LSAC LSAC Certifications LSAT-TEST Questions & Answers

• Question 511:

  On the surface, Melville's Billy Budd is a simple story with a simple theme. However, if one views the novel as a religious allegory, then it assumes a richness and profundity that place it among the great novels of the nineteenth century. However, the central question remains: Did Melville intend an allegorical reading? Since there is no textual or historical evidence that he did, we should be content with reading Billy Budd as a simple tragedy.

  Which one of the following most accurately expresses the principle underlying the argument?

  A. Given a choice between an allegorical and a nonallegorical reading of a novel, one should choose the latter.

  B. The only relevant evidence in deciding in which genre to place a novel is the author's stated intention.

  C. In deciding between rival readings of a novel, one should choose the one that is most favorable to the work.

  D. Without relevant evidence as to a novel's intended reading, one should avoid viewing the work allegorically.

  E. The only relevant evidence in deciding the appropriate interpretation of a text is the text itself.

  Correct Answer: D

  Finding a principle that underlies an argument is much like finding an assumption stated in general terms. Here's the situation: Melville's Billy Budd can be read as a religious allegory, or as a simple story. According to the argument, there is no evidence as to which interpretation Melville himself intended, and as such we should read it as a simple story. Butt hat takes for granted that the author's intention is key to our interpretation. What if Billy Budd can function as allegory even if Melville didn't intend it that way? Then the conclusion would have no basis. Therefore, the author must view a writer's intention for his work as integral to whether it can be viewed as allegory. The principle the author applies here is "If you don't know the author's intention, don't view the work allegorically".

• Question 512:

  Bank deposits are credited on the date of the transaction only when they are made before 3 P.M. Alicia knows that the bank deposit was made before 3 p.m. So, Alicia knows that the bank deposit was credited on the date of the transaction.

  Which one of the following exhibits both of the logical flaws exhibited by the argument above?

  A. Journalists are the only ones who will be permitted to ask questions at the press conference. Since Marjorie is a journalist, she will be permitted to ask questions.

  B. We know that Patrice works only on Thursday. Today is Thursday, so it follows that Patrice is working today.

  C. It is clear that George knows he will be promoted to shift supervisor, because George will be promoted to shift supervisor only if Helen resigns, and George knows Helen will resign.

  D. John believes that 4 is a prime number and that 4is divisible by 2. Hence John believes that there is a prime number divisible by 2.

  E. Pat wants to become a social worker. It is well known that social workers are poorly paid. Pat apparently wants to be poorly paid.

  Correct Answer: C

  It's common for one of the usual two Parallel Reasoning questions on each LR section to ask you to mimic the logic of a flawed argument, but here we get two flaws to mirror -- and in such a short argument, to boot. The formal logic term "only" denotes necessity, which means that we can interpret the first sentence to mean that if a deposit is credited on the date of the transaction, then it must have been made before 3

  P.M. That doesn't mean that depositing before 3 P.M. is a sure guarantee that it will be credited on that date; it's necessary for that to happen, but not sufficient -- other factors could intervene. So even if Alicia makes a deposit before 3, there's no guarantee that it will be credited that day; it has simply met a first requirement. So the first flaw is the familiar confusion between necessary and sufficient conditions brought about by a faulty interpretation of the term "only." Options [John believes that 4 is a prime number and...] and [Pat wants to become a social worker. It is well known that...] have no "only if" components, so they can be axed right away.

• Question 513:

  One of the most vexing problems in historiography is dating an event when the usual sources offer conflicting chronologies of the event. Historians should attempt to minimize the number of competing sources, perhaps by eliminating the less credible ones. Once this is achieved and several sources are left, as often happens, historians may try, though on occasion unsuccessfully, to determine independently of the usual sources which date is more likely to be right.

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

  A. We have no plausible chronology of most of the events for which attempts have been made by historians to determine the right date.

  B. Some of the events for which there are conflicting chronologies and for which attempts have been made by historians to determine the right date cannot be dated reliably by historians.

  C. Attaching a reliable date to any event requires determining which of several conflicting chronologies is most likely to be true.

  D. Determining independently of the usual sources which of several conflicting chronologies is more likely to be right is an ineffective way of dating events.

  E. The soundest approach to dating an event for which the usual sources give conflicting chronologies is to undermine the credibility of as many of these sources as possible.

  Correct Answer: B

  Next up is another Inference question. There's nothing particularly concrete that jumps off the page, nor is there any kind of formal logic to speak of, so our best bet is to get the overall gist and then hit the choices. The topic is "historiography and you shouldn't get alarmed if you don't have a precise definition at your fingertips. That's not necessary; we learn soon enough that the author is simply concerned with how historians date events. When there are multiple sources with conflicting accounts of when something happened, the author suggests narrowing down the field by chopping off the sources that are least credible. If there are still a number of sources remaining, historians should set them aside and determine themselves which date seems most plausible. This, however, doesn't always work.

• Question 514:

  If the flowers Drew received today had been sent by someone who knows Drew well, that person would have known that Drew prefers violets to roses. Yet Drew received roses. On the other hand, if the flowers had been sent by someone who does not know Drew well, then that person would have sent a signed card with the flowers. Yet Drew received no card. Therefore, the florist must have made some sort of mistake: either Drew was supposed to receive violets, or a card, or these flowers were intended for someone else.

  Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument?

  A. Most people send roses when they send flowers.

  B. Some people send flowers for a reason other than the desire to please.

  C. Someone who does not know Drew well would be unlikely to send Drew flowers.

  D. The florist has never delivered the wrong flowers to Drew before.

  E. Some people who know Drew well have sent Drew cards along with flowers.

  Correct Answer: B

  This is yet another Weaken the Argument question. The conclusion, set off by the word "therefore," is that the florist made a mistake -- Drew was supposed to receive violets, or a card, or the flowers were for someone else. The evidence involves two conditions: Someone who knows Drew well would know that he prefers violets, and a person who doesn't know Drew well would have sent a card. According to the author, neither of these conditions is met: Drew got roses and no card. Well, we can't argue with the second condition; it's a simple formal logic statement to which we can apply the contrapositive: If a relative stranger sent the flowers, then there would be a card. If no card, then no stranger. So far so good. But what about the first condition? Did you notice the subtle scope shift? Someone well acquainted with Drew would know Drew prefers violets, but Drew actually received roses. But what one prefers and what one receives need not be the same thing; the author assumes that Drew's friends will always get him the flowers he prefers. B. breaks down this central assumption and thus weakens the argument, allowing for the possibility that someone who knows Drew well may indeed be the mysterious sender.

• Question 515:

  Not all works of art represent something, but some do, and their doing so is relevant to our aesthetic experience of them; representation is therefore an aesthetically relevant property. Whether a work of art possesses this property is dependent upon context. Yet there are no clear criteria for determining whether context-dependent properties are present in an object, so there cannot be any clear criteria for determining whether an object qualifies as art.

  The reasoning above is questionable because it fails to exclude the possibility that

  A. because some works of art are nonrepresentational, there is no way of judging our aesthetic experience of them

  B. an object may have some aesthetic properties and not be a work of art

  C. aesthetically relevant properties other than representation can determine whether an object is a work of art

  D. some works of art may have properties that are not relevant to our aesthetic experience of them

  E. some objects that represent things other than themselves are not works of art

  Correct Answer: C

  This question is another LSAT masterpiece -- an argument put together with confusing language, until you don't know which end is up. Thankfully, from reading the stem first, we know right away to search for the flaw in the argument. If we keep track of scope as we read, we notice that the evidence discusses artwork that represents something, and that the conclusion talks about how there are no clear-cut criteria for determining whether any object qualifies as art. The scope has shifted from artwork that represents something to all art. Maybe there is something other than representation that can help determine whether or not an object is art!

• Question 516:

  Because addictive drugs are physically harmful, their use by athletes is never justified. Purists, however, claim that taking massive doses of even such nonaddictive drugs as aspirin and vitamins before competing should also be prohibited because they are unnatural. This is ridiculous; almost everything in sports is unnatural, from high-tech running shoes to padded boxing gloves to highly-specialized bodybuilding machines. Yet, none of these is prohibited on the basis of its being unnatural. Furthermore, we should be attending to far more serious problems that plague modern sports and result in unnecessary deaths and injuries. Therefore, the use of nonaddictive drugs by athletes should not be prohibited.

  Which one of the following can be inferred from the passage above?

  A. The fact that something is unnatural is not a sufficient reason for banning it.

  B. There is nothing unnatural about the use of nonaddictive drugs by athletes.

  C. The use of addictive drugs by athletes should be prohibited because addictive drugs are unnatural.

  D. Some of the unnecessary deaths and injuries in modern sports are caused by the use of addictive drugs by athletes.

  E. The use of addictive drugs by athletes is a less serious problem than are unnecessary injuries.

  Correct Answer: A

  The second half of this two-parter is a straightforward Inference question. The author counters the objection that nonaddictive drugs are unnatural with "This is ridiculous..." He implicitly agrees that nonaddictive drugs are unnatural, but not only supports them but cites other "unnatural" things such as equipment that no one would dream of prohibiting. Clearly, in the author's book, something being unnatural is in no way sufficient grounds for banning it.

• Question 517:

  Because addictive drugs are physically harmful, their use by athletes is never justified. Purists, however, claim that taking massive doses of even such nonaddictive drugs as aspirin and vitamins before competing should also be prohibited because they are unnatural. This is ridiculous; almost everything in sports is unnatural, from high-tech running shoes to padded boxing gloves to highly-specialized bodybuilding machines. Yet, none of these is prohibited on the basis of its being unnatural. Furthermore, we should be attending to far more serious problems that plague modern sports and result in unnecessary deaths and injuries. Therefore, the use of nonaddictive drugs by athletes should not be prohibited.

  Which one of the following statements, if true, would be the strongest challenge to the author's conclusion?

  A. Massive doses of aspirin and vitamins enhance athletic performance.

  B. Addictive drugs are just as unnatural as nonaddictive drugs like aspirin and vitamins.

  C. Unnecessary deaths and injuries occur in other walks of life besides modern sports.

  D. There would be more unnecessary deaths and injuries if it were not for running shoes, boxing gloves, and bodybuilding machines.

  E. Taking massive doses of aspirin or vitamins can be physically harmful.

  Correct Answer: E

  We begin answering a Weaken question by figuring out the components of the argument. The conclusion is that the use of nonaddictive drugs such as aspirins and vitamins should not be prohibited. Why?

  Because nonaddictive drugs are just as unnatural as sporting equipment, and people have no objection to sporting equipment. Furthermore, there are more serious problems than nonaddictive drugs in modern sports that should be addressed -- problems leading to injury and death. One way to weaken the argument is to connect the factor that the author's not concerned about with the one he is: The correct answer will tend to connect nonaddictive drugs in some way to harm. Perhaps you prephrased a weakener along these lines, or if not, hopefully you saw the devastating effect that E., if true, would have on the argument. If the use of nonaddictive drugs by athletes caused injury or death, then nonaddictive drug use would fall squarely into the category of the author's "more serious problems," and the argument to not prohibit such drugs would be weakened.

• Question 518:

  For a ten-month period, the total monthly sales of new cars within the country of Calistan remained constant. During this period the monthly sales of new cars manufactured by Marvel Automobile Company doubled, and its share of the new car market within Calistan increased correspondingly. At the end of this period, emission standards were imposed on new cars sold within Calistan. During the three months following this imposition, Marvel Automobile Company's share of the Calistan market declined substantially even though its monthly sales within Calistan remained constant at the level reached in the last month of the ten-month period.

  If the statements above are true, which one of the following CANNOT be true?

  A. The total monthly sales within Calistan of new cars by companies other than Marvel Automobile Company decreased over the three months following the imposition of the emission standards.

  B. Over the three months before the imposition of the emission standards, the combined market share of companies other than Marvel Automobile Company selling new cars in Calistan decreased.

  C. If the emission standards had not been imposed, Marvel Automobile Company would have lost an even larger share of the number of new cars sold in Calistan than, in fact, it did.

  D. A decrease in the total monthly sales of new cars within Calistan will occur if the emission standards remain in effect.

  E. Since the imposition of the emission standards, Marvel Automobile Company's average profit on each new car sold within Calistan has increased.

  Correct Answer: A

  Here's the story: The monthly sales of cars in Calistan were constant for a ten-month period, during which monthly sales of Marvel cars doubled, with a corresponding market share increase. This is a little vague, so perhaps some actual numbers would clarify: The same number of new cars were sold each month in the country as a whole, so let's say 1000 are sold each month. Marvel, however, has doubled sales from month 1 to month 10, so let's say they sold 100 in month 1 (a 10% market share) and 200 in month 10 (a 20% market share). After this period, emission standards went into effect. In the following three months, Marvel's monthly sales remained constant (200), but its market share dropped a lot. Market share is a company's percentage of sales relative to total sales, so a decrease in market share for Marvel means an increase in market share of all other companies combined. The only way for that to happen is if total sales for all companies other than Marvel increased during this three-month period -- again, this is the only way Marvel's market share can plummet while its sales stay constant. A., which states the opposite, is therefore the impossibility we seek.

• Question 519:

  Historian: Leibniz, the seventeenth-century philosopher, published his version of calculus before Newton did. But then Newton revealed his private notebooks, which showed he had been using these ideas for at least a decade before Leibniz's publication. Newton also claimed that he had disclosed these ideas to Leibniz in a letter shortly before Leibniz's publication. Yet close examination of the letter shows that Newton's few cryptic remarks did not reveal anything important about calculus. Thus, Leibniz and Newton each independently discovered calculus.

  Which one of the following is an assumption required by the historian's argument?

  A. Leibniz did not tell anyone about calculus prior to publishing his version of it.

  B. No third person independently discovered calculus prior to Newton and Leibniz.

  C. Newton believed that Leibniz was able to learn something important about calculus from his letter to him.

  D. Neither Newton nor Leibniz knew that the other had developed a version of calculus prior to Leibniz's publication.

  E. Neither Newton nor Leibniz learned crucial details about calculus from some third source.

  Correct Answer: E

  This argument is like a soap opera -- lots of back and forth and intrigue over where the true credit for a discovery lies. The last sentence (set off by "Thus") contains the author's conclusion that Leibniz and Newton each discovered calculus independently. What's the evidence for this claim? Despite Newton's thoughts on calculus that predate Leibniz's publication, and even his sharing some of these ideas with Leibniz, close examination reveals that nothing significant was conveyed to Leibniz on the subject. But is this enough to warrant the conclusion that they therefore each discovered calculus independently. Here's where your ability to form alternatives and to ask yourself "But what if...?" is rewarded: What if someone else contributed to their discovery of calculus? If Leibniz or Newton or both had been given crucial details from some outside source, then the author wouldn't be able to argue that these two each discovered calculus independently. The author must therefore be assuming that no third party was involved. Whether you thought of this on your own, or recognized the validity of the option [Neither Newton nor Leibniz learned crucial...]. when you saw it, it's all the same -- another point on the board.

• Question 520:

  Studies have shown that, contrary to popular belief, middle-aged people have more fear of dying than do elderly people.

  Each of the following, if true, contributes to an explanation of the phenomenon shown by the studies EXCEPT:

  A. The longer one lives, the more likely it is that one has come to terms with dying.

  B. Middle-aged people have more people dependent upon them than people of any other age group.

  C. Many people who suffer from depression first become depressed in middle age.

  D. The longer one lives, the more imperturbable one becomes.

  E. Middle-aged people have a more acute sense of their own mortality than do people of any other age group.

  Correct Answer: C

  There are four good explanations for the phenomenon shown by the studies in this argument, so we know that we will have to understand the phenomenon and then jump straight to the answer choices. Just one short sentence to deal with: According to studies, middle-aged people fear dying more than elderly people do. (The phrase ". . . contrary to popular belief" also lets us know that most people think the opposite is true, but that shouldn't concern us since we're interested only in the phenomenon itself, not what people believe about it.) Each wrong choice will make it easier to understand why middle-aged folks are more afraid to die than are old people, while the correct choice will not address this question, most likely because it deviates from the scope. And so it does: As there is no stated clear connection between depression and fearing death, the fact that depression often sets in during middle age does nothing to explain the phenomenon described. Depression, while perhaps seemingly relevant at first glance, is actually at least one step removed from the scope here.