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 12 )

Updated On: 19-Jan-2026
Page 12 of 188
PDF with 934 Questions

In Debbie's magic act, a volunteer supposedly selects a card in a random fashion, looks at it without showing it to her, and replaces it in the deck. After several shuffles, Debbie cuts the deck and supposedly reveals the same selected card. A skeptic conducted three trials. In the first, Debbie was videotaped, and no sleight of hand was found. In the second, the skeptic instead supplied a standard deck of cards. For the third trial, the skeptic selected the card. Each time, Debbie apparently revealed the selected card. The skeptic concluded that Debbie uses neither sleight of hand, nor a trick deck, nor a planted "volunteer" to achieve her effect.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the skeptic's reasoning?

  1. The skeptic failed to consider the possibility that Debbie did not always use the same method to achieve her effect.
  2. The skeptic failed to consider the possibility that sleight of hand could also be detected by some means other than videotaping.
  3. The skeptic failed to consider the possibility that Debbie requires both sleight of hand and a trick deck to achieve her effect.
  4. The skeptic failed to consider the possibility that Debbie used something other than sleight of hand, a trick deck, or a planted "volunteer" to achieve her effect.
  5. The skeptic failed to consider the possibility that Debbie's success in the three trials was something other than a coincidence

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

Once you know that there is an error in the reasoning, you should read critically, looking to poke holes in the author's argument. In this paragraph, the skeptic concludes that Debbie uses neither sleight of hand, nor a trick deck, nor a planted "volunteer" to achieve her effect. This conclusion is based on three separate trials of her card trick. In each trial though, the skeptic is really only controlling for one variable (using videotape to control for sleight of hand in Trial 1, etc.). But as correct answer choice [The skeptic failed to consider the possibility...] points out, the skeptic failed to consider the possibility that Debbie did not always use the same method to achieve her effect. In other words, when the skeptic tried to control for a trick deck, perhaps Debbie used a planted "volunteer" or sleight of hand to make the trick work. Then, when the skeptic tried to control for the planted "volunteer," Debbie used one of the other methods to make it work.



Nutritionist: Many people claim that simple carbohydrates are a reasonable caloric replacement for the fatty foods forbidden to those on low-fat diets. This is now in doubt. New studies show that, for many people, a high intake of simple carbohydrates stimulates an overproduction of insulin, a hormone that is involved in processing sugars and starches to create energy when the body requires energy, or, when energy is not required, to store the resulting by-products as fat.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the nutritionist's statements?

  1. People on low-fat diets should avoid consumption of simple carbohydrates if they wish to maintain the energy that their bodies require.
  2. People who produce enough insulin to process their intake of simple carbohydrates should not feel compelled to adopt low-fat diets.
  3. People who consume simple carbohydrates should limit their intake of foods high in fat.
  4. People who wish to avoid gaining body fat should limit their intake of foods high in simple carbohydrates.
  5. People who do not produce an excessive amount of insulin when they consume foods high in simple carbohydrates will not lose weight if they restrict only their intake of these foods.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

Our task is to find the statement that's most strongly supported, so it's reasonable to expect that prephrasing an answer may not be possible. The plan is therefore to gather up the facts, understand them in your own words, and move on to the choices. The nutritionist describes a claim that's subsequently disputed by "new studies":
Replacing fatty foods with carbohydrates may not work for those on low-fat diets, as once believed, because eating a lot of carbs produces extra insulin, which in turn acts on sugars and starches to provide energy and, more importantly, produce fat when energy levels are sufficient. There's one key element here that we overlook at our own risk: It is a "high-intake" of carbs that triggers this result.



Jean: Our navigational equipment sells for $ 1,100 and dominates the high end of the market, but more units are sold by our competitors in the $700 to $800 range. We should add a low-cost model, which would allow us to increase our overall sales while continuing to dominate the high end. Tracy: I disagree. Our equipment sells to consumers who associate our company with quality. Moving into the low-cost market would put our competitors in the high-cost market on an equal footing with us, which could hurt our overall sales.

Jean's and Tracy's statements most strongly suggest that they disagree over which one of the following propositions?

  1. There is a greater potential for profits in the low- cost market than there is in the high-cost market.
  2. The proposed cheaper model, if it were made available, would sell to customers who would otherwise be buying the company's present model.
  3. The company could dominate the low-cost market in the same way it has dominated the high-cost market.
  4. The company would no longer dominate the high- cost market if it began selling a low-cost model.
  5. Decreased sales of the high-cost model would result in poor sales for the proposed low-cost model.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

Another disagreement to disentangle this one between Jean and Tracy over business strategy Jean's happy with the business brought in by the high-end navigational equipment, but frets over the fact that competitors are selling more units in a cheaper price range. She suggests adding a low-cost model to boost sales. Tracey differs: Moving into the low-cost arena would, according to her, damage the public's perception of the company as a quality high-end manufacturer, which would jeopardize their success in the high-end market and hurt sales overall. We're looking for a proposition about which the two would disagree, so the best bet is to evaluate each choice asking yourself: "What would Jean think of this? What would Tracy?" When you find them on opposite sides of the fence, you'll have your answer.



The symptoms of hepatitis A appear no earlier than 60 days after a person has been infected. In a test of a hepatitis A vaccine, 50 people received the vaccine and 50 people received a harmless placebo. Although some people from each group eventually exhibited symptoms of hepatitis A, the vaccine as used in the test is completely effective in preventing infection with the hepatitis A virus.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps resolve the apparent discrepancy in the information above?

  1. The placebo did not produce any side effects that resembled any of the symptoms of hepatitis
  2. More members of the group that had received the placebo recognized their symptoms as symptoms of hepatitis A than did members of the group that had received the vaccine.
  3. The people who received the placebo were in better overall physical condition than were the people who received the vaccine.
  4. The vaccinated people who exhibited symptoms of hepatitis A were infected with the hepatitis A virus before being vaccinated.
  5. Of the people who developed symptoms of hepatitis A, those who received the vaccine recovered more quickly, on average, than those who did not.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

For Q. 10 we need to resolve the apparent discrepancy. Remember, the first step in this question type is to make sure you understand, in your own words, the nature of the discrepancy before moving on to the answer choices. In this case, the discrepancy is signaled by the Keyword "although" in the last sentence. The paradox is that even though the vaccine used in this test is completely effective in preventing hepatitis, members of both groups exhibited symptoms of hepatitis A. Now, it's not surprising that members of the placebo group may have contracted the disease; after all, they weren't vaccinated. But how could the members of the group that received the vaccine exhibit symptoms of hepatitis if we're told the vaccine is completely effective in preventing it? Try to answer that yourself, and then look to the answer choices for a similar explanation. Option [The vaccinated people who...] is correct because it gives a perfectly logical explanation: the people who exhibited symptoms contracted hepatitis before they were vaccinated. Remember, the stimulus tells us that the symptoms appear no earlier than 60 days after a person has been infected. Therefore, if a person were infected on day 1, and received the vaccine on day 10, we would expect that person to exhibit symptoms sometime after he or she was vaccinated.



It is well known that many species adapt to their environment, but it is usually assumed that only the most highly evolved species alter their environment in ways that aid their own survival. However, this characteristic is actually quite common. Certain species of plankton, for example, generate a gas that is converted in the atmosphere into particles of sulfate. These particles cause water vapor to condense, thus forming clouds. Indeed, the formation of clouds over the ocean largely depends on the presence of these particles. More cloud cover means more sunlight is reflected, and so the Earth absorbs less heat. Thus plankton cause the surface of the Earth to be cooler and this benefits the plankton.

Of the following, which one most accurately expresses the main point of the argument?

  1. The Earth would be far warmer than it is now if certain species of plankton became extinct,
  2. By altering their environment in ways that improve their chances of survival, certain species of plankton benefit the Earth as a whole.
  3. Improving their own chances of survival by altering the environment is not limited to the most highly evolved species.
  4. The extent of the cloud cover over the oceans is largely determined by the quantity of plankton in those oceans.
  5. Species such as plankton alter the environment in ways that are less detrimental to the well-being of other species than are the alterations to the environment made by more highly evolved species.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

Two for the price of one in this double-question stimulus, and the two questions are basic ones: What's the main point, and how does the author make it? It's well-known that species adapt to their environment, but most assume that only highly evolved species actually change their environment to aid in survival. But, we find out, this behavior is actually quite common, as the plankton example is presented to demonstrate. The process that follows is actually relatively unimportant, given that we're looking for general stuff like the main point and the argumentative technique. (See bullet point below.) The Keyword "However" indicates that the example of plankton is meant to show that not only the highly evolved species act in the manner described. Option [Improving their own chances of survival...] captures the main gist of the argument.



Viewing page 12 of 188
Viewing questions 56 - 60 out of 934 questions



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

Join the LSAT Test Discussion