LSAC LSAC Certifications LSAT-TEST Questions & Answers

• Question 411:

  Some vegetarians have argued that there are two individually sufficient reasons for not eating meat--one based on health considerations, and the other based on the aversion to living at the expense of other conscious creatures. But suppose that eating meat were essential to good health for humans. Then it would be less clear that an aversion to living at the expense of other conscious creatures is enough of a reason to stop eating meat.

  Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the supposition that eating meat is essential to good health?

  A. It is used to disprove the vegetarian position that we should not eat meat,

  B. It is used to show that the two types of reasons cited in favor of vegetarianism are independent.

  C. It is used to disprove the claim that a vegetarian diet is healthy.

  D. It is used to weaken the claim that the consciousness of animals is a sufficient reason for not eating meat.

  E. It is used to show that there is no sufficient reason for not eating meat.

  Correct Answer: D

  Here's a Role of a Statement question, which means that we have to focus on the context of a particular idea; in this case, a supposition. We're given two independent sufficient reasons vegetarians advance for not eating meat: it's not healthy, and it's not good to live at the expense of other creatures. "Sufficient" here is meant to imply that either reason can standalone as a reason to avoid meat. But suppose eating meat were essential to good health, says the author. "Then..."-- well, how convenient! The author follows the supposition in question with the word "Then," which clearly signals that what's coming up next must be the reason the supposition was included. Then, claims, the author, it wouldn't be as clear that the other reason, the aversion to living at other creatures' expense, would be a sufficient reason to avoid meat. So by casting doubt on one reason, the author tries to weaken the other reason as well.

• Question 412:

  Experimental psychology requires the application of statistics to interpret empirical data and assess their significance. A person will not be able to understand such applications without training in statistics. Therefore, the more training one has in statistics, the better one will be at research in experimental psychology.

  Which one of the following arguments exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that exhibited by the argument above?

  A. Most people need the love and support of others; without it, they become depressed and unhappy. Therefore, in most instances, the more love and support a person receives, the happier that person will be.

  B. Since in most jobs there are annual wage or salary increases, the longer one has worked, the more raises one will have received. Therefore, in a typical job, the longer one has worked, the greater one's

  income will be.

  C. The main cause of heart attacks is arteriosclerosis, the buildup of plaque on the interior wall of the coronary arteries. It develops over an extended period of time. Therefore, if one is at risk for arteriosclerosis, one becomes more likely to suffer a heart attack as one gets older.

  D. Since many disease processes are biochemical in nature, unless one understands chemistry one will not be able to understand the explanations for many diseases. Therefore, if one has no training in chemistry, one will not be able to master medicine.

  E. Since most disease processes are biochemical in nature, an understanding of chemistry will enable one to understand most diseases. Therefore, one needs little more than training in chemistry to be able to master medicine.

  Correct Answer: A

  Here's the first, and only pure Parallel Reasoning question of the section -- although, as mentioned above, has a definite Parallel Reasoning feel to it. Mimic the flaw is our task, and let's see, as always, if isolating the conclusion can be of any help. And it's not hard to find, signaled by the trusty Keyword "Therefore..." Paraphrased in general terms (which is how we always want to treat the conclusion in Parallel Reasoning questions), the last sentence says that the more of a certain thing you have, the better you'll be at something else. Options [Most people need the love and support of...] and [Since in most jobs there are annual wage or...] are passable on this front, including as they do a "more X, more Y" style of reasoning, but the rest don't conform at all: option [The main cause of heart attacks is arteriosclerosis...] is element of likelihood has no counterpart in the original. Option [Since many disease processes are biochemical in...] is "no training" doesn't match "more training" in the stimulus, and this option is conclusion about what will not happen is also out of place. Option [Since most disease processes are biochemical in nature, an understanding...] is conclusion, meanwhile, deals with what's required to do something, which also doesn't conform to the passage conclusion's "more/better" structure. But there is a "requirement" element in the evidence, and that helps us to differentiate between the right answer and the fourth loser. The most glaring element of the first sentence is that one thing requires another, and comparing options [Most people need the love and support of...] and [Since in most jobs there are annual wage or...]., only the first contains this element -- people need love and support. The second describes a typical consequence of an activity(working), but that's not the same thing. Options [Most people need the love and support of...] is the only choice that mimics the two main elements of the passage: the "more/better" structure of the conclusion, and the notion of necessity in the evidence.

• Question 413:

  Dana: It is wrong to think that the same educational methods should be used with all children. Many children have been raised in more communal environments than others and would therefore learn better through group, rather than individual, activities. A child's accustomed style of learning should always dictate what method is used. Pat: No, not always. The flexibility of being able to work either on one's own or in a group is invaluable in a world where both skills are in demand.

  The conversation lends the most support to the claim that Dana and Pat disagree on which one of the following?

  A. All children can learn valuable skills from individual activities.

  B. All children should learn to adapt to various educational methods.

  C. Many children would learn better through group, rather than individual, activities.

  D. The main purpose of education is to prepare children to meet the demands of the job market as adults.

  E. It is sometimes desirable to tailor educational methods to the way a child learns best.

  Correct Answer: B

  Next up is a Point-At-Issue question, so understanding (and sticking to!) to the scope is all-important. Dana's point comes through loud and clear in her first sentence: The idea that educational methods should be uniform for all children is wrong. According to her, what a child is used to should determine how the child is taught, and the example given is that children raised in group environments would benefit more from group, as opposed to individual, instruction. Pat disagrees immediately, asserting that the skills picked up from both individual and group instruction are crucial in the real world. So essentially he takes issue with the word "always" in Dana's argument; he thinks, for practical purposes, learning should not always be geared to methods to which children are most accustomed. Option [All children should learn to...] gets at the heart of this conflict. Pat would agree that children should learn to adapt to different teaching methods; that's right in line with his notion of "flexibility" that's "invaluable" out there in the real world. Dana would see option [All children should learn to...] and say "phooey! -- children shouldn't have to adapt; they should be taught however they're most comfortable.

• Question 414:

  Editorial: Medical schools spend one hour teaching preventive medicine for every ten hours spent teaching curative medicine, even though doctors' use of the techniques of preventive medicine cuts down medical costs greatly. Therefore, if their goal is to make medicine more cost-effective, medical schools spend insufficient time teaching preventive medicine.

  Which one of the following is an assumption on which the editorial's argument depends?

  A. Preventive medicine makes use of technologies that are lower in initial cost than the technologies used within the practice of curative medicine.

  B. Every hour devoted to the teaching of preventive medicine reduces medical costs by 10 percent or more.

  C. Medical schools could increase their total number teaching hours.

  D. Improvements in doctors' use of the techniques of curative medicine would only increase overall medical costs.

  E. The time required to teach preventive medicine thoroughly is greater than one hour for every ten that are now spent teaching curative medicine.

  Correct Answer: E

  When we see an Assumption question, we think "there's something missing, and it's required for this argument to work. "Let's look for a gap between the evidence and conclusion. In medical school, learning how to cure medical problems outweighs learning how to prevent them 10 to 1, even though preventive medicine cuts down on medical costs. The editorial concludes that if the schools are interested in making medicine more cost-effective, then they're not spending enough time on preventive medicine. But even though time spent teaching curative medicine outweighs preventive 10 to 1, where does the editorial establish that this ratio is not sufficient to adequately teach preventive medicine? It doesn't. Sure, the 10 to 1 ratio sounds disproportionate, but maybe the subject of preventive medicine can be taught just fine in the time currently allotted. If so, then the editorialist would be wrong to argue that cost-conscious medical schools spend insufficient time teaching preventive medicine. E. must therefore be assumed: In a fairly long-winded manner, all it says is that the 10 to 1 ratio is not sufficient to teach preventive medicine well. If it was sufficient (the Denial Test), then the argument would make no sense.

• Question 415:

  The tendency toward overspecialization in the study of artifacts is unfortunate. Scholars can enhance their understanding of a certain artistic period by studying art from earlier periods that had a significant influence on it. For instance, because of its influence on Spanish artisans, a proper understanding of Arabic porcelain is indispensable for a proper understanding of Spanish porcelain.

  Of the following, which one most closely conforms to the principle that the passage as a whole illustrates?

  A. To understand completely the major trends in research on aging, one must understand the influences these trends exert on society's view of aging.

  B. To understand fully the historical events of this century, a historian must have an understanding of similar events in earlier centuries.

  C. To appreciate fully the French language, one must understand the other languages that share its linguistic ancestry.

  D. To understand properly any academic discipline, one must have at least a superficial acquaintance with the practices of the wider academic community.

  E. To understand completely Aristotle's philosophy, one must be well acquainted with the philosophy of his intellectual mentor, Plato.

  Correct Answer: E

  The stem tells us that the entire stimulus represents a principle, and that we're to find the choice that involves a situation that behaves according to that principle. So the first step, naturally, is to extract the principle from the passage. The author is against the overspecialization in the study of artifacts, but that doesn't mean all that much to us until it's fleshed out with an alternative and an example. To understand a specific artistic period, the author claims that it helps to study previous art that influenced the period in question. The example further clarifies her position: Since Arabic porcelain influenced Spanish artisans, studying the previous Arabic stuff is crucial to understanding Spanish porcelain. So to paraphrase this in general terms, let's simply say that understanding a certain thing is important to understanding a later thing derived from it.

• Question 416:

  An antidote for chicken pox has been developed, but researchers warn that its widespread use could be dangerous, despite the fact that this drug has no serious side effects and is currently very effective at limiting the duration and severity of chicken pox.

  Which one of the following, if true, helps most to reconcile the apparent discrepancy indicated above?

  A. The drug is extremely expensive and would be difficult to make widely available.

  B. The drug has to be administered several times a day, so patient compliance is likely to be low.

  C. The drug does not prevent the spread of chickenpox from one person to another, even when the drug eventually cures the disease in the first person.

  D. When misused by taking larger-than-prescribed doses, the drug can be fatal.

  E. Use of the drug contributes to the development of deadlier forms of chicken pox that are resistant to the drug.

  Correct Answer: E

  "Apparent discrepancy" is LSAT lingo for Paradox, so let's find the mystery and then the choice that best solves it. An antidote for chicken pox that works quite well against the disease and has no serious side effects is found nonetheless to be potentially dangerous if used widely. The mystery, in a nutshell, then, is why the researcher warning if the drug seems safe on these counts? Hopefully you sensed that this one had "alternative possibility" written all over it. A valid resolution will probably suggest that there's some other danger inherent in the antidote, and that's what we should be on the lookout for. This prephrase is more than enough to fire right through options [The drug is extremely expensive and...], [The drug has to be administered...], [The drug does not prevent the spread of...], as we'll discuss below, but things get a bit trickier on the southern side of the choices, considering that both options [When misused by...] and [Use of the drug contributes to...] seem to introduce dangers of the antidote. How to choose between them? Option [When misused by...] looks good at first glance, but a closer inspection reveals a scope shift: The researcher warning was in relation to widespread use, not misuse of the antidote. Technically, any misused drug can be dangerous, especially when the misuse involves taking too much; overdose is always a possibility. So option [When misused by...] really doesn't explain why researchers feel that widespread use of the drug can be dangerous, since nothing in the argument suggests that it will be misused in this way. Option [Use of the drug contributes to...], on the other hand, squarely addresses the right issue: It basically says that using the drug will bring on a worse disease for which the drug is ineffective. If option [Use of the drug contributes to...] is true, then it's far easier to understand the researchers' warning despite the drug's seeming advantages.

• Question 417:

  Numerous paintings and engravings representing warfare can be found in remains of all civilizations going back to and including the Neolithic period, when agriculture was first developed. However, no paintings or engravings of warfare are found dating from before the Neolithic period. Therefore, warfare must have first developed as a result of the transition to an agricultural society.

  Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

  A. Paintings and engravings were the dominant forms of artistic expression during the Neolithic period.

  B. Warfare in the Neolithic period was always motivated by territorial disputes over agricultural land.

  C. There was no warfare prior to the period in which paintings and engravings of warfare were first created.

  D. Warfare is the inevitable result of the development of a civilization.

  E. Paintings and engravings of agricultural life began to be made at the same time as paintings and engravings of warfare.

  Correct Answer: C

  A standard Assumption stem, so the standard methods apply: Look for the gap between the evidence and conclusion and/or elements that need to be connected in order for the argument to work. Here we have a causal argument, and a fairly tenuous one at that--did you notice the scope shift? War is represented in the paintings and engravings of all civilizations back to and including the Neolithic period, the first period with agriculture, but not before that. Therefore, war resulted from the ransition to agriculture. So what's the shift? Look closely at how warfare is treated in the argument: In the evidence, we're old of representations of warfare, which the author uses to form a conclusion about when warfare itself actually arose. Well, in order for this to work, the author must assume that warfare did not appear on the scene before paintings and engravings it. If warfare actually appeared before representations of it, that would sever the connection the author seeks to establish between the advent of agriculture and the advent of war. So C. must be assumed in order for this argument to stand.

• Question 418:

  Psychologist: Doctors should never prescribe sedatives for people with insomnia. Most cases of insomnia that psychologists treat are known to be caused by psychological stress. This suggests that insomniacs do not need drugs that alter their biochemistry, but rather need psychotherapy to help them alleviate the stress causing their insomnia.

  Each of the following describes a flaw in the psychologist's reasoning EXCEPT:

  A. It presumes, without providing warrant, that insomnia contributes to an inability to cope with stress.

  B. It fails to consider the possibility that sedatives are the only treatment known to be effective for cases of insomnia not caused by stress.

  C. It neglects the possibility that for some people psychotherapy is a completely ineffective treatment for stress.

  D. It overlooks the possibility that sedatives could help insomniacs cope with stress.

  E. It presumes, without providing justification, that the cases of insomnia psychologists treat are representative of all cases of insomnia.

  Correct Answer: A

  One has to wonder if the psychologist went out of his way to construct such a lousy argument. After all, it's not easy to cram four distinct flaws into a three-sentence pronouncement, but the psychologists somehow manages to do just that. Sedatives should never be prescribed for insomnia because most cases of insomnia that psychologists treat are caused by stress. Well, there's a first possible flaw, the familiar non-representative sample: The psychologist can't form a general conclusion about how insomnia shouldn't be treated based only on evidence concerning people treated by psychologists; what about those who aren't?

  E. speaks directly to this issue and can therefore be eliminated. Furthermore, the fact that most cases of insomnia are caused by stress doesn't mean that all are, and so perhaps for the non-stress related cases sedatives can be helpful. So again the "never prescribe sedatives" recommendation overreaches, and B. describes this flaw perfectly. Now for the rest of the argument: Because these cases treated by psychologists are mostly caused by stress, insomniacs don't need drugs, but rather psychotherapy to alleviate stress. This sounds a bit self- serving and suspect, but if nothing specific hits you, then it's time to check out the remaining choices.

• Question 419:

  Theoretically, analog systems are superior to digital systems. A signal in a pure analog system can be infinitely detailed, while digital systems cannot produce signals that are more precise than their digital units. With this theoretical advantage there is a practical disadvantage, however. Since there is no limit on the potential detail of the signal, the duplication of an analog representation allows tiny variations from the original, which are errors. These errors tend to accumulate as signals are duplicated, until this "noise" obliterates the information embodied in the original signal.

  The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

  A. Many ideas that work well in theory do not work well in practice.

  B. Analog representation of information is impractical because we do not need infinitely detailed information.

  C. Digital systems are the best information systems because error cannot occur in the emission of digital signals,

  D. Analog systems are inferior to digital systems for most practical purposes.

  E. Digital systems are preferable to analog systems when the signal must be reproduced many times.

  Correct Answer: E

  We see an Inference stem and a lot of text, so we should gear our attack on the stimulus accordingly, scoping out the more concrete facts and looking to interpret and combine as we go. In theory, we're told, analog systems trump digitalones, and sentence 2 tells us one way that's so--a difference in the detail and precision of their respective signals. But there's a very real downside to this theoretical advantage: The detail possible in an analog signal allow for errors to creep in during duplication, and the resultant noise can eventually drown out the original signal. There's nothing really obvious in the way of connections here, so we'll have to rely on a careful evaluation of the choices.

• Question 420:

  Harrold Foods is attempting to dominate the soft-drink market by promoting "Hero," its most popular carbonated drink product, with a costly new advertising campaign. But survey results show that, in the opinion of 72 percent of all consumers, "Hero" already dominates the market. Since any product with more than 50 percent of the sales in a market is, by definition, dominant in that market, Harrold Foods dominates the market now and need only maintain its current market share in order to continue to do so.

  The argument commits which one of the following errors in reasoning?

  A. failing to exclude the possibility that what appears to be the result of a given market condition may in fact be the cause of that condition

  B. mistaking a condition required if a certain result is to obtain for a condition that by itself is sufficient to guarantee that result

  C. treating the failure to establish that a certain claim is false as equivalent to a demonstration that that claim is true

  D. taking evidence that a claim is believed to be true to constitute evidence that the claim is in fact true

  E. describing survey results that were obtained in the past as if they are bound to obtain in the future as well

  Correct Answer: D

  A Logical Flaw question is up next, and this one contains more familiar concepts than the previous surrealist manifesto on art. Harrold Foods is sinking tons of money into ads for its Hero drink in order to dominate the market, but a survey shows that 72% of all consumers already think Hero's on top. The author then asserts that Harrold is in fact dominant in the market, with dominance defined as having more than 50% market share. It's hard to miss the scope shift inherent in this reasoning: In making that claim, the author evidently equates "72% of people think Hero is dominant" with "Herohas72% of sales in the market." But these aren't the same things; if only market share were that easy!