LSAC LSAC Certifications LSAT-TEST Questions & Answers

• Question 421:

  Surrealist: Many artists mistakenly think that models need be taken only from outside the psyche. Although human sensibility can confer beauty upon even the most vulgar external objects, using the power of artistic representation solely to preserve and reinforce objects that would exist even without artists is an ironic waste.

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

  A. An artist's work should not merely represent objects from outside the psyche.

  B. Artistic representation is used solely to preserve and reinforce objects.

  C. Artists should not base all their work on mere representation.

  D. Great art can confer beauty even upon very vulgar external objects.

  E. True works of art rarely represent objects from outside the psyche.

  Correct Answer: A

  In this one we have to determine the conclusion, so we'll look to identify the components of the argument. Well, we shouldn't expect anything uttered by a surrealist to be particularly straightforward, and this is no exception -- the argument is fairly abstract conceptually, but if you follow the structure it's not that bad. The first sentence tells us that it's a mistake to think that artists should use only models from outside the psyche. If the next sentence tells us why this is a mistake, then that means the first sentence is the conclusion. And indeed, the second sentence does provide that evidence: While artists can do something with even the worst external objects (and hopefully you understood "external objects" as synonymous with "models...outside the psyche"), using artistic talent only on such external objects is a waste.

• Question 422:

  Biologist: Humans have five fingers because we descended from a fish with five phalanges in its fins. Despite our prejudices to the contrary, our configuration of fingers is no more or less useful than several other possible configurations, e.g., six per hand. So, if humans had descended from a fish with six phalanges in its fins and had six fingers on each hand, then we would be just as content with that configuration.

  Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the biologist's argument?

  A. Everyone is equally content with our present configuration of fingers.

  B. Humans are never equally content with two things of unequal usefulness.

  C. Humans are always equally content with two things of equal usefulness.

  D. The perceived usefulness of our configuration of fingers is an illusory result of our prejudices.

  E. At least one species of fish had six phalanges in its fins.

  Correct Answer: C

  Another Strengthen the Argument question, so let's try to spot an element that needs a bit of extra support. It's a strange argument: The biologist asserts that having five fingers is merely a developmental coincidence, and that we'd have six fingers on each hand if our marine ancestor had six phalanges. Moreover, we'd be just as happy with six fingers as we are with five. This last part is based on the assertion that there's no difference in usefulness between having six fingers and having five. That's a connection that's a bit tenuous, so chances are that our strengthener will relate to this in some way.

  We may ask ourselves: "What if there are other differences that might affect our finger satisfaction?" After all, usefulness is only one possible criteria that might determine how happy we are with our finger configuration (perhaps there areaesthetic concerns as well). The author assumes this is not the case; that is, that no other considerations affect our perceptions in this matter, and that equal usefulness is enough to ensure equal contentedness.

• Question 423:

  Every moral theory developed in the Western tradition purports to tell us what a good life is. However, most people would judge someone who perfectly embodied the ideals of any one of these theories not to be living a good life -- the kind of life they would want for themselves and their children.

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

  A. Most people desire a life for themselves and their children that is better than a merely good life.

  B. A person who fits the ideals of one moral theory in the Western tradition would not necessarily fit the ideals of another.

  C. Most people have a conception of a good life that does not match that of any moral theory in the Western tradition.

  D. A good life as described by moral theories in the Western tradition cannot be realized.

  E. It is impossible to develop a theory that accurately describes what a good life is.

  Correct Answer: C

  Inference is the name of the game here, so let's dive right in, looking to interpret and combine statements. If most people would find someone living out the ideals of any moral theory in the Western tradition as lacking "a good life," then it stands to reason that most people's notion of a good life is not consistent with the ones embodied in the Western moral theories. That's C.

• Question 424:

  High blood cholesterol levels are bad for the heart. Like meat, eggs, and poultry, shellfish contains cholesterol. But shellfish is not necessarily bad for the heart; it is very low in saturated fat, which affects blood cholesterol levels much more than dietary cholesterol does.

  Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

  A. Meat and eggs are high in saturated fat.

  B. Small quantities of foods high in saturated fat are not bad for the heart.

  C. Shellfish has less cholesterol per gram than meat, eggs, and poultry do.

  D. Foods low in saturated fat promote low blood cholesterol.

  E. A serving of meat or poultry is typically larger than a serving of shellfish.

  Correct Answer: D

  Another LSAT mainstay topic -- blood cholesterol -- and this time in the context of a Strengthen the Argument question. First we get the familiar notion that high cholesterol is bad for the heart. Shellfish has cholesterol, but the author concludes that shellfish is not necessarily bad for the heart because it's low in saturated fat, which has an effect on cholesterol levels. But what effect does it have? The author assumes some sort of good effect, no doubt. To bolster this argument, we need to solidify the connection between consuming foods low in saturated fat and better cholesterol levels.

• Question 425:

  Figorian Wildlife Commission: The development of wetlands in industrialized nations for residential and commercial uses has endangered many species. To protect wildlife we must regulate such development in Figoria: future wetland development must be offset by the construction of replacement wetland habitats. Thus, development would cause no net reduction of wetlands and pose no threat to the species that inhabit them. Figorian Development Commission: Other nations have flagrantly developed wetlands at the expense of wildlife. We have conserved. Since Figorian wetland development might not affect wildlife and is necessary for growth, we should allow development. We have as much right to govern our own resources as countries that have already put their natural resources to commercial use

  Which one of the following principles, if accepted, would most strongly support the Figorian Development Commission's position against the Figorian Wildlife Commission's position?

  A. National resources should be regulated by international agreement when wildlife is endangered.

  B. The right of future generations to have wildlife preserved supersedes the economic needs of individual nations.

  C. Only when a reduction of populations of endangered species by commercial development has been found should regulation be implemented to prevent further damage.

  D. Environmental regulation must aim at preventing any further environmental damage and cannot allow for the different degrees to which different nations have already harmed the environment.

  E. It is imprudent to allow further depletion of natural resources.

  Correct Answer: C

  Now for the Development response: Figoria has conserved and has the right to develop if they wish, considering that wetland development might not, according to them, affect wildlife. We're looking for a principle that supports this position against the Wildlife account of things, and the final sentence itself sounds like a principle, stating that Figoria has as much right as other countries to decide how to use its resources.

• Question 426:

  Figorian Wildlife Commission: The development of wetlands in industrialized nations for residential and commercial uses has endangered many species. To protect wildlife, we must regulate such development in Figoria: future wetland development must be offset by the construction of replacement wetland habitats. Thus, development would cause no net reduction of wetlands and pose no threat to the species that inhabit them. Figorian Development Commission: Other nations have flagrantly developed wetlands at the expense of wildlife. We have conserved. Since Figorian wetland development might not affect wildlife and is necessary for growth, we should allow development. We have as much right to govern our own resources as countries that have already put their natural resources to commercial use.

  Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument advanced by the Figorian Wildlife Commission depends?

  A. More species have been endangered by the development of wetlands than have been endangered by any other type of development.

  B. The species indigenous to natural wetland habitats will survive in specially constructed replacement wetlands.

  C. In nations that are primarily agricultural, wetland development does not need to be regulated.

  D. Figorian regulation of development has in the past protected and preserved wildlife.

  E. The species that inhabit Figorian wetlands are among the most severely threatened of the designated endangered species.

  Correct Answer: B

  It's the Wildlife vs. the Development Commission in this debate, and first we'll focus on wildlife as the stem mandates, looking for a missing piece of the puzzle. The Wildlife folks maintain that wetland development has endangered many species, and to protect wildlife future wetlands must be offset by the development of replacement habitats. That way, reasons the Commission, there will be no loss of wetlands and no threat to species. But what if the construction of the replacement habitats, or something else about them, does endanger the species that would inhabit them? That would sink the argument, right? So the Wildlife Commission, in making this argument, must be assuming that their placement habitats will be conducive to the survival of species that would otherwise be in natural wetlands. B. speaks to this issue, and the Denial Test is easily applied: If the species can't survive in the new special replacement wetlands, then what's the point?

• Question 427:

  Editorial: The premier's economic advisor assures her that with the elimination of wasteful spending the goal of reducing taxes while not significantly decreasing government services can be met. But the premier should not listen to this advisor, who in his youth was convicted of embezzlement. Surely his economic advice is as untrustworthy as he is himself, and so the premier should discard any hope of reducing taxes without a significant decrease in government services.

  Which one of the following is a questionable argumentative strategy employed in the editorial's argument?

  A. rejecting a proposal on the grounds that a particular implementation of the proposal is likely to fail

  B. trying to win support for a proposal by playing on people's fears of what could happen otherwise

  C. criticizing the source of a claim rather than examining the claim itself

  D. taking lack of evidence for a claim as evidence undermining that claim

  E. presupposing what it sets out to establish

  Correct Answer: C

  A Flaw question -- maybe one the classics, maybe not. Let's see. The first sentence is a bit convoluted, but hopefully you didn't get overly bogged down in it because the rest of the passage contains the real action. The premier, according to the editorialist, shouldn't listen to the advisor because he was once convicted of embezzlement, and his advice is therefore likely to be as shady as he is. Who a there! That is a classic flaw, after all, as you doubt know that an argument needs evidence to support it other than a personal attack on an individual. This is what's sometimes called an "ad hominem" attack, an attack on a person's character rather than on his position. Scanning the choices with this prephrase in mind yields C.: The editorial attacks the source of a claim rather than the claim itself.

• Question 428:

  Cigarette companies claim that manufacturing both low-and high-nicotine cigarettes allows smokers to choose how much nicotine they want. However, a recent study has shown that the levels of nicotine found in the blood of smokers who smoke one pack of cigarettes per day are identical at the end of a day's worth of smoking, whatever the level of nicotine in the cigarettes they smoke.

  Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the finding of the nicotine study?

  A. Blood cannot absorb more nicotine per day than that found in the smoke from a package of the lowest-nicotine cigarettes available.

  B. Smokers of the lowest-nicotine cigarettes available generally smoke more cigarettes per day than smokers of high-nicotine cigarettes.

  C. Most nicotine is absorbed into the blood of a smoker even if it is delivered in smaller quantities.

  D. The level of tarin cigarettes is higher in lownicotine cigarettes than it is in some high-nicotine cigarettes.

  E. When taking in nicotine by smoking cigarettes is discontinued, the level of nicotine in the blood decreases steadily.

  Correct Answer: A

  Here's a popular LSAT topic: cigarettes. And we know from the stem that we're looking for a choice that helps make a study's finding more understandable. "Explain" questions are a subset of Paradox questions, and we shouldn't be surprised if the finding is unusual or puzzling. And so it is, as the ever-helpful Contrast Keyword "However" suggests. By producing both low- and high-nicotine cigarettes, the cigarette companies think they're offering smokers a choice as to how much nicotine they wish to consume. But the study found equal levels of nicotine in the blood of smokers who smoke one pack a day, no matter what the level of nicotine in their cigarettes. This is certainly hard to understand, but perhaps you picked up on the shift between nicotine consumed and nicotine found in the blood--perhaps there's something about the latter that evens things out no matter how much nicotine is initially imbibed. That's worth keeping in mind as we hit the choices, and look...

• Question 429:

  Psychiatrist: Take any visceral emotion you care to consider. There are always situations in which it is healthy to try to express that emotion. So, there are always situations in which it is healthy to try to express one's anger.

  The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  A. Anger is always expressible.

  B. Anger is a visceral emotion.

  C. Some kinds of emotions are unhealthy to express.

  D. All emotions that are healthy to express are visceral.

  E. An emotion is visceral only if it is healthy to express.

  Correct Answer: B

  An assumption is necessary here in order for the conclusion to stand, and a quick glance at the choices clues us in that this is most likely a "connect the dots" type of problem, being that each one is concerned with linking various elements that we'll no doubt find in the passage. We're told that visceral emotions are always in some cases healthy to try to express; therefore there are cases in which it is healthy to try to express anger. Well, that works only if anger is a visceral emotion, right? "Anger" in the conclusion appears out of nowhere, and needs to be connected to "visceral emotion" from the evidence in order for the conclusion to work.

• Question 430:

  John: It was wrong of you to blame me for that traffic accident. You know full well that the accident was due to my poor vision, and I certainly cannot be held responsible for the fact that my vision has deteriorated. Michiko: But I can hold you responsible for your hazardous driving, because you know how poor your vision is. People are responsible for the consequences of actions that they voluntarily undertake, if they know that those actions risk such consequences.

  The principle that Michiko invokes, if established, would justify which one of the following judgments?

  A. Colleen was responsible for missing her flight home from Paris, because she decided to take one more trip to the Eiffel Tower even though she knew she might not have sufficient time to get to the airport if she did so.

  B. Colleen was responsible for having offended her brother when she reported to him an offensive comment made about his colleague, although she did not know her brother would mistakenly understand the comment to be about himself.

  C. Colleen was responsible for her automobile's having been stolen two weeks ago, because she did not take any of the precautions that the town police recommended in the antitheft manual they published last week.

  D. Colleen was responsible for her cat's being frightened, because, even though it was her brother who allowed the door to slam shut, she knew that cats are often frightened by loud noises.

  E. Colleen was not responsible for losing her job, because, knowing that her position was in danger of being eliminated, she did everything possible to preserve it.

  Correct Answer: A

  It's hard to see how John is relevant here at all -- the stem tells us to apply the principle in Michiko's argument to the scenarios in the choices, so it makes sense to jump right to his argument to locate the principle in question. If we need John, we know where to find him. A principle is a general statement of what ought to be the case, and Michiko's second sentence has principle written all over it: If you voluntarily take an action that you know will involve some risks, then you're responsible for the consequences -- on its face, not such an unusual proposition. So in evaluating each choice, we'll be looking for one of two things: 1) a person (as we see, Colleen in all five cases) who knows what could result from what she's about to do and thus is held responsible for her actions; or 2) a person who does not know the possible repercussions and is therefore not held accountable. Either scenario would be justified by Michiko's principle.