly fried in a secret blend of oils, sprayed with liquid sugar to brown them, steam dried at high heat, then flash frozen for shipment to individual restaurants. Before shipping, though, every shoestring is measured. Forty percent of a batch must be between two and three inches long. Another forty percent has to be over three inches. What about the twenty percent that are left in the batch? Well, a few short fries in a bag are okay, it seems. So, now that you realize the enormous size and value of the potato crop, you can understand why most people agree that this part of the food industry is no "small potatoes."

  What is the main idea of this passage?

  A. Potatoes from Ireland started the Potato Revolution.

  B. The average American eats 50 lbs of potatoes a year.

  C. French fries are made from potatoes.

  D. Potatoes are a key vegetable in America.

  E. The various terms for potatoes have a long history.

  Correct Answer: D

• Question 316:

  Americans have always been interested in their Presidents' wives. Many First Ladies have been remembered because of the ways they have influenced their husbands. Other First Ladies have made the history books on their own. At least two First Ladies, Bess Truman and Lady Bird Johnson, made it their business to send signals during their husbands' speeches. When Lady Bird Johnson thought her husband was talking too long, she wrote a note and sent it up to the platform. It read, "It's time to stop!" And he did. Once Bess Truman didn't like what her husband was saying on television, so she phoned him and said," If you can't talk more politely than that in public, you come right home." Abigail Fillmore and Eliza Johnson actually taught their husbands, Millard Fillmore and Andrew Johnson, the thirteenth and seventeenth Presidents. A schoolteacher, Abigail eventually married her pupil, Millard. When Eliza Johnson married Andrew, he could not read or write, so she taught him herself.

  It was First Lady Helen Taft's idea to plant the famous cherry trees in Washington, D. C. Each spring these blossoming trees attract thousands of visitors to the nation's capital. Mrs. Taft also influenced the male members of her family and the White House staff in a strange way: she convinced them to shave off their beards! Shortly after President Wilson suffered a stroke, Edith Wilson unofficially took over most of the duties of the Presidency until the end of her husband's term. Earlier, during World War I, Mrs. Wilson had had sheep brought onto the White House lawn to eat the grass. The sheep not only kept the lawn mower but provided wool for an auction sponsored by the First Lady. Almost $100,000 was raised for the Red Cross. Dolly Madison saw to it that a magnificent painting of George Washington was not destroyed during the War of 1812. As the British marched toward Washington, D. C., she remained behind to rescue the painting, even after the guards had left. The painting is the only object from the original White House that was not burned. One of the most famous First Ladies was Eleanor Roosevelt, the wife of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. She was active in political and social causes throughout her husband's tenure in office. After his death, she became famous for her humanitarian work in the United Nations. She made life better for thousands of needy people around the world.

  What is the main idea of this passage?

  A. The Humanitarian work of the First Ladies is critical in American government.

  B. Dolly Madison was the most influential president's wife.

  C. Eleanor Roosevelt transformed the First Lady image.

  D. The First Ladies are important in American culture.

  E. The First Ladies are key supporters of the Presidents.

  Correct Answer: D

• Question 317:

  A metropolitan area that has a population of more than 10 million and a population density of more than 2000 people per square kilometer is termed a megacity. Among the metropolitan areas of the United States, X and Z are megacities but Y is not.

  If the statements above are true, each of the following statements must also be true EXCEPT:

  A. Y is a metropolitan area with a population density of less than 2000 people per square kilometer.

  B. X is a metropolitan area with a population density of more than 2000 people per square kilometer.

  C. Z is a metropolitan area with a population of more than 10 million.

  D. X is a metropolitan area with a population of more than 10 million.

  E. At least some metropolitan areas of the United States have a population density of more than 2000 people per square kilometer.

  Correct Answer: A

  Argument construction This argument is about one specific type of areas, namely 'metropolitan' areas, and further about a subtype of metropolitan areas, namely 'megacities.' So, the hierarchy of the areas is like this: All Areas

  1.

  Non-metropolitan areas

  2.

  Metropolitan areas (MA henceforth)

  1.

  Megacities (MC henceforth)

  2.

  Non-megacities

  From this visual representation, it is easy to see to draw inferences like: All MC are MA but the vice-versa is not true.

  The first statement of the argument is also its Premise 1. A metropolitan area that has a population of more than 10 million and a population density of more than 2000 people per square kilometer is termed a megacity.

  From this premise, we learn that to be termed a MC, a MA must fulfill two conditions ?it should have:

  1.

  Population > 10 million and

  2.

  Population Density > 2000 per sq. km.

  It is important to note that the word used to join the two conditions together in one sentence is 'and', not 'or.' This tells us that it is important that a MA fulfill both these conditions to get termed as a MC. Suppose it fulfills only condition 1 but not condition 2? Sorry, that won't do.

  We may depict the 'and' requirement visually using the idea of overlapping sets as follows:

  

  So, for a MA to be termed a MC, it must lie in the brown zone of the above diagram.

  Now, coming to the second statement of the argument, which is also Premise 2: Among the metropolitan

  areas of the United States, X and Z are megacities but Y is not.

  The first thing to note is the phrase "among the metropolitan areas of the United States." From this, we can

  be sure that the names that follow in this statement are all MA of the United States.

  So,

  X and Z are MA of the US

  Y is an MA of the US

  Among these three MA of the US,

  X and Z are MC. This means, they do fulfill both the conditions mentioned in Premise 1. So, we may infer

  that both X and Z have:

  1.

  Population > 10 million and

  2.

  Population Density > 2000 per sq. km.

  Y is not a MC. What may we infer from this fact? Refer to the visual depiction above. If Y is not a MC, this

  means that it does not lie in the brown zone of the diagram. So, the possible zones in which Y may lie in

  the above diagram are:

  

  Let us analyze the options one by one.

  Answer choices explanation [Y is a metropolitan area with a population density of less than...] This option is correct. As discussed in the 'Argument Construction' part above, it is possible that Y lies in 'that part of the red circle which is outside the brown zone,' and, therefore, has a population density greater than 2000. Thus, this answer choice does not contain a "must be true" statement.

  [X is a metropolitan area with a population density of more than...] This option is incorrect. This inference indeed must be true. We have already drawn this inference in the analysis done by us in the 'Argument Construction' part above.

  [Z is a metropolitan area with a population of more than 10 million.] This option is incorrect. This inference indeed must be true. We have already drawn this inference in the analysis done by us in the 'Argument Construction' part above.

  [X is a metropolitan area with a population of more than 10 million.] This option is incorrect. This inference indeed must be true. We have already drawn this inference in the analysis done by us in the 'Argument Construction' part above.

  [At least some metropolitan areas of the United States have...] This option is incorrect. This inference indeed must be true. We know from the argument that there at least 2 MA in the US that have a population density >2000 (X and Z). So, even if no other MA in the US has a population density >2000, this option statement still holds true. Note that though inferring generalizations from specific facts is usually risky, the reason why this particular generalization works is because it is cautious in what it is claiming. Its claim is merely that "at least some" MA fulfill Condition 2 of becoming a MC. Had the claim been more exaggerated, like say, "Most MA fulfill Condition 2" or to go in the opposite direction, "Very few MA fulfill Condition 2," then the generalization would have ceased to be a "must be true" statement, because the facts of the case ?which mentions only 3 of all the MA of the US ?would have been insufficient to support the extent of the claim.

• Question 318:

  Movies that contain persistent violence are usually given R rating. R rated movies can be viewed in a theater by a child or an under-17 adolescent only in the company of a parent or an adult guardian. Mr. Smith and Mr. Green are two directors whose every movie has been given an R rating, while only some of Ms. Abbott's movies are R rated.

  Which one of the following logically follows from the statements above, if they are true?

  A. The movies made by female directors are more often viewed alone in the theaters by children or under17 adolescents than the movies made by male directors.

  B. An under-17 adolescent cannot view a movie of Mr. Green by himself in a theater.

  C. No movie of Mr. Smith can be viewed by a child or an under-17 adolescent in a theater.

  D. A child is more likely to view a movie made by Ms. Abbott in a theater than a movie made by Mr. Green.

  E. Some of Ms. Abbott's movies do not contain persistent violence.

  Correct Answer: B

  Argument construction

  Premise 1: Movies that contain persistent violence are usually given R rating.

  Two points to note in the above premise:

  The word "usually": From this, we may infer that though most movies that contain persistent violence are

  given R rating, there may be some movies that contain persistent violence but are not given R rating. Had

  R rating been given to

  100% of the movies that contain persistent violence, Premise 1 would have read differently, for example:

  1.

  Movies that contain persistent violence are given R rating.

  2.

  Movies that contain persistent violence are always given R rating.

  3.

  Every movie that contains persistent violence is given R rating.

  This premise only states one feature of a movie (containing persistent violence) that may result in a R

  rating. We cannot infer on the basis of this statement that this is the only feature that results in a R Rating.

  There may be other features too that result in a R rating. For example, the list of features of a movie,

  having one or more of which results in the movie getting a R rating, might read as follows:

  1.

  Persistent violence

  2.

  Gruesome scenes that are revolting to watch, even if their number is a small percentage of all scenes in

  the movie

  3.

  Persistent use of obscene language

  4.

  Glorification of immorality, etc.

  So, a movie may get R rated despite not having persistent violence if it has one or more of the other features on this list.

  Premise 2: R rated movies can be viewed in a theater by a child or an under-17 adolescent only in the company of a parent or an adult guardian.

  Note that this premise does not say that a child or an under-17 cannot watch R rated movies in a theater. These movies are not banned for the under-17 age group. The requirement is only that the under-17s be accompanied by their parents or adult guardians.

  Further, note that the restriction for the under-17s is only for viewing an R rated movie in a theater. We do not know ?and cannot infer - from the argument if similar restrictions apply to other, non-theatrical ? avenues (such as, say, television or screenings in a community hall, etc.) that may be available to view R rated movies.

  Also, this premise applies to 100% of the R rated movies. We know this because the wording of the statement is not something like "R rated movies are usually viewed in a theater...." Or "Most R rated movies are viewed in a theater...." but a definite "can be viewed in a theater..." without any qualifications like "most" or "some" or "usually," etc.

  Premise 3: Mr. Smith is a director whose every movie has been given an R rating.

  Premise 4: Mr. Green is a director whose every movie has been given an R rating.

  Premise 5: Ms. Abbott is a director only some of whose movies are R rated.

  Because several inferences may be drawn by combining Premises 3-5 with the other premises of the argument, we cannot determine the correct answer without reading the answer choice. So, let's go through the answer choices to find the one that must be true, given the premises of the argument.

  Let us analyze the options one by one.

  Answer choices explanation

  [The movies made by female directors are more often viewed alone in...] This option is incorrect. From Premise 2, we know that under-17s simply cannot view an R rated movie alone in the theaters. Therefore, the frequency of viewing a movie alone will be zero among the under-17 age group for 'R rated movies.' Presumably, for movies that have non-R ratings, this frequency might be non-zero. So, this option statement may be simplified as: 'The movies made by female directors are less likely to be R rated than the movies made by male directors.' Now, this is a gross generalization of the specific facts mentioned in the argument. From such a small sample size as just one female director and two male directors, it is plainly wrong to generalize that movies made by female directors are less likely to be R rated than those of male directors.

  [An under-17 adolescent cannot view a movie of Mr. Green...] This option is correct. By combining Premise 4 with Premise 2, we may infer that an under-17 adolescent can view a movie made by Mr. Green in a theater only in the company of a parent or an adult guardian. Therefore, we may infer that he cannot view a movie made by Mr. Green in a theater alone (by himself, without an accompanying a parent or an adult guardian).

  [No movie of Mr. Smith can be viewed by a child or...] This option is incorrect. By combining Premise 3 with Premise 2, we may infer that a child or an under-17 adolescent can view a movie made by Mr. Smith in a theater only in the company of a parent or an adult guardian. Therefore, it is wrong to say that he cannot view Mr. Smith's movies in a theater. He can watch all of those movies in a theater if he wants to, the requirement is only that he be accompanied by a parent or an adult guardian.

  [A child is more likely to view a movie made by...] This option is incorrect. By combining Premise 4 with Premise 2, we may infer that a child can view a movie made by Mr. Green in a theater only in the company of a parent or an adult guardian. Similarly, by combining Premise 5 with Premise 2, we may infer that to view some of Ms. Abbott's movies in a theater, a child needs to be accompanied by a parent or an adult guardian. Just this information is not sufficient to make a comparison of the likelihood of children to watch the movies by the two directors. For example, it is possible that the movies of Mr. Green, though R rated, are wildly popular among children and so they urge their parents to take them to theaters to view the movies. On the other hand, Ms. Abbott's movies may have such content or presentation style that does not appeal to children and so they do not like to view any of her movies, even if the rating of a movie is such that they are allowed to view that movie alone. In such a scenario, the likelihood of a child watching Mr. Green's movie will be higher than his watching Ms. Abbott's movie. In other words, the likelihood of a child watching a movie by either director in a theater depends not just on the rating of the movie but also on the popularity of that director and that particular movie among children, and therefore, just on the basis of a movie's rating, we cannot infer a "must be true" statement about the likelihood of its being watched by children.

  [Some of Ms. Abbott's movies do not contain persistent violence.] This option is incorrect. Premise 5 only tells us that some movies of Ms. Abbott are R rated. We cannot infer from this that these movies got R rated because they had persistent violence. As discussed in the 'Argument Construction' part of the solution, there may be other reasons for an R rating. For example, Ms. Abbott's R rated movies may have zero violence but may have persistent use of obscene language. So, among Ms. Abbott's R rated movies, it is possible that all of them contain persistent violence, and it is also possible that none of them contain persistent violence. What about her non-R rated movies? Are they the "some" movies referred to in this answer choice? Imagine a scale that rates movies on their suitability to be viewed by children and under17 adolescents. Let's suppose that R rating lies at the middle of this scale. At one end of this scale are, say, Z movies ?movies that can be watched by children and under-17 adolescents alone in a theater. At the other end of this scale lie, say, J movies ?movies that are so disturbing that the entry of children and under-17 adolescents in the theater is prohibited, even if they are accompanied by adults. Just from knowing that some of Ms. Abbott's movies are not R rated, can we make a "must be true" inference about what the ratings of those movies is? For all we know, they may all be Z rated, with absolutely zero occurrence of persistent violence. Or they may all be J rated, with gruesome violence in every scene. Or they may have zero violence and still be J rated for another reason. Therefore, the information given in the argument is not sufficient to infer whether some of Ms. Abbott's movies contain persistent violence, all of her movies contain persistent violence, or none of them do. To restate this conclusion in the wording used in this answer choice: we cannot infer whether "some of Ms. Abbott's movies do not contain persistent violence," all of her movies do not contain persistent violence, or there is no movie of hers that does not contain persistent violence.

• Question 319:

  Lecturer: There are many benefits to connecting everyday objects like cars and home appliances to the internet to enable their owners to manage them remotely. But beware of doing so! With the rising number and variety of devices connected to it, the internet is becoming more complex and, consequently, more prone to security breaches by hackers. The consequences of a security breach are much graver with an internet-connected car or home appliance than with an internet-connected computer and might even include a risk to the life of the owner of these objects.

  Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the lecturer's argument?

  A. The gravity of the consequences suffered by the owner of an internet-connected car or home appliance in the event of a security breach outweighs the benefits that these devices offer.

  B. Owners of cars and home appliances should be cautious and alert to the dangers of connecting these objects to the internet.

  C. A security breach of a car or home appliance that is connected to the internet can be much more dangerous than a security breach of an internet-connected computer.

  D. The vulnerability of the internet to security breaches is directly proportional to the number and variety of the devices connected to the internet.

  E. The increasing connection of everyday objects such as cars and home appliances to the internet in the recent years has increased the overall vulnerability of the internet to security breaches.

  Correct Answer: B

  Argument construction

  This argument is about connecting everyday objects to the internet (abbreviated henceforth as CO2I ?

  Connecting Objects to Internet).

  Let's analyze the argument. It begins with this statement:

  There are many benefits to connecting everyday objects like cars and home appliances to the internet to

  enable their owners to manage them remotely.

  Here, the lecturer states that there are many benefits of CO2I. Then, he begins the second statement with

  "but," thereby indicating that he is now going to talk about something other than benefits (possibly the

  costs/dangers/risks?) of CO2I.

  No other statement of the argument provides support to this statement. Therefore, this statement definitely

  cannot be the conclusion of the argument. Further, this statement does not provide support to any of the

  other statements of the argument (had it done so, the argument would have been of the form: "There are

  many benefits of CO2I. Therefore, ..."). Hence, it is not a premise of the argument either.

  The second statement of the argument is: But beware of doing so! 'So' in the above statement refers to

  CO2I.

  This statement does not state facts or principles. Therefore, it is not a premise. It states an advice. So, it is

  a candidate of being the main conclusion of the argument, provided the remaining statements of the

  argument provide support for this advice.

  The third statement of the argument is: With the rising number and variety of devices connected to it, the

  internet is becoming more complex and, consequently, more prone to security breaches by hackers.

  This statement states a fact. Therefore, it could be a premise. But we see that this statement by itself is not

  sufficient to support the 2nd statement (our only candidate so far for being a conclusion). How do we know

  that it is not sufficient? Because, if you put the second and the third statement in a "(2nd statement)

  because (3rd statement)" format, we get:

  'Beware of CO2I because with the rising number and variety of devices connected to it, the internet is

  becoming more complex and, consequently, more prone to security breaches by hackers.'

  Reading this statement, questions immediately spring in our mind ?;Okay, so internet is more prone to

  security breaches. Then so what? Why should I beware of CO2I"; Clearly, there is a missing link between

  the 3rd statement and the 2nd statement. If the last statement of the argument supplies this missing link,

  then the 3rd and the 4th statements will both become the premises on which the conclusion drawn in the

  2nd statement is based.

  The fourth and the last statement of the argument is: The consequences of a security breach are much

  graver with an internet-connected car or home appliance than with an internet-connected computer and

  might even include a risk to the life of the owner of these objects.

  Now, we see that when statements 3 and 4 are read in conjunction, we can draw the inference that: 'With

  the rising number of devices connected to the internet, the chances of security breach are increasing, and

  the consequences of such a breach can potentially be life-threatening for the owners of CO2I cars and

  homes.'

  We are now able to understand why the author asked us, in the second statement, to beware of CO2I. His

  line of reasoning is as under:

  CO2I will increase the number of devices connected to the internet (because obviously, in CO2I, you are

  connecting devices to the internet).

  Rising number of devices connected to the internet increases the chances of a security breach.

  The consequences of a security breach are much graver ?potentially life-threatening for the owners ?in the

  case of CO2I cars and homes than in the case of internet-connected computers.

  Hence the main conclusion of the argument is described in the 2nd statement ?beware of CO2I. Who

  should beware? Presumably, the owners of cars and home appliances.

  Let us analyze the options one by one. If we feel doubtful about whether an answer choice represents the

  main conclusion of the argument or not, we will perform the Conclusion Test as under:

  We will read that answer choice along with the 3rd and the 4th statements of the argument in the following

  format:

  "(Answer choice) because (3rd statement) and (4th statement)"

  If the resulting statement makes logical sense, then the answer choice is indeed the main conclusion of

  the argument. If it does not, then the answer choice can be ruled out.

  Answer choices explanation

  [The gravity of the consequences suffered by the owner...] This option is incorrect. The inference stated in

  this answer choice can be indeed be drawn from the information given in the argument. However, does

  this answer choice describe the main conclusion of the argument? Let's perform the Conclusion Test:

  (The gravity of the consequences suffered by the owner of an internet-connected car or home appliance in

  the event of a security breach outweighs the benefits that these devices offer) because

  (Rising number of devices connected to the internet increases the chances of a security breach) and

  (The consequences of a security breach are much graver ?potentially life-threatening - for CO2I cars and

  homes than for internet-connected computers).

  Does this make logical sense? No. Therefore, this answer choice is definitely not the main conclusion of

  the argument.

  You may also notice that if we write the following statement: (2nd statement of the argument) because (this

  answer choice) ?(Beware of CO2I) because (The gravity of the consequences suffered by the owner of an

  internet-connected car or home appliance in the event of a security breach outweighs the benefits that

  these devices offer) - Then, the resulting statement makes much more logical sense. Therefore, this

  answer choice can actually be thought of as a premise for the main conclusion rather than the main

  conclusion itself.

  [Owners of cars and home appliances should be cautious and...] This option is correct. This answer choice

  adequately describes the second statement of the argument, which, as we have identified in the 'Argument

  Construction' part above, is the main conclusion.

  [A security breach of a car or home appliance that is connected to the internet can be...] This option is

  incorrect. This answer choice restates the last statement of the argument. As discussed above, the fourth

  statement is a premise of the main conclusion and not the main conclusion itself.

  [The vulnerability of the internet to security breaches is directly proportional...] This option is incorrect. The

  inference stated in this answer choice may indeed be drawn from the third statement of the argument.

  However, it is not the main conclusion of the argument.

  [The increasing connection of everyday objects such as cars and...] This option is incorrect. This statement

  is factually incorrect as per the information given in the argument ?it is the increase in number and variety

  of devices (note that the general word 'devices' has been used in the argument) that has caused the

  increased vulnerability of the internet. Some of these devices may indeed be CO2I cars and home

  appliances. However, this answer choice makes it look like only the CO2I cars and home appliances are

  responsible for the increased vulnerability of the internet. Another problem with this answer choice is, of

  course, that it only states an (incorrect) inference based on the third statement of the argument, whereas

  the question has asked us to find the main conclusion.

• Question 320:

  Chief Executive Officer of Noan Industries: All competitors of our company are only concerned with increasing their profits and do not bother about the environmental degradation that their product-manufacturing process causes. In contrast, we have got our product-manufacturing process audited for its environmental impact by Green Org, a reputed international agency that monitors industrial pollution. So, when our customers choose to buy from us, they can be sure that they are buying from an environmentally-responsible company.

  The answer to which one of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the truth of the conclusion drawn by the Chief Executive Officer?

  A. Does Noan Industries provide more donations than its competitors to agencies that work to reverse the environmental impact of industrial pollution?

  B. Has Green Org audited the product-manufacturing processes of all competitors of Noan Industries?

  C. In the product category in which Noan Industries operates, does the buying decision of customers get influenced by the environmental-responsibility of a company?

  D. Do Noan's customers trust the audit reports of Green Org?

  E. Does Noan Industries make lesser profits than its competitors?

  Correct Answer: D

  Argument construction

  The conclusion of the CEO's argument is described in the last statement:

  "when our customers choose to buy from us instead of our competitors, they can be sure that they are

  buying from an environmentally-responsible company."

  What is the basis on which this conclusion is drawn? This basis (the premise of the argument) is described

  in the second statement of the argument:

  "we have got our product-manufacturing process audited for its environmental impact by Green Org, a

  reputed international agency that monitors industrial pollution."

  Therefore, the CEO's argument can be simplified as follows: "Because we have got our process audited by

  Green Org, our customers can be sure that we are environmentally-responsible."

  This is an Evaluate the Argument question. Each answer choice contains a question. The correct answer

  will be that answer choice whose question, when answered one way will strengthen the conclusion and

  when answered the opposite way will weaken the conclusion.

  Let us analyze the options one by one.

  Answer choices explanation

  [Does Noan Industries provide more donations than its...] This option is incorrect. Suppose the answer to

  this question is 'Yes.' Then the question arises ?is Noan's providing more donations than its competitors to

  agencies that do environmental work sufficient to get it labelled as 'environmentally-responsible'? Even if

  other competitors provide zero donations and Noan donates a paltry $1000 per annum to this cause?

  Even if the product-manufacturing process of Noan causes the maximum environmental degradation

  among all companies that operate in this product category? So, we see that a 'Yes' answer to this option statement is not sufficient in itself to strengthen the conclusion. Likewise, a 'No' answer does not significantly weaken the conclusion. For example, even if Noan donates zero dollars to such agencies while its competitors donate millions, does this necessarily mean that Noan is environmentally-irresponsible? Even if, Noan uses such a manufacturing process that causes zero pollution, whereas its competitors cause environmental damage worth billions of dollars while donating only a few millions to such environmental agencies?

  [Has Green Org audited the product-manufacturing processes of all competitors of Noan Industries?] This option is incorrect. Let's suppose the answer to this question is 'Yes.' If other competitors of Noan also get their process audited by Green Org, then by the logic used in this argument, the customers will believe that they too are environmentally-responsible companies. Well, then, so what? This does not impact the CEO's conclusion at all, which is just that the customers can be sure that his own company ?Noan Industries - is environmentally-responsible. Had the Noan CEO claimed that the customers can be sure that his company was the only environmentally-responsible company in the product category that it operated in, then indeed, his claim would have been weakened by a 'Yes' answer to this question. But, once again, the CEO has not made this "we are the only ones" claim. Likewise, a 'No' answer to this question will not affect the CEO's conclusion. [In the product category in which Noan Industries operates, does...] This option is incorrect. Let's suppose the answer to this question is 'Yes.' Then, all that this answer suggests is that, if the customers do believe that Noan is environmentally-responsible, then they may prefer to buy from Noan over its competitors. Well, this may impact the revenues and profits of the company in the long-term. However, the present argument is only about the CEO's claim of his company's environmental-responsibility. And this claim is neither strengthened nor weakened by a 'Yes' answer to this question. In a similar manner, answering this question with a 'No' does not impact the conclusion. Therefore, this answer choice does not help to evaluate the argument.

  [Do Noan's customers trust the audit reports of Green Org?] This option is correct. Let's suppose the answer to this question is 'Yes.' This means, if Green Org says that Noan is an environmentally-responsible company, then the customers are going to believe that it is so. This greatly strengthens the CEO's claim. On the other hand, if the answer to this question is 'No,' that is, if the customers do not trust Green Org's audit reports, then the CEO's conclusion - that the customers will feel sure that Noan is environmentally-responsible because it's been audited by Green Org ?stands shattered. Therefore, the answer to the question helps us assess (evaluate) the correctness of the conclusion.

  [Does Noan Industries make lesser profits than its competitors?] This option is incorrect. The companies mentioned in the first statement of the argument are concerned about "increasing their profits." The numerical values of their profits are never mentioned in the argument, nor is it suggested that the judgment of whether a company is environmentally-responsible or not depends on the profits made by the company. Therefore, whether you answer the question posed by this answer choice with a 'Yes' or 'No,' the conclusion remains unimpacted.