Cisco
CompTIA
ISC
EC-Council
EXIN
Fortinet
ITIL
Juniper
Microsoft
VMware
Avaya
SAP
Google
NVIDIA
Salesforce
Amazon
Palo Alto Networks
ISC2
Splunk
ServiceNow
All Vendors
  2. Home
  3. Exams
  4. Test Prep
  5. LSAT Test

Test Prep LSAT Test Exam
Law School Admission Test: Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension, Analytical Reasoning (Page 11 )

Updated On: 19-Jan-2026
Page 11 of 188
PDF with 934 Questions

Read the following passage and answer the question below:
Politician: The funding for the new nationwide health-awareness campaign should come from an increase in taxes on cigarettes. It is well established that cigarette smoking causes many serious health problems, and it is only reasonable that people whose unhealthful habits cause so many health problems should bear the costs of that campaign.

Smoker: But it is equally well established that regularly eating high-fat, high-cholesterol foods causes as many serious health problems as does smoking, yet it would be manifestly unreasonable to force those who purchase such foods to bear the burden of financing this campaign.
The smoker's response to the politician's argument

  1. offers a counterexample that calls into question the politician's reasoning
  2. presents an alternative solution to that proposed by the politician
  3. argues that the method proposed by the politician would be inadequate for its intended purpose
  4. questions the accuracy of the information cited by the politician in reaching a conclusion
  5. illustrates how the politician's proposal could aggravate the problem it is intended to solve

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

We've done all the work already just ferreting out the point of contention above, so option [offers a counterexample that calls into...] should look good right away. We saw how the smoker implies, by means of his example, that smokers shouldn't bear the financial burden of the campaign. We saw also how the smoker never comes right out and says this, but it's pretty obvious thanks to his example what his position is. The other group of unhealthy folks (the bad eaters) is the counterexample, and they are presented to cast doubt on the politician's plan. Saying that it's "manifestly unreasonable" leaves little question that he feels that it would be just as unreasonable to impose the tax on smokers.



There should be a greater use of gasohol. Gasohol is a mixture of alcohol and gasoline, and has a higher octane rating and fewer carbon monoxide emissions than straight gasoline. Burning gasohol adds no more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than plants remove by photosynthesis. Each of the following, if true, strengthens the argument above EXCEPT:

  1. Cars run less well on gasoline than they do on gasohol.
  2. Since less gasoline is needed with the use of gasohol, an energy shortage is less likely.
  3. Cars burn on the average slightly more gasohol per kilometer than they do gasoline.
  4. Gasohol is cheaper to produce and hence costs less at the pump than gasoline.
  5. Burning gasoline adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than plants can remove.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

This is a strengthen EXCEPT question which means that the correct answer will either weaken the argument or have no effect on it. The author's conclusion is the recommendation made in the first sentence: There should be greater use of gasohol.
Why? Because it has a higher octane rating and fewer carbon monoxide emissions than gasoline, and the carbon dioxide it adds to the air is removed by photosynthesis. Pretty straightforward, so on to the answer choices. All of the incorrect answer choices will strengthen the conclusion that gasohol should be used instead of gasoline. Option [Cars burn on the average slightly...] is correct because it provides an advantage that gasoline has over gasohol, namely that cars burn more gasohol per kilometer than gasoline. In other words, gasoline cars get better mileage. This would weaken the recommendation that gasohol be used.



Cats spend much of their time sleeping; they seem to awaken only to stretch and yawn. Yet they have a strong, agile musculature that most animals would have to exercise strenuously to acquire.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent paradox described above?

  1. Cats have a greater physiological need for sleep than other animals.
  2. Many other animals also spend much of their time sleeping yet have a strong, agile musculature.
  3. Cats are able to sleep in apparently uncomfortable positions.
  4. Cats derive ample exercise from frequent stretching.
  5. Cats require strength and agility in order to be effective predators.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

The question stem tells you you'll have to resolve or explain an apparent paradox. Therefore, your first step should have been to clearly identify the paradox. In this case, the stimulus tells you that even though cats mostly just stretch and yawn, they have a strong musculature that most animals would need lots of exercise to acquire. Note the Keyword "Yet" in the last sentence that alerts you to something unexpected coming up. And in fact, it is somewhat surprising that cats can get this musculature when all they do is sleep and stretch and yawn. The correct answer choice will explain how that can be. Option [Cats derive ample exercise from frequent stretching.].is correct because it shows how both parts of this argument could be true. If cats get ample exercise from frequent stretching, and we know from the argument that they do stretch, then that helps to explain how they get the exercise necessary to maintain their agile musculature



Barnes: The two newest employees at this company have salaries that are too high for the simple tasks normally assigned to new employees and duties that are too complex for inexperienced workers. Hence, the salaries and the complexity of the duties of these two newest employees should be reduced.

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

  1. The duties of the two newest employees are not less complex than any others in the company.
  2. It is because of the complex duties assigned that the two newest employees are being paid more than is usually paid to newly hired employees.
  3. The two newest employees are not experienced at their occupations.
  4. Barnes was not hired at a higher-than-average starting salary.
  5. The salaries of the two newest employees are no higher than the salaries that other companies pay for workers with a similar level of experience.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

This is an Assumption question, so we will need the answer choice that connects the evidence with the conclusion. Barnes' conclusion is that the salaries and complexity of the duties of these two newest employees should be reduced. (Conveniently, the conclusion is pointed out by the Keyword "Hence".) Why should they be reduced? Because these employees have salaries that are too high for the simple tasks normally assigned to new employees and they have duties that are too complex for inexperienced workers. Can you see what's going on here? By concluding from this evidence that the two new employees should have their salaries and duties reduced, the author is just assuming that these two new employees are like typical new employees: they must have simple tasks assigned to them, and they are inexperienced. But what if that weren't true? What if they have nonsimple tasks assigned to them, or they are, in fact, experienced workers? Then there would be no reason to reduce their salaries and duties; Barnes' conclusion would not logically follow. So the author must be assuming that they are just like the typical new employee.

Once you have this kind of prephrase in your head, you can attack the answer choices. [The two newest employees are not experienced at their occupations] is correct because it tells us that the new employees are just like typical new employees in one important respect--they are not experienced at their occupations.



These days, drug companies and health professionals alike are focusing their attention on cholesterol in the blood. The more cholesterol we have in our blood, the higher the risk that we shall die of a heart attack. The issue is pertinent since heart disease kills more North Americans every year than any other single cause. At least three factors--smoking, drinking, and exercise-- can each influence levels of cholesterol in the blood.

Which one of the following can be properly concluded from the passage?

  1. If a person has low blood cholesterol, then that person's risk of fatal heart disease is low.
  2. Smoking in moderation can entail as great a risk of fatal heart disease as does heavy smoking.
  3. A high-cholesterol diet is the principal cause of death in North America.
  4. The only way that smoking increases one's risk of fatal heart disease is by influencing the levels of cholesterol in the blood.
  5. The risk of fatal heart disease can be altered by certain changes in lifestyle.

Answer(s): E

Explanation:

We're looking for a proper conclusion, so it behooves us to read through the stimulus with an eye towards where it's all heading. The topic is blood cholesterol, a relevant concern "these days." Sentence 2 offers what most would accept as conventional wisdom: the higher one's cholesterol, the greater the risk of a heart attack.
The following sentence tells us why this is important (heart disease is the number one killer in North America), and the passage ends with three factors that affect cholesterol. Not much of an argument; more like a collection of facts. But that makes sense, since it's something that "can be properly concluded from the passage" that we're after anyway. It's hard to prephrase exactly what that conclusion might be, but you may have had a pretty good feeling that it would have something to do with the factors listed at the end. After all, the abrupt ending kind of begs the question "what about these factors? Why mention these?" Only options [Smoking in moderation can entail as...], [The only way that smoking increases one's...] and [The risk of fatal heart disease can be altered...] relate specifically to these factors, and the first two conclude more about smoking than we can infer from the passage (see below). But option [The risk of fatal heart disease can be altered...] works:
Blood cholesterol influences heart disease, and the factors that influence blood cholesterol are lifestyle choices.
Put it together, and it's proper to conclude that the risk of fatal heart disease can be influenced by changes in such choices.



Viewing page 11 of 188
Viewing questions 51 - 55 out of 934 questions



Post your Comments and Discuss Test Prep LSAT Test exam prep with other Community members:

Join the LSAT Test Discussion