LSAC LSAC Certifications LSAT-TEST Questions & Answers

• Question 591:

  Zoos have served both as educational resources and as entertainment. Unfortunately, removing animals from their natural habitats to stock the earliest zoos reduced certain species' populations, endangering their survival. Today most new zoo animals are obtained from captive breeding programs, and many zoos now maintain breeding stocks for continued propagation of various species. This makes possible efforts to reestablish endangered species in the wild.

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

  A. Zoos have played an essential role in educating the public about endangered species.

  B. Some specimens of endangered species are born and bred in zoos.

  C. No zoos exploit wild animals or endanger the survival of species.

  D. Nearly all of the animals in zoos today were born in captivity.

  E. The main purpose of zoos has shifted from entertainment to education.

  Correct Answer: B

  This is an Inference question. Because the right answer must be supported by statements in the passage, you should avoid answer choices using extreme language. There usually won't be enough information in the passage to support choices that speak in terms of "all" or "every" or "never". Only option [Some specimens of endangered species are...] is supported by the passage, specifically the last two sentences of the paragraph. The stimulus tells us that zoos maintain breeding stocks for continued propagation of various species, and that this makes possible efforts to reestablish endangered species in the wild. Therefore, you can infer that some (though not all, or even most) specimens of endangered species are born and bred in zoos.

• Question 592:

  During the recent economic downturn, banks contributed to the decline by loaning less money. Prior to the downturn, regulatory standards for loan making by banks were tightened. Clearly, therefore, banks will lend more money if those standards are relaxed.

  The argument assumes that

  A. the downturn did not cause a significant decrease in the total amount of money on deposit with banks which is the source of funds for banks to lend

  B. the imposition of the tighter regulatory standards was not a cause of the economic downturn

  C. the reason for tightening the regulatory standards was not arbitrary

  D. no economic downturn is accompanied by a significant decrease in the amount of money loaned out by banks to individual borrowers and to businesses

  E. no relaxation of standards for loan making by banks would compensate for the effects of the downturn

  Correct Answer: A

  This is a pretty straightforward example of a causal argument. The conclusion is that banks will lend more money if regulatory standards are relaxed. The evidence for this is that before the downturn, the standards were tightened. In other words, according to this author, the tightening of the standards is what caused the banks to loan less money. And remember, one of the assumptions inherent in a causal argument is that no other factor caused the result in question, in this case, loaning less money. And that's the assumption that correct answer [the downturn did not cause a...] identifies -- it rules out an alternative explanation, namely that the downturn itself, not the regulations, caused the banks to have less money to lend.

• Question 593:

  It is inaccurate to say that a diet high in refined sugar cannot cause adult-onset diabetes, since a diet high in refined sugar can make a person overweight, and being overweight can predispose a person to adult-onset diabetes.

  The argument is most parallel, in its logical structure, to which one of the following?

  A. It is inaccurate to say that being in cold air can cause a person to catch a cold, since colds are caused by viruses, and viruses flourish in warm, crowded places.

  B. It is accurate to say that no airline flies from Halifax to Washington. No airline offers a direct flight, although some airlines have flights from Halifax to Boston and others have flights from Boston to Washington.

  C. It is correct to say that over fertilization is the primary cause of lawn disease, since fertilizer causes lawn grass to grow rapidly and rapidly growing grass has little resistance to disease.

  D. It is incorrect to say that inferior motor oil cannot cause a car to get poorer gasoline mileage, since inferior motor oil can cause engine valve deterioration, and engine valve deterioration can lead to poorer gasoline mileage,

  E. It is inaccurate to say that Alexander the Great was a student of Plato; Alexander was a student of Aristotle and Aristotle was a student of Plato.

  Correct Answer: D

  The author of the stimulus is evidently responding to someone claiming that a diet high in refined sugar can't cause diabetes. "That's inaccurate," says he. How come? Because such a diet can make one overweight, which in turn can lead to diabetes. This can be broken down algebraically: It's wrong to say that X can't cause Y, because X can lead to Z, which in turn can lead to Y.

• Question 594:

  President of the Regional Chamber of Commerce: We are all aware of the painful fact that almost no new businesses have moved into our region or started up here over the last ten years. But the Planning Board is obviously guilty of a gross exaggeration in its recent estimate that businesses are leaving the region at the rate of about four a week. After all, there were never more than about one thousand businesses in the region, so if they were really leaving at such a rate, they would all have been gone long ago.

  The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the ground that it

  A. focuses on what is going out of a system while ignoring the issue of what is coming into the system

  B. confuses a claim about a rate of change within a system with a claim about the absolute size of the system

  C. argues against a position simply by showing that the position serves the interest of the Planning Board

  D. treats a claim about what is currently the case as if it were a claim about what has been the case for an extended period

  E. attacks what was offered as an estimate on the ground that it is not precise

  Correct Answer: D

  If this guy is the President of the Chamber of Commerce, then the region can expect a lot more businesses to leave. The question stem tells you that his argument is flawed. The President concludes that the Planning Board is guilty of exaggerating the rate of businesses leaving the region. His evidence is that there have never been more than a thousand businesses in the region, and if they were really leaving at the rate of four per week over the past 10 years, then there wouldn't be any businesses left in the region. Did you spot the scope shift? The Planning Board, in its estimate of businesses leaving, said nothing about how long this had been occurring. So the President seems to assume that the Board is claiming that this rate has been accurate for a long time. Once you identified this flaw, it should have been easy to skim the choices for the correct answer. Businesses are currently leaving at four per week. The Planning Board did not say they've been leaving at four per week for 10 years. Option [treats a claim about what is currently the case...] points out the President's misrepresentation.

• Question 595:

  Despite the fact that antilock brakes are designed to make driving safer, research suggests that people who drive cars equipped with antilock brakes have more accidents than those who drive cars not equipped with antilock brakes.

  Each of the following, if true, would help resolve the apparent discrepancy described above EXCEPT:

  A. Most cars equipped with antilock brakes are, on average, driven more carelessly than cars not equipped with antilock' brakes.

  B. Antilock brakes malfunction more often than regular brakes.

  C. Antilock brakes require expensive specialized maintenance to be even as effective as unmaintained regular brakes.

  D. Most people who drive cars equipped with antilock brakes do not know how to use those brakes properly.

  E. Antilock brakes were designed for safety in congested urban driving, but accidents of the most serious nature take place on highways.

  Correct Answer: E

  Four viable resolutions, one clunker, states the stem. This tells us that the apparent discrepancy must not be a great mystery after all, considering there are four valid solutions to it right on the page. Our job is to find the odd man out. The argument is simple enough: Antilock brakes are designed for safety, but those who drive cars with these brakes have more accidents than those who drive cars without them. Why? Each wrong choice posits a reasonable explanation of why this may be so.

• Question 596:

  Teacher to a student: You agree that it is bad to break promises. But when we speak to each other we all make an implicit promise to tell the truth, and lying is the breaking of that promise. So even if you promised Jeanne that you would tell me she is home sick, you should not tell me that, if you know that she is well.

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

  A. Most people always tell the truth.

  B. It is sometimes better to act in a friend's best interests than to keep a promise to that friend.

  C. Breaking a promise leads to worse consequences than does telling a lie.

  D. Some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones.

  E. One should never break a promise.

  Correct Answer: D

  On this question you needed to find the teacher's assumption. So that means you should have found the missing link between her conclusion and evidence. Her conclusion is that the student should not lie and say that Jeanne is home sick, even if the student had promised Jeanne that he would say that. The teacher supports this conclusion by saying that whenever we speak to each other we make an implicit promise to tell the truth, and lying is the implicit breaking of that promise. Did you see the double standard? The teacher concludes that the student should not break his promise to tell the truth to the teacher, even if that means breaking his promise to Jeanne. Therefore, the teacher must be assuming that it's OK to break some promises, but not others.

• Question 597:

  Goswami: I support the striking workers at Ergon Foods. They are underpaid. The majority of them make less than $20,000 per year.

  Nordecki: If pay is the issue, I must disagree. The average annual salary of the striking workers at Ergon Foods is over $29,000.

  Goswami and Nordecki disagree over the truth of which one of the following statements?

  A. The average annual salary at Ergon Foods is over$29,000.

  B. Pay is the primary issue over which the workers are striking at Ergon Foods.

  C. It is reasonable to support striking workers who are underpaid.

  D. The striking workers at Ergon Foods are underpaid.

  E. It was unreasonable for the workers at ErgonFoods to go on strike.

  Correct Answer: D

  This is a Point-at-Issue question. Goswami concludes that the striking workers are underpaid. His evidence is that the majority of the workers make less than $20,000 per year. Nordecki counters that if pay is the issue then he disagrees with Goswami. Disagrees about what? In order to answer that question, look at the evidence Nordecki uses to disagree with Goswami. The evidence that he offers relates directly to the pay of the workers: he says that the average salary is $29,000. So Nordecki must be disagreeing with Goswami on the issue of whether the workers are underpaid.

• Question 598:

  A running track with a hard surface makes for greater running speed than a soft one, at least under dry

  conditions, because even though step length is shorter on ' a hard surface, the time the runner's foot

  remains in contact with the running surface is less with a hard surface.

  Which one of the following, if true, is evidence that the explanation given above is only a partial one?

  A. Dry running conditions can be guaranteed for indoor track races only.

  B. In general, taller runners have greater average step length than shorter runners do.

  C. Hard tracks enhance a runner's speed by making it easier for the runner to maintain a posture that minimizes wind resistance.

  D. The tracks at which the world's fastest running times have been recorded are located well above sea level, where the air is relatively thin.

  E. To remain in top condition, a soft track surface requires different maintenance procedures than does a hard one.

  Correct Answer: C

  This question stem requires some translation. We're looking for something that, if true, would show that the author's explanation is only a partial one. So we're looking for a weakener of the explanation: something that points to another factor. Another way of thinking about this question is to recognize that the stem is telling you that the author is arguing that X (and only X) causes Y. You need to look for the answer choice that says Z also causes Y. The author's conclusion is that hard tracks are faster; the author says this is because the runner's foot is in contact with a hard surface for a shorter period of time. The correct answer choice will therefore give you another reason why hard tracks are faster. And that's what option [Hard tracks enhance a runner's speed by...] does. It tells you that hard tracks also make it possible for runners to minimize the effect of wind resistance, again making their times faster. If option [Hard tracks enhance a runner's speed by...].is true, then the author's explanation of why hard tracks are fast is only a partial explanation.

• Question 599:

  Opponent of offshore oil drilling: The projected benefits of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster. The oil already being extracted from these areas currently provides only 4 percent of our country's daily oil requirement, and the new wells would only add one-half of 1 percent. Proponent of offshore oil drilling: Don't be ridiculous! You might just as well argue that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for more than a few minutes.

  Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the drilling proponent's reply?

  A. New farms do not involve a risk analogous to that run by new offshore oil drilling.

  B. Many of the largest oil deposits are located under land that is Unsuitable for farming.

  C. Unlike oil, common agricultural products fulfill nutritional needs rather than fuel requirements.

  D. Legislation governing new oil drilling has been much more thoroughly articulated than has that governing new farms.

  E. The country under discussion imports a higher proportion of the farm products it needs than it does of the oil it needs.

  Correct Answer: A

  Now we get to debunk the debunker -- the proponent's implication that the opponent's argument is ridiculous ain't so hot after all, and perhaps you spotted the problem your first time through: The opponent doesn't pooh-pooh the new wells simply because of their measly output, but because such a small amount is "not worth the risk of environmental disaster." What's analogous to this risk in the proponent's farm example? Nothing. The proponent ignores this aspect of the opponent's argument. If, as option [New farms do not involve a risk analogous to that...] has it, new farms pose no such analogous risk, then the supposedly parallel example that's meant to refute the opponent's argument isn't parallel after all, rendering its implication meaningless. If option [New farms do not involve a risk analogous to that...] is true, the first line of the proponent's response can be thrown back at him.

• Question 600:

  Opponent of offshore oil drilling: The projected benefits of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster. The oil already being extracted from these areas currently provides only 4 percent of our country's daily oil requirement, and the new wells would only add one-half of 1 percent. Proponent of offshore oil drilling: Don't be ridiculous! You might just as well argue that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for more than a few minutes.

  The drilling proponent's reply to the drilling opponent proceeds by

  A. offering evidence in support of drilling that is more decisive than is the evidence offered by the drilling opponent

  B. claiming that the statistics cited as evidence by the drilling opponent are factually inaccurate

  C. pointing out that the drilling opponent's argument is a misapplication of a frequently legitimate way of arguing

  D. citing as parallel to the argument made by the drilling opponent an argument in which the conclusion is strikingly unsupported

  E. proposing a conclusion that is more strongly supported by the drilling opponent's evidence than is the conclusion offered by the drilling opponent

  Correct Answer: D

  "Don't be ridiculous!" begins the proponent's reply to the opponent--no punches pulled here. The opponent of offshore oil drilling argues that drilling in certain areas is not worth the risk; these areas contribute only a small amount of oil overall to the country, and new wells there would contribute only a small percentage of that. Obviously, the proponent doesn't agree that the new wells shouldn't be drilled simply because they will add very little to the country's oil supply. If that reasoning held, he argues, we wouldn't allow new farms, because no one farm is capable of feeding the entire country for long. The farm example is meant to sound ridiculous, and by extension imply that the opponent's reasoning regarding the new wells is ridiculous as well. Option [citing as parallel to the argument made by...] describes this method: The farm example is provided as a parallel argument, the implausibility of which is meant to highlight the "ridiculous" nature of the opponent's argument.