LSAC LSAC Certifications LSAT-TEST Questions & Answers

• Question 641:

  Plant manager: We could greatly reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide our copper-smelting plant releases into the atmosphere by using a new process. The new process requires replacing our open furnaces with closed ones and moving the copper from one furnace to the next in solid, not molten, form. However, not only is the new equipment expensive to buy and install, but the new process also costs more to run than the current process, because the copper must be reheated after it has cooled. So overall, adopting the new process will cost much but bring the company no profit. Supervisor: I agree with your overall conclusion, but disagree about one point you make, since the latest closed furnaces are extremely fuel-efficient.

  The plant manager's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

  A. The overall conclusion is about a net effect but is based solely on evidence about only some of the factors that contribute to the effect.

  B. The support for the overall conclusion is the authority of the plant manager rather than any independently verifiable evidence.

  C. The overall conclusion reached merely repeats the evidence offered.

  D. Evidence that is taken to be only probably true is used as the basis for a claim that something is definitely true.

  E. Facts that are not directly relevant to the argument are treated as if they supported the overall conclusion

  Correct Answer: A

  Now we need to identify the flaw in the plant manager's reasoning. The plant manager concludes that the new process is more expensive, but he's only taken two factors into consideration. Other factors, such as fuel efficiency, might be important as well, but the plant manager ignores them.

• Question 642:

  Plant manager: We could greatly reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide our copper-smelting plant releases into the atmosphere by using a new process. The new process requires replacing our open furnaces with closed ones and moving the copper from one furnace to the next in solid, not molten, form. However, not only is the new equipment expensive to buy and install, but the new process also costs more to run than the current process, because the copper must be reheated after it has cooled. So overall, adopting the new process will cost much but bring the company no profit. Supervisor: I agree with your overall conclusion, but disagree about one point you make, since the latest closed furnaces are extremely fuel-efficient.

  The point about which the supervisor expresses disagreement with the plant manager is

  A. whether the new copper-smelting process releases less sulfur dioxide gas into the atmosphere than the current process

  B. whether the new copper-smelting process is more expensive to run than the current process

  C. whether the new process should be adopted in the copper-smelting plant

  D. whether closed copper-smelting furnaces are more fuel-efficient than open furnaces

  E. whether cooling and reheating the copper will cost more than moving it in molten form

  Correct Answer: B

  The plant manager describes a process that would reduce pollution. Unfortunately, the new process is more expensive than the current process in two ways (initial cost and maintenance). The plant manager then concludes that the new process will increase costs and not increase profits. The supervisor expresses overall agreement, with one exception, pointing out that the new process is fuel efficient. What's the relevance of this? Well, if the new process is more fuel efficient, perhaps that will help to offset its increased initial cost and its maintenance costs. The first question is a Point at Issue, so we should scan the choices looking for the issue of overall costs. Remember, the supervisor commented on this issue only, so we don't know what the supervisor thinks about anything else. The plant manager says that the new process will increase costs, whereas the supervisor points out why that need not be so.

• Question 643:

  Editorialist: Drivers with a large number of demerit points who additionally have been convicted of a serious driving-related offense should either be sentenced to jail or be forced to receive driver reeducation, since to do otherwise would be to allow a crime to go unpunished. Only if such drivers are likely to be made more responsible drivers should driver re-education be recommended for them. Unfortunately, it is always almost impossible to make drivers with a large number of demerit points more responsible drivers.

  If the editorialist's statements are true, they provide the most support for which one of the following?

  A. Drivers with a large number of demerit points who have been convicted of a serious driving-related offense should be sent to jail.

  B. Driver re-education offers the best chance of making drivers with a large number of demerit points responsible drivers.

  C. Driver re-education is not a harsh enough punishment for anyone convicted of a serious driving-related offense who has also accumulated a large number of demerit points.

  D. Driver re-education should not be recommended for those who have committed no serious driving-related offenses.

  E. Drivers with a large number of demerit points but no conviction for a serious driving-related offense should receive driver re-education rather than jail.

  Correct Answer: A

  This one has a formal logic feel to it. There are two possibilities for these violators: they should either get jail or re-education. But re-education works only if it will make them more responsible drivers. In other words, if re-education will work, then it will make them more responsible drivers. However, it is almost impossible for these drivers to become more responsible. What follows? Well, if these drivers won't get more responsible, then reeducation won't work. But then the only option for these drivers is jail.

• Question 644:

  Sometimes when their trainer gives the hand signal for "Do something creative together," two dolphins circle a pool in tandem and then leap through the air simultaneously. On other occasions the same signal elicits synchronized backward swims or tail-waving. These behaviors are not simply learned responses to a given stimulus. Rather, dolphins are capable of higher cognitive functions that may include the use of language and forethought.

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

  A. Mammals have some resemblance to one another with respect to bodily function and brain structure.

  B. The dolphins often exhibit complex new responses to the hand signal.

  C. The dolphins are given food incentives as part of their training.

  D. Dolphins do not interact with humans the way they interact with one another.

  E. Some of the behaviors mentioned are exhibited by dolphins in their natural habitat.

  Correct Answer: B

  This is a Strengthen question so you have to shore up the author's argument. The author concludes that dolphins are capable of higher cognitive functions that may include the use of language and forethought. The evidence for this is that in response to a hand signal for doing something together, sometimes the dolphins do a leap together, and sometimes they swim backwards, and sometimes they wave their tails. The author also asserts that these are not simply learned responses. So the author is assuming that they are coming up with these behaviors on their own. Choice [The dolphins often exhibit complex...] helps the author because if the dolphins exhibit new responses to the hand signal, that supports the assumption that the dolphins are coming up with this on their own, and are not simply repeating learned responses. Think about it: if the behaviors observed were sometimes completely new, they couldn't possibly be learned responses. This strengthens the argument that dolphins are capable of higher cognitive functions and in fact use them when responding to the command "does something creative together."

• Question 645:

  Parents should not necessarily raise their children in the ways experts recommend, even if some of those experts are themselves parents. After all, parents are the ones who directly experience which methods are successful in raising their own children.

  Which one of the following most closely conforms to the principle that the passage above illustrates?

  A. Although music theory is intrinsically interesting and may be helpful to certain musicians, it does not distinguish good music from bad: that is a matter of taste and not of theory.

  B. One need not pay much attention to the advice of automotive experts when buying a car if those experts are not interested in the mundane factors that concern the average consumer.

  C. In deciding the best way to proceed, a climber familiar with a mountain might do well to ignore the advice of mountain climbing experts unfamiliar with that mountain.

  D. A typical farmer is less likely to know what types of soil are most productive than is someone with an advanced degree in agricultural science.

  E. Unlike society, one's own conscience speaks with a single voice; it is better to follow the advice of one's own conscience than the advice of society.

  Correct Answer: C

  The question stem tells us we must locate the principle in the stimulus and then find the choice containing an argument that functions in a similar manner. So this Principle question has a Parallel Reasoning feel to it. The author of the stimulus says that parents shouldn't always listen to the advice of child-rearing experts (whoever they are), because parents are the ones with direct experience. So we're looking for a choice that says "don't listen to the experts, direct experience is what counts." That's option [In deciding the best way to proceed...], which says don't listen to mountain climbing experts that don't know the mountain you are climbing.

• Question 646:

  Because of increases in the price of oil and because of government policies promoting energy conservation, the use of oil to heat homes fell by 40 percent from 1970 to the present, and many homeowners switched to natural gas for heating. Because switching to natural gas involved investing in equipment, a significant switch back to oil in the near future is unlikely.

  The prediction that ends the passage would be most seriously called into question if it were true that in the last few years

  A. the price of natural gas to heat homes has remained constant, while the cost of equipment to heat homes with natural gas has fallen sharply

  B. the price of home heating oil has remained constant, while the cost of equipment to heat homes with natural gas has risen sharply

  C. the cost of equipment to heat homes with natural gas has fallen sharply, while the price of home heating oil has fallen to 1970 levels

  D. the cost of equipment to heat homes with oil has fallen sharply, while the price of heating with oil has fallen below the price of heating with natural gas

  E. the use of oil to heat homes has continued to decline, while the price of heating oil has fallen to 1970 levels

  Correct Answer: D

  Calling into question the prediction just means that you have to weaken the conclusion of the argument. The prediction in this case is that it is unlikely that people will switch back to oil (from natural gas) in the near future. What evidence does the author base this prediction on? The fact that many consumers switched to natural gas between 1970 and the present, and that such a switch to natural gas involved investing in equipment. The author must be assuming that investing in natural gas equipment makes it too expensive or too hard to switch back to using oil. The correct answer choice, then, should do something to attack this assumption. D. does this by telling you that the cost of oil heating equipment has fallen sharply (reducing the cost of switching back to oil) and the price of oil has fallen below the price of gas (making it cheaper to heat your home using oil). Again, you don't need to find an answer choice that suggests that consumers will definitely switch back to oil. You just need the one that calls into question the prediction that they won't.

• Question 647:

  Conservationist: The population of a certain wildflower is so small that the species is headed for extinction. However, this wildflower can cross-pollinate with a closely related domesticated daisy, producing viable seeds. Such cross-pollination could result in a significant population of wildflower-daisy hybrids. The daisy should therefore be introduced into the wildflower's range, since although the hybrid would differ markedly from the wildflower, hybridization is the only means of preventing total loss of the wildflower in its range.

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

  A. The wildflower currently reproduces only by forming seeds.

  B. The domesticated daisy was bred from wild plants that once grew in the wildflower's range.

  C. Increasing the population of the wildflower will also expand its range.

  D. Wildflower-daisy hybrids will be able to reproduce.

  E. The domesticated daisy will cross-pollinate with any daisy like plant.

  Correct Answer: D

  Now we need to find an assumption in the same argument. Remember, the author supports hybridization because it will produce viable seeds and lots of flowers. But is that enough? If those flowers themselves cannot reproduce (the denial of option [Wildflower-daisy hybrids will be able.]), then the wildflower is doomed anyway. So the conservationist must be assuming option [Wildflower-daisy hybrids will be able.]

• Question 648:

  Conservationist: The population of a certain wildflower is so small that the species is headed for extinction. However, this wildflower can cross-pollinate with a closely related domesticated daisy, producing viable seeds. Such cross-pollination could result in a significant population of wildflower-daisy hybrids. The daisy should therefore be introduced into the wildflower's range, since although the hybrid would differ markedly from the wildflower, hybridization is the only means of preventing total loss of the wildflower in its range.

  Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the conservationist's reasoning?

  A. It is better to take measures to preserve a valued type of organism, even if those measures are drastic, than to accept a less valuable substitute for the organism.

  B. It is better to preserve a type of organism that is in danger of extinction, even if surviving organisms of that type are not vigorous, than to allow something more vigorous to replace it.

  C. It is better to change a type of organism that would otherwise be lost, even if the changes are radical, than to lose it entirely.

  D. It is better to destroy one of two competing types of organisms, even if both are irreplaceable, than to allow both of them to be lost.

  E. It is better to protect an endangered type of organism, even if doing so has some negative effects on another type of organism, than to do nothing at all.

  Correct Answer: C

  Here's another sad story. The wildflower can't survive without hybridization, but making a wildflower-daisy hybrid would result in a plant that is markedly different from the wildflower. The conservationist is in favor of the hybridization anyway? What principle supports that resolution? We're looking for something that says a hybrid version of the flower is better than no flower at all, and that's what option [It is better to change a type of...] provides. Option [It is better to change a type of...] perfectly supports the notion that a changed wildflower is better than no wildflower, so it serves as the justifying principle we seek.

• Question 649:

  Some judges complain about statutes that specify mandatory minimum sentences for criminal offenses. These legal restrictions, they complain, are too mechanical and prevent judges from deciding when a given individual can or cannot be rehabilitated. But that is precisely why mandatory minimum sentences are necessary. History amply demonstrates that when people are free to use their own judgment they invariably believe themselves to act wisely when in fact they are often arbitrary and irrational. There is no reason to think that judges are an exception to this rule.

  Which one of the following sentences most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

  A. People believe that they have good judgment but never do.

  B. Mandatory minimum sentences are too mechanical and reduce judicial discretion,

  C. Judges should be free to exercise their own judgment.

  D. Judges are often arbitrary and irrational.

  E. Mandatory minimum sentences are needed to help prevent judicial arbitrariness.

  Correct Answer: E

  Some judges think that minimum sentences are too restrictive, as they prevent judges from exercising

  discretion in certain matters. "But," (note the Keyword) the author says this is precisely the problem. So the

  author must believe that judges shouldn't have the power to make certain kinds of decisions. The rest of

  the stimulus backs up the notion that judges act arbitrarily when left on their own. So minimum sentences,

  which remove this discretion, are a good thing after all. E.

  captures this point.

• Question 650:

  Political opinion and analysis outside the mainstream rarely are found on television talk shows, and it might be thought that this state of affairs is a product of the political agenda of the television stations themselves. In fact, television stations are driven by the same economic forces as sellers of more tangible goods. Because they must attempt to capture the largest possible share of the television audience for their shows, they air only those shows that will appeal to large numbers of people. As a result, political opinions and analyses aired on television talk shows are typically bland and innocuous.

  The explanation offered by the author of the passage makes the assumption that

  A. television station executives usually lack a political agenda of their own

  B. bland and innocuous political opinions and analyses are generally in the mainstream

  C. political analysts outside the mainstream are relatively indifferent to the effect their analyses have on television viewers

  D. most television viewers are prepared to argue against allowing the expression of political opinions and analyses with which they disagree

  E. the political opinions of television station executives are not often reflected in the television shows their stations produce

  Correct Answer: B

  Same argument. The author says that opinions outside the mainstream aren't on the talk shows, and concludes that TV stations' drive for large audiences makes the shows bland and innocuous. In the last question, we found one missing piece, and option [bland and innocuous political opinions...] provides another: that bland political opinions are within the mainstream. If they aren't, then why would bland TV appeal to the mainstream? Notice how effectively this assumption links the evidence (no views outside the mainstream on talk shows) with the conclusion (the drive for audience share makes talk shows are bland and innocuous).