LSAC LSAC Certifications LSAT-TEST Questions & Answers

• Question 461:

  Most people who shop for groceries no more than three times a month buy prepared frozen dinners regularly. In Hallstown most people shop for groceries no more than three times a month. Therefore, in Hallstown most people buy prepared frozen dinners regularly.

  Which one of the following arguments has a flawed pattern of reasoning most like the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

  A. It is clear that most drivers in West Island are safe drivers since there are very few driving accidents in West Island and most accidents there are not serious.

  B. It is clear that John cannot drive, since he does not own a car and no one in his family who does not own a car can drive.

  C. It is clear that Fernando's friends usually drive to school, since all of his friends can drive and all of his friends go to school.

  D. It is clear that most people in Highland County drive sedans, since most people who commute to work drive sedans and most people in Highland County commute to work.

  E. It is clear that most of Janine's friends are good drivers, since she accepts rides only from good drivers and she accepts rides from most of her friends

  Correct Answer: D

  We've already seen a standard Parallel Reasoning question, so not surprisingly we come upon the "mimic the logical flaw" variety, and the same drill applies: Compare conclusions to narrow the choices down, and then look further. The conclusion is fairly obviously signaled by the ubiquitous Keyword "Therefore," and let's restate it in general terms: In a certain place, most people do X (buy prepared frozen dinners regularly). Happily, all of the wrong choices fall on this count alone; that is, they all fail to mimic this simple structure in their conclusions. Options [It is clear that most drivers in West Island are safe...], [It is clear that Fernando's friends usually drive to...] and [It is clear that most of Janine's friends are good drivers, since...] all conclude something about a certain type of person instead of the more general "most people" in a certain place: Option [It is clear that most drivers in West Island are safe...] concludes something about most drivers; Option [It is clear that Fernando's friends usually drive to...] about Fernando's friends; and option [It is clear that most of Janine's friends are good drivers, since...] is about most of Janine's friends. Option [It is clear that John cannot drive, since he...] concludes something about a specific person, John, which is even further away from "most people do X."

• Question 462:

  A smoker trying to quit is more likely to succeed if his or her doctor greatly exaggerates the dangers of smoking. Similar strategies can be used to break other habits. But since such strategies involve deception, individuals cannot easily adopt them unless a doctor or some other third party provides the warning.

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

  A. People tend to believe whatever doctors tell them.

  B. Most of the techniques that help people quit smoking can also help people break other habits.

  C. The more the relevant danger is exaggerated, the more likely one is to break one's habit.

  D. People generally do not find it easy to deceive themselves.

  E. A doctor is justified in deceiving a patient whenever doing so is likely to make the patient healthier.

  Correct Answer: D

  Next we're out for an assumption, so let's paraphrase this short argument and see if we can spot the missing link. We're told that it will be easier for a smoker to quit if the dangers of smoking are exaggerated by his or her doctor. But since this involves deception, the author states that individuals need a doctor or some third party to pull this off. Since the author argues that doctors or others are necessary to pull off the deception, he must believe that one can't successfully deceive oneself. Scanning the choices for something along these lines, option [People generally do not find it...] stands out. Applying the Denial Test, if people can easily deceive themselves, then why are doctors or third parties necessary to provide the warning? If we deny option [People generally do not find it...], the argument falls apart, which confirms that it is an assumption necessary to the argument.

• Question 463:

  Current maps showing the North American regions where different types of garden plants will flourish are based on weather data gathered 60 years ago from a few hundred primitive weather stations. New maps are now being compiled using computerized data from several thousand modern weather stations and input from home gardeners across North America. These maps will be far more useful.

  Each of the following, if true, helps to support the claim that the new maps will be more useful EXCEPT:

  A. Home gardeners can provide information on plant flourishing not available from weather stations.

  B. Some of the weather stations currently in use are more than 60 years old.

  C. Weather patterns can be described more accurately when more information is available.

  D. Weather conditions are the most important factor in determining where plants will grow.

  E. Weather patterns have changed in the past 60 years.

  Correct Answer: B

  Here's a "Strengthen EXCEPT" question, so we'll look to get as much as we can out of the stimulus and then evaluate the choices, eliminating the ones that help the argument while looking for the odd-man-out. The stem even provides the conclusion the new maps will be more useful. Here's the story: Current maps indicating where certain garden plants will grow in North America are based on old weather data gathered from a few hundred primitive weather stations. For the new maps, the data is computerized and gathered from thousands of "modern" stations as well as from home gardeners. Well, something about these new factors must make the new maps better, although the author never explicitly connects these things to the idea that the maps will be more useful. At least some of the strengtheners will undoubtedly cement this connection, while the right answer will be outside the scope or possibly even weaken the argument.

• Question 464:

  There is no genuinely altruistic behavior. Everyone needs to have a sufficient amount of self-esteem, which crucially depends on believing oneself to be useful and needed. Behavior that appears to be altruistic can be understood as being motivated by the desire to reinforce that belief, a clearly self-interested motivation.

  A flaw in the argument is that it

  A. presupposes that anyone who is acting out of self-interest is being altruistic

  B. illicitly infers that behavior is altruistic merely because it seems altruistic

  C. fails to consider that self-esteem also depends on maintaining an awareness of one's own value

  D. presumes, without providing justification, that if one does not hold oneself in sufficient self-esteem one cannot be useful or needed

  E. takes for granted that any behavior that can be interpreted as self-interested is in fact self-interested

  Correct Answer: E

  Another chance to debunk an argument, and this one starts out with a categorical assertion that genuine altruistic behavior is a hoax. The evidence is that everyone needs self-esteem, and that requires the belief that one is useful and needed. What appears to be altruistic behavior, therefore, can be understood to be motivated by people's selfish desire to see themselves as useful. A bit convoluted, eh? This is not an easy flaw to prephrase, but it turns out that the problem lies in the phrase "can be understood as being motivated..." The author doesn't actually say that selfish motivations definitely underlie altruistic behavior; he says that the altruistic behaviors can be understood to be based on selfish motivations. That's a subtle but crucial difference. E. picks up on this notion, pointing out that the author assumes that just because one can understand ("interpret") altruistic acts in a certain way (as "self-interested"), they actually are that way. Not one of the more obvious flaws, but 1) it works, and 2) the rest don't.

• Question 465:

  Until 1985 all commercial airlines completely replenished the cabin air in planes in flight once every 30 minutes. Since then the rate has been once every hour. The less frequently cabin air is replenished in a plane in flight, the higher the level of carbon dioxide in that plane and the easier it is for airborne illnesses to be spread.

  Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

  A. In 1985 there was a loosening of regulations concerning cabin air in commercial airline flights.

  B. People who fly today are more likely to contract airborne illnesses than were people who flew prior to 1985.

  C. Low levels of carbon dioxide in cabin air make it impossible for airborne illnesses to spread.

  D. In 1980 the rate at which the cabin air was replenished in commercial airliners was sufficient to protect passengers from the effects of carbon dioxide buildup.

  E. In 1980 the level of carbon dioxide in the cabin air on a two-hour commercial airline flight was lower than it is today on a similar flight.

  Correct Answer: E

  Next up is another Inference question, and the stimulus, not surprisingly, consists of a bunch of statements but no real argument perse. Let's see what we can deduce from them. Up until 1985, cabin air in commercial plane flights was replenished every half hour; since then, every hour. Two things are correlated with less frequent replenishings: higher CO2 levels, and greater ease for illness to be spread. (Note that technically, we can't tell whether these two things are related to each other; maybe increased CO2 makes it easier for illness to spread, but maybe these things are independent results. That's likely to be the basis of a wrong choice or two.) A simple prephrase here is possible: We can combine the statements to infer that since 1985, commercial plane rides have contained more CO2 than they did before, and that it's also easier to contract airborne illnesses on them. Let's look for either of those things among the choices.

• Question 466:

  Detective: Because the embezzler must have had specialized knowledge and access to internal financial records, we can presume that the embezzler worked for XYZ Corporation as either an accountant or an actuary. But an accountant would probably not make the kind of mistakes in ledger entries that led to the discovery of the embezzlement. Thus it is likely that the embezzler is one of the actuaries.

  Each of the following weakens the detective's argument EXCEPT:

  A. The actuaries' activities while working for XYZ Corporation were more closely scrutinized by supervisors than were the activities of the accountants.

  B. There is evidence of breaches in computer security at the time of the embezzlement that could have given persons outside of XYZ Corporation access to internal financial records.

  C. XYZ Corporation employs eight accountants, whereas it has only two actuaries on its staff.

  D. An independent report released before the crime took place concluded that XYZ Corporation was vulnerable to embezzlement.

  E. Certain security measures at XYZ Corporation made it more difficult for the actuaries to have access to internal financial records than for the accountants.

  Correct Answer: D

  Not too swift this detective, if the stem is any clue. Four weakeners means there are lots of ways to attack this argument, so hopefully you kept your eye out for possible loopholes. This nasty business of embezzlement is an inside job, states the detective. Because the embezzler must have had special knowledge and access to certain records, the detective thinks the perpetrator must be either an XYZ accountant or actuary. Then she rules out the accountants on account of the fact that they're not likely to make the kind of mistake found in the ledger, and the conclusion is predictable: The embezzler is probably an actuary. Well, there are a lot of possible holes here, and hopefully one or two "But what if...?" scenarios flitted through your mind. Any number of things can foil this argument, and maybe you came up with some on your own. You're not likely to prephrase all four weakeners, but you should at least have a general idea of what you're looking for before hitting the choices -- something that makes it more likely that the embezzler is not really an XYZ actuary.

• Question 467:

  Retailers that excel in neither convenience nor variety of merchandise tend not to be very successful. Yet many successful retailers excel in just one of the areas and meet competitors' standards for the other. Hence, a retailer's success need not depend on excellence in both areas.

  The structure of the reasoning in the argument above is most parallel to that in which one of the following?

  A. Runners who have only average speed and endurance are unlikely to win long-distance races. Some long-distance champions, however, win by being above average in speed or endurance only; therefore, being above average in both speed and endurance is not necessary.

  B. Bicyclists who have only average speed are unlikely to win short races, but in a long-distance race such bicyclists can win if they have better-built bicycles than average and better endurance than average. Therefore, most bicycle races are not won by bicyclists with above-average speed.

  C. Excellence in a particular swimming stroke is not always necessary in order for a swimmer to win a race that requires each swimmer to use several different strokes in sequence, and many swimmers win these races without being the best at any of the strokes. Therefore, anyone who does excel at all the strokes is almost certain to win.

  D. Apples that are neither especially firm nor especially flavorful are unsuitable for baking; yet while flavor is essential for both baking and eating, many flavorful apples that are soft are suitable for eating. Hence, the apples that are best for eating need not be both firm and flavorful.

  E. Most plants that are neither ornamental nor edible are useless and are thus classified as weeds; yet many such plants are useful for purposes other than food or ornamentation, and are thus not classified as weeds. Hence, not all inedible and non-ornamental plants are weeds.

  Correct Answer: A

  Parallel Reasoning is up next, so let's see if comparing conclusions can help us to knock off some of these lengthy choices. The conclusion, signaled helpfully by "Hence," is that a thing (success) does not depend on something else (excellence in two areas). So we'll first scan the choices' conclusions for something that's not necessary for something else. Option [Runners who have only average speed and...] meets that requirement, but option [Bicyclists who have only average speed are...]'s conclusion involves the issue of what's true of most races, something not found in the original. Option [Excellence in a particular swimming stroke is...]'s conclusion discusses the likelihood of winning, which isn't parallel either, while option [Most plants that are neither ornamental nor...]'s conclusion takes the form "not all X and Y are Z," which is way off.

• Question 468:

  Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature due to global warming eventually result in declines in fish and seabird populations. A rise of just two degrees prevents the vertical mixing of seawater from different strata. This restricts the availability of upwelling nutrients to phytoplankton. Since zooplankton, which feed upon phytoplankton, feed the rest of the food chain, the declines are inevitable.

  Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the statement that zooplankton feed upon phytoplankton?

  A. It is a hypothesis supported by the fact that phytoplankton feed on upwelling nutrients.

  B. It is intended to provide an example of the ways in which the vertical mixing of seawater affects feeding habits.

  C. It helps show how global temperature changes affect larger sea animals indirectly.

  D. It is offered as one reason that global warming must be curtailed.

  E. It is offered in support of the idea that global warming poses a threat to all organisms

  Correct Answer: C

  Next up is a Role of a Statement question, so categorizing the argument's components is paramount here. Let's shorten the terms to zoo and phyto for easier handling. The phrase in question is preceded immediately by "Since," which tells us right off the bat that we're probably dealing with some form of evidence. The conclusion that follows is that "the declines are inevitable," and this refers to declines of fish and seabird populations mentioned earlier. So you should at least get a sense that zoo feeding on phyto in some way plays a key part in the process that inevitably leads to the decline. Scanning the choices for something that recognizes this phrase as support or evidence for a larger point narrows the choices down to [It helps show how global temperature...]. and [It is offered in support of the idea that...] and option [It helps show how global temperature...] hits the nail on the head: The global temperature changes affect phyto; zoo feed on phyto and the rest of the food chain feed on zoo. So zoo feeding on phyto is the mechanism that comes between global temperature changes and the decline of the larger fish and seabird populations.

• Question 469:

  City council member: Despite the city's desperate need to exploit any available source of revenue, the mayor has repeatedly blocked council members' attempts to pass legislation imposing real estate development fees. It is clear that in doing so the mayor is sacrificing the city's interests to personal interests. The mayor cites figures to show that, in the current market, fees of the size proposed would significantly reduce the number of building starts and thus, on balance, result in a revenue loss to the city. But the important point is that the mayor's family is heavily involved in real estate development and thus has a strong financial interest in the matter.

  The reasoning in the city council member's argument is flawed because

  A. the issue of the mayor's personal interest in the proposed legislation is irrelevant to any assessment of the mayor's action with respect to that legislation

  B. the mayor's course of action being personally advantageous is not inconsistent with the mayor's action being advantageous for the city

  C. the council member's own absence of personal interest in the proposed legislation has not been established

  D. that a person or a municipality has a need for something does not, in itself, establish that that person or that municipality has a right to that thing

  E. the possibility remains open that the mayor's need to avoid loss of family revenue is as desperate as the city's need to increase municipal revenue

  Correct Answer: B

  Now that we've nailed down exactly what the council member said, let's now see what's wrong with it. As you recall, the mayor offers a rationale for his refusal to sign the legislation imposing real estate development fees. The council member begins her response with "But...", and we'd expect her to counter the mayor's figures in some way, or at least attempt to show that he's skewing the interpretation of same. Instead, she gives information about the mayor's family meant to suggest his self-interest alluded to earlier. But what about the mayor's evidence? She simply ignores it, citing his family's financial interests as the most important consideration in condemning the mayor's actions. But if his figures are correct and the city will actually lose money if the fees are imposed (a fact the council member doesn't contest), why is she so worried about his private concerns? If what's good for his family also happens to be good for the city, then how can the council member argue that the mayor is after his own benefit at the expense of the city? Maybe he is out for himself, but it doesn't seem to be at the city's expense, so there's no inconsistency here, as the council member suggests.

• Question 470:

  City council member: Despite the city's desperate need to exploit any available source of revenue, the mayor has repeatedly blocked council members' attempts to pass legislation imposing real estate development fees. It is clear that in doing so the mayor is sacrificing the city's interests to personal interests. The mayor cites figures to show that, in the current market, fees of the size proposed would significantly reduce the number of building starts and thus, on balance, result in a revenue loss to the city. But the important point is that the mayor's family is heavily involved in real estate development and thus has a strong financial interest in the matter.

  Which one of the following most accurately and completely expresses the main conclusion of the city council member's argument?

  A. Imposing real estate development fees is the best way for the city to exploit the available sources of revenue.

  B. The city would benefit financially from the passage of legislation imposing real estate development fees.

  C. In blocking council members' attempts to impose real estate development fees, the mayor is sacrificing the city's interests to personal interests.

  D. Significantly reducing the number of building starts would not, on balance, result in revenue loss to the city.

  E. The mayor's family has a strong financial interest in preventing the passage of legislation that would impose real estate development fees

  Correct Answer: C

  One argument, two questions. First we need to find the main point. The city seems eager for money, but the mayor won't allow legislation imposing fees for real estate. Think ahead! If that's the conclusion, the rest of the argument will be structured to provide evidence that the city wants money but the mayor's blocking said legislation. Is that what we get? Nope; the council member proceeds from there to a new point, and the conclusion Keyword phrase "it is clear that" is a strong clue that what's coming up is at least part of the main point. The council member accuses the mayor of putting his own interests above the city's. The next sentence contains the mayor's rationale for blocking the legislation, but the council member blows right past that, stating that the most important point is that the mayor's family is in the real estate biz and therefore has a financial interest in this matter. Can this last fact stand by itself; that is, can it satisfy the Training One Sentence Test? No; don't be fooled by the phrase "the most important point"; surely the council member didn't speak up merely to point out the mayor's family business and its interest in the matter. This last point relates back to the assertion that by blocking the legislation and not allowing fees on real estate development, the mayor is sacrificing the city's welfare in favor of his own (which, incidentally, allows us to kill option [The mayor's family has a strong financial interest in...]). All the statements point in this direction, and a quick scan for this yields option [In blocking council members' attempts to...].