LSAC LSAC Certifications LSAT-TEST Questions & Answers

• Question 571:

  Twelve healthy volunteers with the Apo-A-IV-1 gene and twelve healthy volunteers who instead have the Apo-A-IV-2 gene each consumed a standard diet supplemented daily by a high-cholesterol food. A high level of cholesterol in the blood is associated with an increased risk of heart disease. After three weeks, the blood cholesterol levels of the subjects in the second group were unchanged, whereas the blood cholesterol levels of those with the Apo-A-IV-1 gene rose 20 percent.

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

  A. Approximately half the population carries a gene that lowers cholesterol levels.

  B. Most of those at risk of heart disease may be able to reduce their risk by adopting a low-cholesterol diet.

  C. The bodies of those who have the Apo-A-IV-2gene excrete cholesterol when blood cholesterol reaches a certain level.

  D. The presence of the Apo-A-IV-1 gene seems to indicate that a person has a lower risk of heart disease.

  E. The presence of the Apo-A-IV-2 gene may inhibit the elevation of blood cholesterol.

  Correct Answer: E

  Here's an Inference question based on a scientific study. The only thing that the study points to is that there is a difference in having the "IV-1" gene, as opposed to the "IV-2" gene. In the study, where other possible complicating factors were controlled, the results pointed to a positive effect of gene IV-2. choice [The presence of the Apo-A-IV-2 gene may...], in appropriately qualified language, expresses information "most strongly supported" that "may" be true. On the basis of the results, it is reasonable to conclude E., that IV-2 may inhibit cholesterol.

• Question 572:

  Manuscripts written by first-time authors generally do not get serious attention by publishers except when these authors happen to be celebrities. My manuscript is unlikely to be taken seriously by publishers for I am a first-time author who is not a celebrity.

  The structure of which one of the following arguments is most similar to the structure of the argument above

  A. Challengers generally do not win elections unless the incumbent has become very unpopular. The incumbent in this election has become very unpopular. Therefore, the challenger may win.

  B. Fruit salad that contains bananas is ordinarily a boring dish unless it contains two or more exotic fruits. This fruit salad has bananas in it, and the only exotic fruit it has is guava. Thus, it will probably be boring.

  C. Thursday's city council meeting is likely to be poorly attended. Traditionally, council meetings are sparsely attended if zoning issues are the only ones on the agenda. The agenda for Thursday is exclusively devoted to zoning.

  D. The bulk of an estate generally goes to the spouse, if surviving, and otherwise goes to the surviving children. In this case there is no surviving spouse; hence the bulk of the estate is likely to go to the

  surviving children.

  E. Normally about 40 percent of the deer population will die over the winter unless it is extremely mild. The percentage of the deer population that died over the recent winter was the normal 40 percent. I conclude that the recent winter was not unusually mild.

  Correct Answer: B

  The conclusion of the argument to which we must find a parallel reads like so: "My MS. is unlikely to be taken seriously by publishers." How come? Because of the generalization that first-time authors like the speaker don't get taken seriously, except under one possible exception -- celebrity status -- which the speaker doesn't possess. So the right answer will conclude the unlikelihood of something occurring -- in other words, it'll be a prediction of that which probably won't happen and one based on the fact that a possible exception has not been met.

• Question 573:

  Archaeologist: The fact that the ancient Egyptians and the Maya both built pyramids is often taken as evidence of a historical link between Old- and New-World civilizations that is earlier than any yet documented. But while these buildings are similar to each other, there are important differences in both design and function. The Egyptian pyramids were exclusively tombs for rulers, whereas the Mayan pyramids were used as temples. This shows conclusively that there was no such link between Old- and New-World civilizations.

  Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the archaeologist's argument?

  A. The argument equivocates with respect to the term "evidence."

  B. The argument appeals to emotion rather than to reason.

  C. The argument assumes the conclusion it is trying to prove.

  D. The argument incorrectly relies on words whose meanings are vague or imprecise.

  E. The argument presumes that no other evidence is relevant to the issue at hand.

  Correct Answer: E

  Another flaw question, so keep your eyes peeled for where the logic goes astray. You can't get a clearer signal of an author's conclusion than the phrase "This shows conclusively that . . ." So the author thinks there's definitely no link between Old- and New-World civilizations simply because some evidence that's used to demonstrate a possible link is not perfect. Sure, says the archaeologist, the Mayans and Egyptians both built pyramids, but there are certain differences between them in design and function. Therefore, no link between Old and New. Well, this could, we suppose, support the notion that the Egyptians and Mayans weren't linked, but not too well--perhaps the Mayans somehow learned pyramid building from the Egyptians but incorporated their own look and functionality to suit their culture. More info is needed even to prove conclusively that there was no link between these two civilizations. Yet the author even goes one step further, concluding based on this specific Egyptian-Mayan example that no Old-World/New-World link exists at all. The evidence provided is simply too paltry for this definitive pronouncement in the final sentence.

  Option [The argument presumes that no other...] is a fancy way of saying this. The author mistakenly assumes no other evidence is needed.

• Question 574:

  Critic: Emily Dickinson's poetry demonstrates that meaning cannot reside entirely within a poem itself, but is always the unique result of an interaction between a reader's system of beliefs and the poem; and, of course, any two readers from different cultures or eras have radically different systems of beliefs.

  If the critic's statements are true, each of the following could be true EXCEPT:

  A. A reader's interpretation of a poem by Dickinson is affected by someone else's interpretation of it.

  B. A modern reader and a nineteenth-century reader interpret one of Shakespeare's sonnets in the same way.

  C. A reader's interpretation of a poem evolves overtime.

  D. Two readers from the same era arrive at different interpretations of the same poem.

  E. A reader's enjoyment of a poem is enhanced by knowing the poet's interpretation of it.

  Correct Answer: B

  This question has a Logic Games feel to it. We're given statements we're to assume are true (rules), and are asked to find the one statement that cannot be true. There are two statements we must take as givens, which we should paraphrase in our own words: 1) That a poem's meaning is derived from the interaction between the poem and the reader's beliefs, not just from the poem itself, is shown by Dickinson's poetry. 2) No two readers from different eras have the same set of beliefs. There's only one thing we can deduce from these statements: Since beliefs in part determine meaning, and beliefs necessarily differ from one era to another, then people from different eras CANNOT derive the same meaning from a particular poem. Option [A modern reader and a nineteenth-century reader...] is thus impossible: Based on the "rules" of the passage, two readers from different centuries cannot have the same take on a Shakespeare sonnet.

• Question 575:

  Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue shortfall of a billion dollars in the coming fiscal year. Since there is no feasible way to increase the available funds, our only choice is to decrease expenditures. The plan before you outlines feasible cuts that would yield savings of a billion dollars over the coming fiscal year. We will be able to solve the problem we face, therefore, only if we adopt this plan.

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

  A. relies on information that is far from certain

  B. confuses being an adequate solution with being a required solution

  C. inappropriately relies on the opinions of experts

  D. inappropriately employs language that is vague

  E. takes for granted that there is no way to increase available funds

  Correct Answer: B

  We're looking for a flaw, and it's quite possible you sensed that the commissioner goes a little too far in her conclusion. Some organization or institution (we're not told who the poor saps are) is short a whopping billion dollars (so that's where all the petty cash went...). Funds cannot be increased, so the only way is to decrease outlays. Fair enough so far. Then a plan is introduced that will save, lo and behold, a billion dollars over the next year (no more free coffee in the company cafeteria?). So the problem can be solved ONLY if this plan is adopted. And there's where the commish overreaches. Just because this plan will save the billion, what evidence is provided that it is the only way to do so? Perhaps itis, but the commissioner gives no evidence to that effect, which she must do if she is going to claim that this is the ONLY way to solve the problem. Option [confuses being an adequate...] fancies this up a little, but says the same thing: The plan may be adequate, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's required--that is, that nothing else could do the trick.

• Question 576:

  In a poll of eligible voters conducted on the eve of a mayoral election, more of those polled stated that they favored Panitch than stated that they favored any other candidate. Despite this result, another candidate, Yeung, defeated Panitch by a comfortable margin.

  Each of the following, if true, contributes to a resolution of the discrepancy described above EXCEPT:

  A. Of Yeung's supporters, a smaller percentage was eligible to vote than the percentage of Panitch's supporters who were eligible to vote.

  B. A third candidate, Mulhern, conducted a press-conference on the morning of the election and withdrew from the race.

  C. The poll's questions were designed by staff members of Panitch's campaign.

  D. Of the poll respondents supporting Yeung,70 percent described the election as "important" or "very important," while 30 percent of respondents supporting Panitch did the same.

  E. The poll, conducted on a Monday, surveyed persons in the downtown area, and the percentage of Yeung's supporters who work downtown is lower than that of Panitch's supporters.

  Correct Answer: A

  In the question stem, "discrepancy" signals paradox, and our first step in a Paradox question is to identify a (seeming) contradiction in the stimulus. This is a familiar one: Despite the fact that polled eligible voters favored one candidate, another candidate won the election by a wide margin. The paradox is a relatively simple one, and so, it is cleared up by four of the five choices. Our job is to pick the one choice that does NOT resolve the discrepancy. Obviously, we can't predict a choice that will not resolve the discrepancy, so let's move into the choices to search for the right answer. [Of Yeung's supporters, a smaller percentage...] discusses ineligible supporters, an issue not mentioned in the scenario, and one that does nothing to resolve the facts. Ineligible supporters of either candidate were not polled, nor did they vote. They are truly outside the scope of the stimulus.

• Question 577:

  A certain gene can be stimulated by chemicals in cigarette smoke, causing lung cells to metabolize the chemicals in a way that makes the cells cancerous. Yet smokers in whom this gene is not stimulated have as high a risk of developing lung cancer from smoking as other smokers do.

  If the statements above are true, it can be concluded on the basis of them that

  A. stimulation of the gene by chemicals in cigarette smoke is not the only factor affecting the risk for smokers of developing lung cancer

  B. nonsmokers have as high a risk of developing lung cancer as do smokers in whom the gene has not been stimulated

  C. smokers in whom the gene has been stimulated are more likely to develop lung cancer than are other smokers

  D. the gene is more likely to be stimulated by chemicals in cigarette smoke than by other chemicals

  E. smokers are less likely to develop lung cancer if they do not have the gene

  Correct Answer: A

  The question stem identifies this as an Inference question, so you'll probably have to bypass pre-phrasing and, instead, evaluate each choice. The argument introduces a gene that can be turned on by cigarette smoke, leading to cancerous cells. However, smokers with genes that are not turned-on have the same risk of lung cancer as do other smokers. Therefore, there must be something else at play here beside stimulation of the gene.

• Question 578:

  Legal theorist: It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone for any other reason than that he or she is a serious threat to the property or lives of other people. The breaking of a law does not justify incarceration, for lawbreaking proceeds either from ignorance of the law or of the effects of one's actions, or from the free choice of the lawbreaker. Obviously mere ignorance cannot justify incarcerating a lawbreaker, and even free choice on the part of the lawbreaker fails to justify incarceration, for free choice proceeds from the desires of an agent, and the desires of an agent are products of genetics and environmental conditioning, neither of which is controlled by the agent.

  The claim in the first sentence of the passage plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

  A. It is offered as a premise that helps to show that no actions are under the control of the agent.

  B. It is offered as background information necessary to understand the argument.

  C. It is offered as the main conclusion that the argument is designed to establish.

  D. It is offered as evidence for the stated claim that protection of life and property is more important than retribution for past illegal acts.

  E. It is offered as evidence for the stated claim that lawbreaking proceeds from either ignorance of the law, or ignorance of the effects of one's actions, or free choice.

  Correct Answer: C

  The question stem tells us we need to identify the purpose of the first sentence, so we need to put it in context. Standing alone, the first sentence could be a conclusion or evidence, but the rest of the stimulus makes its purpose clear. Sentence1 essentially says that the only reason to lock someone up is to prevent them from harming others/others' property. Sentence 2 rules out lawbreaking alone as a justification, and sentence 3 elaborates on this point. So the last two sentences support the first by excluding another justification for locking people up. Therefore, the first sentence must be the conclusion.

• Question 579:

  The current theory about earthquakes holds that they are caused by adjoining plates of rock sliding past each other; the plates are pressed together until powerful forces overcome the resistance. As plausible as this may sound, at least one thing remains mysterious on this theory. The overcoming of such resistance should create enormous amounts of heat. But so far no increases in temperature unrelated to weather have been detected following earthquakes.

  Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the argument?

  A. No increases in temperature have been detected following earthquakes.

  B. The current theory does not fully explain earthquake data.

  C. No one will ever be sure what the true cause of earthquakes is.

  D. Earthquakes produce enormous amounts of heat that have so far gone undetected.

  E. Contrary to the current theory, earthquakes are not caused by adjoining plates of rock sliding past one another.

  Correct Answer: B

  An earthquake theory is plausible save one mystery: There should be lots of heat given off during earthquakes, but such increases in heat have not been detected. What's the main point? Simply that--the current theory doesn't fully explain earthquake data; specifically, the absence of enormous amounts of heat.

• Question 580:

  A government ought to protect and encourage free speech, because free speech is an activity that is conducive to a healthy nation and thus is in the best interest of its people.

  The main conclusion above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  A. An activity that is in the best interest of the people ought to be protected and encouraged by a nation's government.

  B. Basic, inalienable rights of the people ought to be protected and encouraged by government.

  C. An activity that helps a government to govern ought to be protected and encouraged by it.

  D. A government ought to protect and encourage an activity that is conducive to the interests of that government.

  E. Universal human rights that are in the best interest of the people ought to be protected and encouraged by a nation's government.

  Correct Answer: A

  This question stem may seem a bit unfamiliar, but hopefully you recognized it as a variation of a standard Assumption question. We're looking for the assumption that would complete the argument, so again, we need to identify the argument's evidence and conclusion. The author's conclusion is stated up front: A government ought to protect and encourage free speech. The Keyword "because" signals the author's evidence, that "free speech . . . is conducive to a healthy nation and thus is in the best interest of its people." This sounds like a pretty good argument so far, but it's missing a subtle step: We know that free speech is in the best interests of the people, but who's to say that the government ought to act in that interest? It seems obvious, but this notion isn't stated in the argument, and it's necessary for the argument to work.