LSAC LSAC Certifications LSAT-TEST Questions & Answers

• Question 501:

  Books updating the classification systems used by many libraries are not free -- in fact they are very expensive. The only way to sell copies of them is to make the potential buyers believe they need to adopt the most recent system. Thus, these frequent changes in the classification systems are just a ploy by the publishers to make libraries buy their products.

  The reasoning above is most vulnerable to criticism because it

  A. claims without providing warrant that the books are unreasonably expensive

  B. concludes that a possible ulterior motive must be the only motive

  C. fails to consider that there may be potential buyers of these books other than libraries

  D. concludes that there is no need ever to change classification systems

  E. fails to consider that the libraries cannot afford to buy every book they want

  Correct Answer: B

  In this flaw question, the author errs in arguing that the only possible reason to change the library classification systems is for publishers to make money. Perhaps there are other, less suspicious reasons for doing so.

• Question 502:

  Passenger volume in the airline industry has declined dramatically over the past two years, and thus fewer travelers and fewer planes are using airports. Since airport expansion can be warranted only by increases in air traffic volume, and since it will probably be at least five years before passenger volume returns to and then exceeds its previous level, it seems surprising that now is the time that airports are going ahead with plans to expand their passenger terminal facilities.

  Which one of the following, if true, provides the best reason in favor of the airports' timing of their planned expansions?

  A. It is generally more difficult to finance major construction projects when the economy is in a period of decline.

  B. Low volume in passenger air travel permits airport expansion with relatively little inconvenience to the public.

  C. A rise in fuel costs that is expected in the near future will drive up the cost of all forms of transportation, including airline travel.

  D. When passenger volume begins to grow again after a period of decline, most airlines can, initially, absorb the increase without adding new routes or new planes.

  E. A sustained decline in passenger travel could lead to the failure of many airlines and the absorption of their routes by those airlines that survive.

  Correct Answer: B

  This question is basically a Paradox question in disguise. It's not obvious from the stem, but the author concludes that it is surprising that airports are expanding passenger terminals now, instead of five years from now when the number of passengers is expected to rise. The paradox arises because the author states that airport expansion is called for only when air traffic increases. But what if there is a valid reason to expand airport terminals when the number of passengers is low? That's the kind of alternative possibility we're looking for, and that choice B. provides: It's better to expand terminals when there are fewer people, because it will be less of an inconvenience to travelers. That's certainly a relevant consideration; the industry wouldn't want to aggravate people just as they're flocking back to airports. Beginning the construction now can be justified by the projection of increased passengers down the road coupled with the practical consideration presented in option [Low volume in passenger air travel permits...]

• Question 503:

  One thousand people in Denmark were questioned about their views on banning cigarette advertising. The sample comprised adults who are representative of the general population, and who, ten years previously, had been questioned on the same issue. Interestingly, their opinions changed little. Results show that 31 percent are in favor of such a ban, 24 percent are against it, 38 percent are in favor, but only for certain media, and 7 percent have no opinion.

  The survey results in the passage best support which one of the following conclusions?

  A. People's opinions never change very much.

  B. A minority of Denmark's population feels that banning cigarette advertising would set a bad precedent.

  C. Most of Denmark's population is not seriously concerned about cigarette advertising.

  D. Most of Denmark's population favors some sort of ban on cigarette advertising.

  E. Most of Denmark's population does not smoke cigarettes

  Correct Answer: D

  We need to infer a conclusion from a survey, so let's piece things together as best we can and then rigorously evaluate the choices. Just a bunch of facts: The sample was 1000 adults in Denmark, representative of the general population, and who happened to also be questioned ten years ago on the same issue: the banning of cigarette advertising. The results were little changed from the first survey: 31 percent in favor, 24 percent against, 38 percent in favor of a ban limited to certain media, and 7 percent no opinion. We can infer that roughly these same figures must have resulted ten years ago, since opinions have "changed little," but there's nothing really earth-shattering to prephrase from all this, so let's hit the choices.

• Question 504:

  Logician: I have studied and thoroughly mastered the laws of logic. So to argue that I sometimes violate the laws of logic in ordinary conversation would be like arguing that some physicist circumvents the laws of physics in everyday life.

  The reasoning in the logician's argument is questionable because this argument

  A. ignores the fact that our conception of physical laws undergoes constant change

  B. presents no evidence that physics is as difficult to master as logic

  C. fails to rule out the possibility that some physicist could circumvent the laws of physics in everyday life

  D. treats two kinds of things that differ in important respects as if they do not differ

  E. has a conclusion that contradicts what is as sertedin its premise

  Correct Answer: D

  When we see "the logician's argument is questionable because" in the question stem, we think "find the logical flaw." And we have to admit the test makers are not without a sense of irony, beginning a Logical Flaw question with the phrase "Having mastered the laws of logic. . ." Hmm...evidently not. So, because he has supposedly mastered logic, the logician claims that for him to commit a logical flaw in conversation would be like a physicist violating the everyday laws of physics. This seems fairly silly on its face. Does the logician mean that because no physicist can simply float off into space, for example, he, a master logician, cannot make a logical mistake? We can see immediately that the two situations are not the same. Violating the laws of physics is by definition impossible, whereas the logician can easily violate the laws of logic by misspeaking. The laws of physics and the laws of logic differ in important respects. The laws of physics apply universally and cannot be violated; the so-called "laws" of logic are learned and therefore can be violated.

• Question 505:

  A favorable biography of a politician omits certain incriminating facts about the politician that were available to anyone when the book was written. The book's author claims that, because he was unaware of these facts when he wrote the book, he is not accountable for the fact that readers were misled by this omission. In a biographer, however, ignorance of this kind cannot be used to evade blame for misleading readers.

  Which one of the following principles, if established, does most to justify the position advanced by the passage?

  A. An author of a biography should not be blamed for whether the book is perceived to be favorable or unfavorable by readers of the biography.

  B. An author of a biography should be blamed for readers' misperceptions only when facts are omitted deliberately in order to mislead the readers.

  C. An author of a biography should not be blamed for omitting facts if those facts would have supported the author's view,

  D. An author of a biography should be blamed for misleading readers only if facts are omitted to which the author alone had access when the biography was written.

  E. An author of a biography should be blamed for readers' misperceptions caused by omitting facts that were widely available when the biography was written.

  Correct Answer: E

  Here we need to locate a principle that would help justify the conclusion of the argument, so we're essentially looking fora strengthener stated in general terms. The final sentence provides the conclusion: A biographer's ignorance of well- known facts can't be used to escape blame for misleading readers. The second sentence is the key: "The book's author claims that, because he was unaware of these facts when he wrote the book, he is not accountable for the fact that readers were misled by this omission." The author feels that exactly the opposite is true; something like "A biographer is accountable for misleading readers if he is unaware of well-known facts." This is what choice E expresses.

• Question 506:

  David: Forbidding companies from hiring permanent replacements for striking employees would be profoundly unfair. Such companies would have little leverage in their negotiations with strikers. Lin: No, the companies would still have sufficient leverage in negotiations if they hired temporary replacements. Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by the exchange between David and Lin?

  A. David does not believe that the freedom to hire temporary replacements gives companies any leverage in their negotiations with strikers.

  B. David and Lin believe that companies should be allowed as much leverage in negotiations as the striking employees.

  C. David and Lin disagree over the amount of leverage companies lose in their negotiations with strikers by not being able to hire permanent replacements.

  D. David and Lin disagree over how much leverage should be accorded companies in their negotiations with strikers.

  E. Lin believes it is unfair to forbid companies from hiring permanent replacements for their striking employees.

  Correct Answer: C

  Next up we're looking for something that can be inferred from a conversation. David thinks that not allowing companies to hire permanent replacements for striking employees is unfair, since that would place them in a weak bargaining position with the strikers. Lin claims that companies would maintain leverage if they hire temporary replacements. It's not easy to prephrase the correct inference, so let's evaluate the choices, keeping a close eye on the scope of each statement.

• Question 507:

  One way kidney stones can form is when urine produced in the kidneys is overly concentrated with calcium or oxalate. Reducing dietary calcium has been thought, therefore, to decrease the likelihood that calcium will concentrate and form additional stones. Oddly enough, for many people the chances of recurrence are decreased by increasing calcium intake.

  Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?

  A. Laboratory studies on animals with kidney stones reveal that they rarely get additional stones once calcium supplements are added to the diet.

  B. Increasing dietary oxalate while reducing dietary calcium does not reduce the chances of kidney stone recurrence.

  C. Kidney stone development is sometimes the result of an inherited disorder that can result in excessive production of calcium and oxalate.

  D. Increasing calcium intake increases the amount of calcium eliminated through the intestines, which decreases the amount to be filtered by the kidneys.

  E. Some kidney stones are composed of uric acid rather than a combination of calcium and oxalate.

  Correct Answer: E

  "Resolve the apparent discrepancy" in the stem signals a Paradox question, so we need to locate the mystery, paraphrase it in user-friendly terms, and think about possible solutions. Why, if excess calcium in the urine forms kidney stones, is the chance of recurrence decreased by adding more calcium to one's diet? It may seem that more calcium in the diet would mean more in the urine, but nowhere does it say that the amount of calcium in the urine is directly proportional to the amount of calcium one consumes. Perhaps there's a mechanism that causes an increase in dietary calcium to lead to a decrease in urinary calcium. Perhaps increasing calcium intake has some other, unmentioned effect, which reduces the chances that calcium in the urine will form stones. Option [Increasing calcium intake increases the amount of...] provides such an alternative: If increasing calcium intake increases calcium elimination in the intestines, and causes less calcium to go to the kidneys, then it's much easier to understand how increasing calcium intake can actually decrease the chances that new stones will form.

• Question 508:

  Journalist: One reason many people believe in extrasensory perception (ESP) is that they have heard of controlled experiments in which ESP is purportedly demonstrated. However, ESP is a myth and the public is deluded by these experiments, for a prominent researcher has admitted to falsifying data on psychic phenomena in order to obtain additional grants.

  The reasoning in the journalist's argument is flawed because this argument

  A. uses an irrelevant personal attack on the integrity of someone

  B. infers that something must be a myth from the fact that the general public believes it

  C. presupposes that, in general, only evidence from experiments can support beliefs

  D. implies that all scientists who depend on grants to support their research are unreliable

  E. overgeneralizes from the example of one deceptive researcher

  Correct Answer: E

  This next LR section begins with a Logical Flaw question, so it pays to keep our eyes and ears peeled for the Classic flaws that appear perennially on the test. And we're not disappointed: According to the argument, many people hear about research into ESP, and are thus convinced that ESP is real. The author, however, concludes that ESP is a myth, and that those people have been fooled, all based on evidence that one renowned researcher cheated on his or her experiments. In other words, the author attempts to debunk an entire field with evidence concerning only one specific case. In LSATlingo, we call this a "non-representative sample," and it's a faulty form of reasoning that's not uncommon on the test. One simply can't hold forth on the general state of ESP research on the basis of one specific example. "Overgeneralizes" is a perfect way to describe this flaw.

• Question 509:

  Town councillor: The only reason for the town to have ordinances restricting where skateboarding can be done would be to protect children from danger. Skateboarding in the town's River Park is undoubtedly dangerous, but we should not pass an ordinance prohibiting it. If children cannot skateboard in the park, they will most certainly skateboard in the streets. And skateboarding in the streets is more dangerous than skateboarding in the park.

  Which one of the following principles, if established, would provide the strongest support for the town councillor's argument?

  A. Ordinances that restrict the recreational activities of a town's inhabitants should not be passed unless those activities pose a danger to participants.

  B. Since the town could be legally liable for accidents that occur on public property, town ordinances should restrict any unnecessarily dangerous activities in publicly owned areas.

  C. Since safety in a recreational activity depends on the level of skill of the participant in that activity, the regulation of children's recreational activities should be left to the discretion of the children's parents.

  D. If recreational activities constitute a danger to the participants in those activities, then the town council should enact ordinances prohibiting those activities.

  E. Ordinances that seek to eliminate dangers should not be enacted if their enactment would lead to dangers that are greater than those they seek to eliminate.

  Correct Answer: E

  Last up is another Principle question that plays off the same scenario. What general rule is the town councillor applying in making her argument? We've already deciphered the argument and abstracted its general structure in our effort to parallel it in the previous question, so this one is somewhat of a gift. We said above that the argument, in general terms(which is what Principle questions are always after), boils down to this: "Something is bad, but we shouldn't apply a specific remedy because that will cause a situation that's worse." Sticking to the terms of this argument, ordinances and danger, this matches up perfectly with the principle in option [Ordinances that seek to eliminate dangers should not be enacted if...]

• Question 510:

  Town councillor: The only reason for the town to have ordinances restricting where skateboarding can be done would be to protect children from danger. Skateboarding in the town's River Park is undoubtedly dangerous, but we should not pass an ordinance prohibiting it. If children cannot skateboard in the park, they will most certainly skateboard in the streets. And skateboarding in the streets is more dangerous than skateboarding in the park.

  The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the town councilor's argument

  A. The reason for requiring environmental reviews is to ensure that projected developments do not harm the natural environment. Currently, environmental concerns are less compelling than economic concerns, but in the long run, the environment must be protected. Therefore, the requirement for environmental reviews should not be waived.

  B. Insecticides are designed to protect crops against insect damage. Aphids damage tomato crops, but using insecticides against aphids kills wasps that prey on insecticide-resistant pests. Since aphids damage tomato crops less than the insecticide-resistant pests do, insecticides should not be used against aphids on tomato crops.

  C. The purpose of compulsory vaccination for schoolchildren was to protect both the children themselves and others in the community against smallpox. Smallpox was indeed a dreadful disease, but it has now been eliminated from the world's population. So children should not be vaccinated against it.

  D. The function of a sealer on wood siding is to retard deterioration caused by weather. However, cedar is a wood that is naturally resistant to weather-related damage and thus does not need additional protection. Sealers, therefore, should not be applied to cedar siding.

  E. Traffic patterns that involve one-way streets are meant to accelerate the flow of traffic in otherwise congested areas. However, it would be detrimental to the South Main Street area to have traffic move faster. So traffic patterns involving one-way streets should not be implemented there.

  Correct Answer: B

  The Training Method of comparing conclusions doesn't allow us to eliminate any choices, as the conclusion of the original and all five choices take the form of a recommendation of what should not be done. So we need to look further. We're told that skateboarding in the park is dangerous, and if children can't skateboard there, then they'll skateboard on the streets, which is more dangerous. Since the reason to pass an ordinance restricting where children skateboard is to protect them from danger, the councillor believes they shouldn't pass an ordinance prohibiting skateboarding in the park. That logic is certainly ripe for a general paraphrase: Something is bad, but we shouldn't apply a specific remedy because that will cause a situation that's worse. Option [Insecticides are designed to protect crops...] hits the nail on the head. Insecticides can protect tomato crops against aphids, but using it will make matters worse (the key concept not found in the other choices) by killing wasps, which themselves kill pests that the insecticides don't. Since in this particular case it would be safer not to use insecticides (not to pass the ordinance), it shouldn't be used (shouldn't be passed). A perfect match.