LSAC LSAC Certifications LSAT-TEST Questions & Answers

• Question 491:

  It is impossible to do science without measuring. It is impossible to measure without having first selected units of measurement. Hence, science is arbitrary, since the selection of a unit of measurement -kilometer, mile, fathom, etc. -- is always arbitrary.

  The patteni of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the argument above

  A. Long hours of practice are necessary for developing musical skill. One must develop one's musical skill in order to perform difficult music. But long hours of practice are tedious. So performing difficult music is tedious.

  B. You have to advertise to run an expanding business, but advertising is expensive. Hence, it is expensive to run a business.

  C. It is permissible to sit on the park benches. To sit on the park benches one must walk to them. One way to walk to them is by walking on the grass. So it is permissible to walk on the grass.

  D. It is impossible to be a manager without evaluating people. The process of evaluation is necessarily subjective. Thus, people resent managers because they resent being evaluated subjectively.

  E. Some farming on the plains requires irrigation. This irrigation now uses water pumped from aquifers. But aquifers have limited capacity and continued pumping will eventually exhaust them. Thus, a new source of water will have to be found in order for such farming to continue indefinitely.

  Correct Answer: A

  The most efficient way through this Parallel Reasoning question is to recognize the kinds of statements that comprise the original argument, and then to search for the argument that contains not only the same types of statements, but the same number of them as well. Hopefully you recognized the first two sentences as statements of necessity: Paraphrasing, these boil down to "science requires measuring" and "measuring requires selecting units." These of course can be combined (science requires selecting units), another feature we'll be looking for in the correct choice. Moving on, let's hold the conclusion (signaled by "hence") for last and finish with the evidence: "Selecting units is always arbitrary" -- that's a simple statement of fact -- and that brings us to the conclusion that science is therefore arbitrary. So what do we have here? Two linked statements of necessity, a fact and a conclusion. That's certainly enough to go on.

• Question 492:

  Selena: Asteroid impact on the Earth caused the extinction of the dinosaurs by raising vast clouds of dust,

  thus blocking the Sun's rays and cooling the planet beyond the capacity of the dinosaurs, or perhaps the

  vegetation that supported them, to adapt. A worldwide dust layer provides evidence of asteroid impact at

  approximately the correct time, and a huge crater exists on the edge of the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico.

  Trent: That asteroid crater is not large enough for the requisite amount of dust to have been produced.

  Besides, the extinction of dinosaur species took many years, not just one or two.

  So the extinctions must have been due not to asteroid impact on the Earth but to some other kind of

  cause.

  Trent's argument assumes that

  A. any collision of an asteroid with the Earth would have occurred on a land area rather than an ocean

  B. dinosaurs in the neighborhood of an asteroid impact but not within the zone of direct impact would have survived such an impact

  C. any event that takes place over a long period of time has many different kinds of causes

  D. dust from the impact of an asteroid on the Earth would not have had any cooling effect on the climate

  E. no more than one large asteroid struck the Earth during the period when the dinosaurs were becoming extinct

  Correct Answer: E

  The stem tells us that Trent is the featured player in this one, but first Selena's argument. In a nutshell, Selena thinks asteroid impact unleashed a chain of events that caused the dinosaurs to die out. Trent responds that the extinction of the dinosaurs must have been due to some cause other than asteroid impact, based on the facts that the crater Selena mentions is too small to create the amount of dust required in her scenario, and that the extinction took many years. Both of Trent's facts seem to argue against the likelihood that the Mexican asteroid, by itself, did the dinosaurs in, but what if many asteroid impacts over time raised enough dust to set the process described in motion? (Notice that Selena never says that a single asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs.) If Trent accepted the possibility of multiple impacts, he'd have to rework his argument. For his argument as stated to stand, he'd have to assume that this didn't happen.

• Question 493:

  Ethicist: Some would ban cloning on the grounds that clones would be subpeople, existing to indulge the vanity of their "originals." It is not illegal, however, to use one person as a vehicle for the ambitions of another. Some people push their children to achieve in academics or athletics. You do not have to have been born in a test tube to be an extension of someone else's ego.

  The assertion that it is not illegal to use one person as a vehicle for another's ambitions is used in the ethicist's argument in which one of the following ways?

  A. It supports the ethicist's view that society does not value individuality as much as many opponents of cloning think it does.

  B. It supports the conclusion that forcing children to pursue academic success is not objectionable.

  C. It is implied by the ethicist's conviction that clones are not subpeople.

  D. It supports the ethicist's view that vanity's being the motivation for cloning is not enough of a reason to ban cloning.

  E. It describes a legal position that the ethicist argues should be changed.

  Correct Answer: D

  There seems to be a bunch of them running around somewhere. Anyhow this time we're asked to determine the role of a statement in the argument, so it's best to keep our eye out for the argument's structural components. Some would ban cloning because clones would be a lower class of people designed to indulge the vanity of the original person. The next sentence is the assertion we're to categorize. It contains the crucial Keyword "however," which essentially tells us that it will likely contain some kind of refutation of the first claim. And so it does: The counter is that we already use other people as a vehicle for personal ambitions, and it's by no means illegal to do so. The ethicist provides an example of people who aren't clones who are used to indulge other's egos, but for our purposes we've already come upon the relevant issue: As the Keyword "however" suggests, the phrase in question supports the idea that using clones for vain purposes is not a sufficient reason to ban cloning.

• Question 494:

  Ashley: Words like "of" and "upon," unlike "pencil" and "shirt," do not refer to anything. Joshua: I agree; and since such words are meaningless, they should be abandoned.

  Joshua's remarks indicate that he interpreted Ashley's statement to imply that

  A. only words that refer to something have meaning

  B. words that are not useful are meaningless

  C. words that refer to something are meaningful

  D. if a word is not useful, it should be abandoned

  E. all words that refer to something are useful

  Correct Answer: A

  Here's a question type that used to be more common on the test, the old "crossed-wires" example. One person speaks, the second responds based on a misunderstanding of what was said, and we're asked to figure out what he was thinking in order to respond the way he did. So, how does Joshua interpret Ashley's statement? As far as scope shifts go, this one is pretty blatant: Ashley says that the words "of" and "upon" don't refer to anything. Joshua agrees, and says that because such words are meaningless, they should be abandoned. The logic of Joshua's response clearly relies on the notion that if a word does not refer to anything, then it's meaningless. That's his interpretation of Ashley's comment (although it's not what she actually said). That could be the answer, but evidently the test makers found that to be too easy, so instead they went with the contrapositive: "If a word has meaning, then it refers to something." Option [only words that refer to something have meaning] is the equivalent of this in "only" form.

• Question 495:

  Ethicist: Both ASA and TPA are clot-dissolving agents. Recent studies show that the more expensive agent, TPA, would save at most two more lives than would ASA out of every 50 cardiac patients to whom they are post operatively administered. However, since the relatives of the patients who die simply because they were given the less expensive medicine would be particularly grieved, the financial saving involved in using ASA over TPA must also be weighed against such considerations.

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

  A. ASA should never be given to postoperative cardiac patients in place of TPA.

  B. TPA is a slightly more effective clot-dissolving agent than ASA.

  C. The extra expense of TPA cannot be weighed simply against the few additional lives saved.

  D. SA is a less expensive clot-dissolving agent than TPA.

  E. Relatives of a patient who has died grieve more if the patient received ASA rather than TPA.

  Correct Answer: C

  Next we're asked to figure out the conclusion of the ethicist's argument, so let's paraphrase: Of two clot-dissolving agents, the costlier one, TPA, would save at most two more lives out of every 50 cardiac patients than would ASA when given after an operation. But, since relatives of those who don't survive surgery would feel worse if the less effective, cheaper ASA were given, one shouldn't base the decision of which drug to use on financial concerns alone. Choices [TPA is a slightly more effective...], [SA is a less expensive...] and [Relatives of a patient who has died grieve...] repeat the facts of the matter; they are the evidence for the conclusion summarized in choice [The extra expense of TPA cannot be...]. We know the last part of the last sentence is the conclusion because it is prescriptive; it says what the author thinks should be done, based on all of the evidence given before. It's the only choice that passes the Training One Sentence Test; that is, if all the author were allowed was one sentence, choice [The extra expense of TPA cannot be...] is the statement that would best convey his point. Choices [TPA is a slightly more effective...], [SA is a less expensive...] and [Relatives of a patient who has died grieve...] are all too narrow to encapsulate the entire argument; as we saw, each is a piece leading up to the main point.

• Question 496:

  Historian: Political regimes that routinely censor various forms of expression on the grounds that they undermine public morality inevitably attempt to expand the categories of proscribed expression to include criticisms that these regimes perceive to threaten their power. Accordingly, many totalitarian regimes classify as blasphemous or pornographic those writings that would, if widely influential, reduce public passivity.

  Which one of the following is an assumption on which the historian's reasoning depends?

  A. Unless a piece of writing expresses something that is widely believed, it is unlikely to be very popular.

  B. Not all political regimes that routinely censor forms of expression on the grounds that they erode public morality are totalitarian regimes.

  C. A totalitarian regime can perceive loss of public passivity as a threat to its power.

  D. Widespread public passivity is usually needed fora regime to retain political power.

  E. Most writings that totalitarian regimes label blasphemous or pornographic would, if widely influential, reduce public passivity.

  Correct Answer: C

  Another standard Assumption question, and you know the drill: Paraphrase the components of the argument, then look for scope shifts, mismatched terms, and elements that need to be connected for the argument to work. The author states that totalitarian regimes that censor expression on moral grounds tend to expand the scope of the censored material to criticisms they perceive may threaten their power. The conclusion drawn from this, signaled by "Accordingly," is that writings that could reduce passivity are vilified (labeled as blasphemous or pornographic) by many totalitarian regimes. If totalitarian regimes wish to censor, on moral grounds, expression that challenges their power, and therefore, according to the historian, vilify as immoral writings that make people less passive, then the historian must be assuming a connection between reduced passivity and a threat to the regimes' power.

• Question 497:

  Several recent studies establish that most people would want to be informed if they had any serious medical condition. In each study, over 80 percent of the people surveyed indicated that they would want to be told.

  Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument EXCEPT:

  A. In another recent study, most of the people surveyed indicated that they would not want to be told if they had a serious medical condition.

  B. People often do not indicate their true feelings when responding to surveys.

  C. Some of the researchers conducting the studies had no background in medicine.

  D. Some questions asked in the studies suggested that reasonable people would want to be told if they had a serious medical condition.

  E. The people surveyed in the studies were all young students in introductory psychology courses.

  Correct Answer: C

  This Weaken question provides a virtual clinic in analyzing a study; four of the choices will weaken the conclusion based on the study results, while the right answer will be the choice that's irrelevant, outside the scope, or even strengthens the argument. The conclusion is that most people would want to be told if they had a serious medical condition, based on the fact that 80 percent of those surveyed said that they would want to be told. When looking to weaken any argument that relies on a study, experiment, or survey, we look for choices that would invalidate (or at least seriously call into question) the results of the survey, and the weakeners here, as discussed below, fall into fairly common categories. The choice that does not weaken the argument predictably strays from the scope, and that's choice [Some of the researchers conducting the...]: The background of the researchers has no impact upon how those surveyed chose their answers, or on how the author interprets the results.

• Question 498:

  It is wrong to waste our natural resources, and it is an incredible waste of resources to burn huge amounts of trash in incinerators. When trash is recycled, fewer resources are wasted. Because less trash will be recycled if an incinerator is built, the city should not build an incinerator.

  Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?

  A. All of the city's trash that is not recycled goes into incinerators.

  B. By recycling more trash, the city can stop wasting resources entirely.

  C. The most effective way to conserve resources is to recycle trash.

  D. If the city is to avoid wasting resources, huge amounts of trash cannot be burned in any city incinerator.

  E. If the city does not burn trash, it will not waste resources.

  Correct Answer: D

  Another Inference question, so our job is to interpret and combine statements. A few facts, pretty basic stuff: Wasting natural resources is wrong; burning lots of trash in incinerators wastes resources. We can combine these to infer that burning lots of trash in incinerators is wrong, but unfortunately that's not among the choices. However, the correct inference is nothing more than a simple interpretation of the latter statement: If "it is an incredible waste of resources to burn huge amounts of trash in incinerators," then it makes perfect sense that if it wishes to avoid wasting resources, the city can't incinerate huge amounts of trash.

• Question 499:

  Human intelligence is not possible without human emotions. A computer is something that can never have emotions, so for that reason alone a computer will never be able to display intelligence.

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

  A. A computer could have emotions only if it could display intelligence.

  B. Computer technology will not greatly advance beyond its current state.

  C. Someone or something is intelligent only if it can identify its emotions.

  D. The greater the capacity to feel emotions, the more intelligence there is.

  E. Being intelligent requires the capacity to have emotions.

  Correct Answer: E

  Did you pick up on the scope shift in this Assumption question? Did you notice the mismatched terms? If not, take another look before reading on. Hint: look closely. Okay: Human intelligence requires human emotions. A computer can't have human emotions. Therefore, a computer can't display human intelligence. What's wrong with that? Nothing -- but that's not what the author says. She concludes that computers can't display intelligence period; she leaves out the word "human," and therein lays the shift. What if there are other kinds of intelligence that don't require emotions? Then the author couldn't argue that computers can never display intelligence based solely on the fact that they don't have emotions. If the author wants to make a case about intelligence in general based on the evidence given, then she needs the connection cited in option [Being intelligent requires the capacity to...]. (Note: If you missed the distinction between human intelligence and intelligence in general, option [Being intelligent requires the capacity to...] probably looked to you like a restatement of the first sentence.)

• Question 500:

  During the three months before and the three months after a major earthquake in California, students at a college there happened to be keeping a record of their dreams. After experiencing the earthquake, half of the students reported dreaming about earthquakes. During the same six months, a group of college students in Ontario who had never experienced an earthquake also recorded their dreams. Almost none of the students in Ontario reported dreaming about earthquakes. So it is clear that experiencing an earthquake can cause people to dream about earthquakes.

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

  A. Before the California earthquake, no more of the students in California than of those in Ontario recorded dreams about earthquakes.

  B. The students in California were members of a class studying dreams and dream recollection, but the students in Ontario were not.

  C. Before they started keeping records of their dreams, many of the students in California had experienced at least one earthquake.

  D. The students in Ontario reported having more dreams overall, per student, than the students in California did.

  E. The students in Ontario who reported having dreams about earthquakes recorded the dreams as having occurred after the California earthquake.

  Correct Answer: A

  Isn't there a song "California Dreaming"? We don't think this is what they had in mind. We need to strengthen the argument that experiencing an earthquake can cause people to dream about earthquakes. The evidence is that almost none of the students in Ontario, who never experienced an earthquake, dreamt about earthquakes, while half the Californian students did dream about earthquakes after going through a major quake. Well, we know that we can weaken a causal argument by severing the link between the supposed cause and the effect, and one way to do that here is to show that students from California dreamed about earthquakes before the big one hit. Then it wouldn't seem as likely that experiencing the quake caused the dreams. (Maybe something else, like media coverage from previous quakes, keeps Californians -- even those who haven't personally experienced one -- dreaming of quakes all the time...) Since this would damage the argument, the author assumes that they didn't dream much about quakes before the one in question, and the argument would be strengthened if this assumption were bolstered. Choice option [Before the California earthquake, no more of...] accomplishes this. The Ontario group is the control group, so if the Californian dreams prior to the quake were similar to the Ontario dreams (almost none about earthquakes), then the possible alternative discussed above is discounted, the author's assumption is shored up, and we'd be more likely to believe the conclusion in the final sentence.