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.Which one of the following accurately describes the argumentative strategy employed?
Answer(s): D
The words from "However" to "for example" virtually scream out that plankton is being presented here as a counterexample. The "position being challenged" is that laid out in the beginning--the common assumption that only highly evolved species proactively alter their environments for survival purposes. And the only possible reason for presenting such a "counterexample" is to show that this belief is wrong. Option [A counterexample to a position being]. has it all.
The top priority of the school administration should be student attendance. No matter how good the teachers, texts, and facilities are, none of these does any good if few students come to school. The pattern of reasoning in the argument above is LEAST similar to that in which one of the following?
Answer(s): E
The "should be" in the first sentence alerts you that that's the conclusion. It's a policy recommendation: Schools should make student attendance Job One. How come? Because no other education issues matter if there are no kids around to benefit from `em. Essentially what the argument proposes is a necessary condition of running a school (i.e. that students be there). And so a parallel argument will similarly feature a policy recommendation based upon a condition necessary for some result. Of course, a scan of the choices reveals that all five contain "Job One" policy recommendations, so we need to delve deeper.
Prosecutor: Dr. Yuge has testified that, had the robbery occurred after 1:50 a.m., then, the moon having set at1:45 A.M., it would have been too dark for Klein to recognize the perpetrator. But Yuge acknowledged that the moon was full enough to provide considerable light before it set. And we have conclusively shown that the robbery occurred between 1:15 and 1:30 A.M. So there was enough light for Klein to make a reliable identification.The prosecutor's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism because it overlooks which one of the following possibilities?
Looks like we're going to have to play criminal defense attorney in this one as we try to determine how the prosecutor's argument is vulnerable? The prosecutor concludes in the last sentence that there was enough light for Klein to make a reliable identification. What does the prosecutor base this on? 1) The fact that they have shown that the robbery took place between 1:15 and 1:30; 2) the moon did not set until 1:45; and 3) the moon was full enough to provide considerable light before it set. It's kind of tough to prephrase an answer for this question. But before you went on to the answer choices, you needed to remain focused on the prosecutor's precise conclusion and the evidence on which he bases that conclusion.E.is correct because even if all the other facts are true (i.e. the time of the robbery, the time when the moon set, the condition of the moon on that night, and the amount of light a full moon provides), the prosecutor's conclusion that there was sufficient light could still be questionable, because he has not considered whether anything could have interfered with that light.
Ordinary mountain sickness, a common condition among mountain climbers, and one from which most people can recover, is caused by the characteristic shortage of oxygen in the atmosphere at high altitudes. Cerebral edema, a rarer disruption of blood circulation in the brain that quickly becomes life-threatening if not correctly treated from its onset, can also be caused by a shortage of oxygen. Since the symptoms of cerebral edema resemble those of ordinary mountain sickness, cerebral edema is especially dangerous at high altitudes.Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Answer(s): A
The conclusion of the argument is that cerebral edema can be especially dangerous at high altitudes. Why? Because it quickly becomes life threatening if it's not correctly treated from its onset. But we also know that its symptoms are similar to that of ordinary mountain sickness which is also caused by the shortage of oxygen at high altitudes. So basically, if you have the symptoms, you might have the serious condition or the ordinary condition. That sounds dangerous, right? You might have the serious version and not know it! So what's assumed here? The argument seems pretty good as is. This was a tough one and it was difficult to prephrase an answer. Let's move on to the answer choices and see which one the author must be assuming.
We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished culture by examining its language. Thus, it is likely that the people who spoke Proto-Indo-European, the language from which all Indo-European languages descended, lived in a cold climate, isolated from ocean or sea, because Proto-Indo-European lacks a word for "sea," yet contains words for "winter," "snow," and "wolf."Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Answer(s): B
Remember, on Weaken questions, the best strategy is usually to attack any underlying assumption that the author is making. This author is concluding that the P-I-E people lived in a cold climate, isolated from the ocean or sea. What evidence does the author use? That the P-I-E language did not have a word for "sea," but did have words for "winter," "snow," and "wolf." Can you identify an assumption that would link the evidence and conclusion? The author assumes that languages have words for elements of their culture that are present (e.g.snow) and don't have words for elements that are not present (e.g., sea). So to most effectively weaken this argument, just look for an answer choice that attacks this underlying assumption. Option [Some languages lack words for prominent...]. does precisely that by saying that some languages lack words for prominent elements of the environments of their speakers. In other words, you could have an ocean (certainly a prominent element) without having a word for it. If this were true, it would undermine the author's conclusion that the P-I-E people were isolated from the sea just because their language contained no word for it. Maybe they just never bothered to get around to making up the word.
Post your Comments and Discuss Test Prep LSAT Test exam prep with other Community members: