LSAC LSAC Certifications LSAT-TEST Questions & Answers

• Question 451:

  The organizer of a reading club will select at least five and at most six works from a group of nine works.

  The group consists of three French novels, three Russian novels, two French plays, and one Russian play.

  The organizer's selection of works must conform to the following requirements:

  No more than four French works are selected.

  At least three but no more than four novels are selected.

  At least as many French novels as Russian novels are selected.

  If both French plays are selected, then the Russian play is not selected.

  Which one of the following could be the organizer's selection of works?

  A. one French novel, two Russian novels, one French play, one Russian play

  B. two French novels, one Russian novel, two French plays, one Russian play

  C. two French novels, two Russian novels, two French plays

  D. three French novels, one Russian novel, two French plays

  E. three French novels, two Russian novels, one Russian play

  Correct Answer: C

  A proper selection of works cannot include more than four French works ?but option [three French novels, one Russian novel, two French plays] does. It cannot include more than four novels of any type ?but option [three French novels, two Russian novels, one Russian play] does. It cannot let the Russian novels outnumber the French ones, yet they do in option [one French novel, two Russian novels, one French play, one Russian play]. And it cannot include all three plays, as option [two French novels, one Russian novel, two French plays, one Russian play] does.

• Question 452:

  Of the eight students--George, Helen, Irving, Kyle, Lenore, Nina, Olivia, and Robert--in a seminar, exactly

  six will give individual oral reports during three consecutive days-- Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.

  Exactly two reports will be given each day--one in the morning and one in the afternoon--according to the

  following conditions:

  Tuesday is the only day on which George can give a report.

  Neither Olivia nor Robert can give an afternoon report. If Nina gives a report, then on the next day Helen

  and Irving must both give reports, unless Nina's report is given on Wednesday.

  If Helen, Kyle, and Lenore, not necessarily in that order, give the three morning reports, which one of the

  following must be true?

  A. Helen gives a report on Monday.

  B. Irving gives a report on Monday.

  C. Irving gives a report on Wednesday.

  D. Kyle gives a report on Tuesday.

  E. Kyle gives a report on Wednesday.

  Correct Answer: B

  Did this question's "if" bring one fact immediately to the forefront? We hope so: If Helen, Kyle, and Lenore are the morning speakers, then irrespective of their speaking order, Olivia and Robert are left out. We saw when analyzing Rule 2that squeezing these two out of the morning means squeezing them out of the schedule altogether. So with Olivia and Robert out, and Helen, Kyle, and Lenore (order still undetermined) filling the am slots, who's left for the pm's? George, Irving, and Nina, of course, and here we can be certain. Rule 1 demands that George be on Tuesday; and Rule 3 demands that under these circumstances, Nina be on Wednesday. So Irving for sure will get the Monday afternoon slot, and that's option [Irving gives a report on Monday]. Of the wrong choices option [Irving gives a report on Wednesday] is impossible, the others possible only.

• Question 453:

  Of the eight students -- George, Helen, Irving, Kyle, Lenore, Nina, Olivia, and Robert -- in a seminar,

  exactly six will give individual oral reports during three consecutive days -- Monday, Tuesday, and

  Wednesday. Exactly two reports will be given each day -- one in the morning and one in the afternoon -according to the following conditions:

  Tuesday is the only day on which George can give a report.

  Neither Olivia nor Robert can give an afternoon report. If Nina gives a report, then on the next day Helen

  and Irving must both give reports, unless Nina's report is given on Wednesday.

  If Kyle gives the afternoon report on Tuesday, and Helen gives the afternoon report on Wednesday, which

  one of the following could be the list of the students who give the morning reports on Monday, Tuesday,

  and Wednesday, respectively?

  A. Irving, Lenore, and Nina

  B. Lenore, George, and Irving

  C. Nina, Irving, and Lenore

  D. Robert, George, and Irving

  E. Robert, Irving, and Lenore

  Correct Answer: D

  The question is: Which of the five choices is a possible listing of the morning folks? First, we ought to skim for the obvious rule violators, and option [Nina, Irving, and Lenore] can therefore be quickly eliminated: Nina cannot take Monday here because we cannot have "Helen + Irving" on Tuesday (Rule 3). Next, work with the choices.

• Question 454:

  Of the eight students -- George, Helen, Irving, Kyle, Lenore, Nina, Olivia, and Robert -- in a seminar,

  exactly six will give individual oral reports during three consecutive days -- Monday, Tuesday, and

  Wednesday. Exactly two reports will be given each day -- one in the morning and one in the afternoon -according to the following conditions:

  Tuesday is the only day on which George can give a report.

  Neither Olivia nor Robert can give an afternoon report. If Nina gives a report, then on the next day Helen

  and Irving must both give reports, unless Nina's report is given on Wednesday.

  If George, Nina, and Robert give reports and they do so on different days from one another, which one of

  the following could be true?

  A. Helen gives a report on Wednesday.

  B. Nina gives a report on Monday.

  C. Nina gives a report on Tuesday.

  D. Olivia gives a report on Monday.

  E. Robert gives a report on Wednesday.

  Correct Answer: A

  The if clause identifies three of the 6 chosen reporters, and leaves it to us to (1) figure out as much as we can for certain, and (2) decide which of the five choices could be true. George is reporting, so he must take a Tuesday slot (Rule 1). Now, we don't know whether it's am or pm, but we do know (again, the question stem) that Nina and Robert appear on different days from each other and from George. Moreover, Nina cannot occupy a Monday slot here (because of Rule 3; for Nina to report on Monday she'd have to be followed by Helen + Irving on Tuesday, which is impossible now). So! Nina must take a Wednesday slot, and Robert will report on Monday morning (Rule 2). There's a lot left open, but we have shown that options [Helen gives a report on Wednesday], [Nina gives a report on Monday] and [Robert gives a report on Wednesday] are impossible (Nina's on Wednesday and Robert on Monday); and since Olivia, like Robert, is restricted to the am (Rule 2), Option [Olivia gives a report on Monday] is impossible as well. Option [Helen gives a report on Wednesday] is left over and must be correct. Indeed, Helen can share Wednesday with Nina.

• Question 455:

  Of the eight students--George, Helen, Irving, Kyle, Lenore, Nina, Olivia, and Robert--in a seminar, exactly

  six will give individual oral reports during three consecutive days-- Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.

  Exactly two reports will be given each day--one in the morning and one in the afternoon--according to the

  following conditions:

  Tuesday is the only day on which George can give a report.

  Neither Olivia nor Robert can give an afternoon report. If Nina gives a report, then on the next day Helen

  and Irving must both give reports, unless Nina's report is given on Wednesday.

  Which one of the following is a pair of students who, if they give reports on the same day as each other,

  must give reports on Wednesday?

  A. George and Lenore

  B. Helen and Nina

  C. Irving and Robert

  D. Kyle and Nina

  E. Olivia and Kyle

  Correct Answer: B

  The rather intricate wording might suggest a good "skipper," since we may learn more about which pairs can or cannot share a day in subsequent questions. (At the very least, subsequent questions are likely to be simpler to read and understand than this one.) But in the end it doesn't prove too difficult. The word "Wednesday" might suggest Rule 3, and are reading of Rule 3 might suggest that if Nina is to share a day with either Helen or Irving, that day would have to be Wednesday. And sure enough, "Helen + Nina" is what LSAT chose as option [Helen and Nina]. "Irving + Nina" would also qualify. Rule 1 in and of itself makes option [George and Lenore] incorrect - George cannot report on Wednesday, period; and it's relatively easy to work out, if you need to, that Irving and Robert., or Kyle and Nina, or Olivia and Kyle could each share the Tuesday slots, not necessarily Wednesday's.

• Question 456:

  Of the eight students -- George, Helen, Irving, Kyle, Lenore, Nina, Olivia, and Robert -- in a seminar,

  exactly six will give individual oral reports during three consecutive days -- Monday, Tuesday, and

  Wednesday. Exactly two reports will be given each day -- one in the morning and one in the afternoon -according to the following conditions:

  Tuesday is the only day on which George can give a report.

  Neither Olivia nor Robert can give an afternoon report. If Nina gives a report, then on the next day Helen

  and Irving must both give reports, unless Nina's report is given on Wednesday.

  If Kyle and Lenore do not give reports, then the morning reports on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday,

  respectively, could be given by

  A. Helen, George, and Nina

  B. Irving, Robert, and Helen

  C. Nina, Helen, and Olivia

  D. Olivia, Robert, and Irving

  E. Robert, George, and Helen

  Correct Answer: D

  The question asks for a possible roster of morning students given that Kyle and Lenore - our two floaters are the 2rejected ones. All that's being tested is your command of Rule 2: Since our 2 rejected ones have been named, then Olivia and Robert must be chosen to report, and Rule 2 demands that their slots be mornings.

• Question 457:

  Of the eight students -- George, Helen, Irving, Kyle, Lenore, Nina, Olivia, and Robert -- in a seminar,

  exactly six will give individual oral reports during three consecutive days -- Monday, Tuesday, and

  Wednesday. Exactly two reports will be given each day -- one in the morning and one in the afternoon -according to the following conditions:

  Tuesday is the only day on which George can give a report.

  Neither Olivia nor Robert can give an afternoon report. If Nina gives a report, then on the next day Helen

  and Irving must both give reports, unless Nina's report is given on Wednesday.

  Which one of the following could be the schedule of students' reports?

  A. Mon. morning: Helen; Mon. afternoon: Robert Tues. morning: Olivia; Tues. afternoon: Irving Wed. morning: Lenore; Wed. afternoon: Kyle

  B. Mon. morning: Irving; Mon. afternoon: Olivia Tues. morning: Helen; Tues. afternoon: Kyle Wed. morning: Nina; Wed. afternoon: Lenore

  C. Mon. morning: Lenore; Mon. afternoon: Helen Tues. morning: George; Tues. afternoon: Kyle Wed. morning: Robert; Wed. afternoon: Irving

  D. Mon. morning: Nina; Mon. afternoon: Helen Tues. morning: Robert; Tues. afternoon: Irving Wed. morning: Olivia; Wed. afternoon: Lenore

  E. Mon. morning: Olivia; Mon. afternoon: Nina Tues. morning: Irving; Tues. afternoon: Helen Wed. morning: Kyle; Wed. afternoon: George

  Correct Answer: C

  If we scan for George appearing on any day other than Tuesday (Rule 1), we see that option [Mon.

  morning: Olivia; Mon...] is incorrect (it schedules George for Wednesday). If we scan for Olivia and Robert

  in afternoon slots (Rule2), we knock out options [Mon. morning: Irving...] and [Mon. morning: Helen...]

  respectively. Of the remaining two choices, one is possible and the other not, and we have only one rule

  left. So let's scope out Nina.

  In option [Mon. morning: Lenore...] Nina doesn't appear at all, which seems O.K. In option [Mon. morning:

  Nina...] Nina appears on Monday - and whoops, there it is: Rule 3 would require Helen and Irving on

  Tuesday's schedule, and while option [Mon. morning: Nina...] does have Nina precede Helen and Irving,

  the scheduling doesn't quite work.

• Question 458:

  Native speakers perceive sentences of their own language as sequences of separate words. But this perception is an illusion. This is shown by the fact that travelers who do not know a local language hear an unintelligible, uninterrupted stream of sound, not sentences with distinct words.

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

  A. It is impossible to understand sentences if they are in fact uninterrupted streams of sound.

  B. Those who do not know a language cannot hear the way speech in that language actually sounds.

  C. People pay less close attention to the way their own language sounds than they do to the way an unfamiliar language sounds.

  D. Accomplished non-native speakers of a language do not perceive sentences as streams of sound.

  E. Native speakers' perceptions of their own language are not more accurate than are the perceptions of persons who do not know that language.

  Correct Answer: E

  One last Assumption question to round out the section, and the stimulus is fairly short. "This is shown by the fact that" is a long winded way of saying "here comes evidence for the conclusion in the previous sentence." The author concludes that native speakers' perception of sentences as a string of individual words is an illusion, based on evidence that traveling non-speakers don't hear it that way. But who's to say that the travelers have it right? Maybe this perception is not illusory, and those who don't speak the local language are simply unable to perceive sentences as sequences of separate words. The author takes for granted, without providing any justification, that the travelers' perception in this area is somehow more valid than that of the native speakers. Option [Native speakers' perceptions of their...] captures the gist of this assumption. If we deny this option, and say that the native speakers' take on the situation is the more accurate one, then the conclusion that their perception is illusory would not be supported at all by the evidence given.

• Question 459:

  Science journalist: Brown dwarfs are celestial objects with more mass than planets but less mass than stars. They are identified by their mass and whether or not lithium is present in their atmospheres. Stars at least as massive as the Sun have lithium remaining in their atmospheres because the mixing of elements in their internal nuclear furnaces is incomplete. Stars with less mass than the Sun have no lithium because the element has been fully mixed into their nuclear furnaces and consumed. A brown dwarf does not have a fully functional nuclear furnace and so its lithium cannot be consumed.

  Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the science journalist's statements?

  A. Any celestial object without lithium in its atmosphere is a star with less mass than the Sun.

  B. Any celestial object with lithium in its atmosphere has a nuclear furnace that has incompletely mixed the object's elements.

  C. No celestial object that has no lithium in its atmosphere is a brown dwarf.

  D. No celestial object with lithium in its atmosphere has less mass than the Sun.

  E. No celestial object less massive than a brown dwarf has lithium in its atmosphere.

  Correct Answer: C

  For Inference questions, we recommend that you focus on the most concrete statements because they're the ones that are most likely to lead to deductions or even directly to the right answer. Happily, that's the case here. We get a definition of brown dwarfs, followed by lots of information on stars. The star info might have thrown you off a bit, considering that brown dwarf shave less mass than stars and therefore cannot be stars themselves. But if you hang in there, the journalist gets back to brown dwarfs, and the most definitive statement comes at the end: A brown dwarf's lithium cannot be consumed. Well, at least that's pretty simple -- it means that brown dwarfs have lithium. Option [No celestial object that has no lithium in...], after a bit of translation, says that "any celestial object that has no lithium in its atmosphere is not a brown dwarf." Well, if brown dwarfs do have lithium.

• Question 460:

  Editorial: This political party has repeatedly expressed the view that increasing spending on education is a worthy goal. On other occasions, however, the same party has claimed that the government should not increase spending on education. So this party's policy is clearly inconsistent.

  The argument in the editorial depends on assuming which one of the following?

  A. It is inconsistent for a legislator both to claim that increasing spending on education is a worthy goal and to vote against increasing spending on education.

  B. A consistent course of action in educational policy is usually the course of action that will reduce spending on education in the long run.

  C. Even if a goal is a morally good one, one should not necessarily try to achieve it.

  D. A consistent political policy does not hold that an action that comprises a worthy goal should not be performed.

  E. Members of one political party never have inconsistent views on how to best approach apolitical issue.

  Correct Answer: D

  Another Assumption question to chew on, and not surprisingly, there's a scope shift that needs to be cleared up before the conclusion that the party's policy is inconsistent is viable. Why the inconsistency, according to the editorialist? Because the party has said that increasing spending on education is a good thing, yet at other times has claimed that the government shouldn't increase education spending. But noting the worthiness of a cause and suggesting it be acted upon are two different things; it's possible that despite thinking that the cause is worthy, other considerations cause the party to claim the government shouldn't do anything about it. In order for these positions to be truly inconsistent, as the editorialist contends, we need a more precise definition of inconsistency that shows these two positions to be mutually exclusive. Option [A consistent political policy does not hold that...] accomplishes this, by implying that a political policy is not consistent if it holds that a worthy action should not be done. The editorialist doesn't actually say this, but must assume this is the case in order for the conclusion to stand. If you weren't able to prephrase this answer, don't fret -- this was a tough one. But hopefully you saw the merits of option [A consistent political policy does not hold that...]. When you got to it, or even confirmed it using the Denial Test (see second bullet point below).