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 14 )

Updated On: 19-Jan-2026
Page 14 of 188
PDF with 934 Questions

Columnist: It is impossible for there to be real evidence that lax radiation standards that were once in effect at nuclear reactors actually contributed to the increase in cancer rates near such sites. The point is a familiar one:
who can say if a particular case of cancer is due to radiation, exposure to environmental toxins, smoking, poor diet, or genetic factors.

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

  1. The argument fails to recognize that there may be convincing statistical evidence even if individual causes cannot be known.
  2. The argument inappropriately presupposes that what follows a certain phenomenon was caused by that phenomenon.
  3. The-argument inappropriately draws a conclusion about causes of cancer in general from evidence drawn from a particular case of cancer.
  4. The argument ignores other possible causes of the increase in cancer rates near the nuclear reactor complexes.
  5. The argument concludes that a claim about a causal connection is false on the basis of a lack of evidence for the claim.

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

Once again, an argument author is using faulty logic; no big surprise there. The columnist concludes that it is "impossible" for there to be evidence that lax radiation standards at nuclear reactors actually contributed to the increase in cancer rates near those sites. And the columnist's evidence that it is impossible for there to be such evidence? Simply the fact that no one can say if a particular case of cancer is due to radiation, smoking, or other factors. Did you notice the scope shift there? Many flawed arguments turn on such subtle scope shifts. In this instance the columnist takes evidence about what may have caused a single case of cancer and uses it to support a conclusion about whether there is evidence that radiation contributed to an increase in cancer rates.
Therefore, you should have been looking for an answer choice that addresses this scope shift. Option [The argument fails to recognize that there...] does the job. If, for instance, there were statistical evidence that cancer rates had increased by 80 percent during the relevant time period, that would be evidence that the standards had made a contribution, even if you couldn't prove conclusively that any one of the individual cases was due to radiation.



Some planning committee members' those representing the construction industry -- have significant financial interests in the committee's decisions. No one who is on the planning committee lives in the suburbs, although many of them work there.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

  1. No persons with significant financial interests in the planning committee's decisions are not in the construction industry.
  2. No person who has a significant financial interest in the planning committee's decisions lives in the suburbs.
  3. Some persons with significant financial interests in the planning committee's decisions work in the suburbs.
  4. Some planning committee members who represent the construction industry do not work in the suburbs.
  5. Some persons with significant financial interests in the planning committee's decisions do not Jive in the suburbs.

Answer(s): E

Explanation:

Two sentences here, one beginning with the word "Some," the other with "No one." Add to that an Inference stem and answer choices that begin with either "No" or "Some" and the result is unmistakable--this is classic formal logic. It's possible to combine the statements, just like we do in Logic Games, in order to deduce what must be true. The two most helpful terms in the short stimulus are "some" and "no one"--the former we understand to mean "at least one," while the latter excludes all members of a group from a particular situation.
"Many" is simply not as helpful, because we have no way of telling which people this "many" refers to. So it's a good strategy to look to combine the first sentence with the first part of the second sentence. Were you able to do this? If so, you should have had no trouble scanning for the correct answer. If not, try it now before reading on. Okay: The first sentence tells us that at least one planner/construction rep (nothing wrong with shortening the terms to that) has an interest in the decisions. But no planner lives in the suburbs, so if we combine these facts, we can say conclusively that there must be at least one non-suburbanite (the planner from above) who has an interest in the decisions. That's the same as saying that some (at least one) persons interested in the decision don't live in the suburbs, choice [Some persons with significant ... do not Jive in the suburbs]. You may have noticed another deduction: It must be true that some construction reps don't live in the suburbs, since the planners in question, none of whom live in the suburbs, are "those representing the construction industry."



Arbitrator: The shipping manager admits that he decided to close the old facility on October 14 and to schedule the new facility's opening for October 17, the following Monday. But he also claims that he is not responsible for the business that was lost due to the new facility's failing to open as scheduled. He blames the contractor for not finishing on time, but he, too, is to blame, for he was aware of the contractor's typical delays and should have planned for this contingency.

Which one of the following principles underlies the arbitrator's argument?

  1. A manager should take foreseeable problems into account when making decisions.
  2. A manager should be able to depend on contractors to do their jobs promptly.
  3. A manager should see to it that contractors do their jobs promptly.
  4. A manager should be held responsible for mistakes made by those whom the manager directly supervises.
  5. A manager, and only a manager, should be held responsible for a project's failure.

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

Next up is the tale of the shipping manager, as told by The Arbitrator. The question stem instructs us to locate a principle underlying the argument, so we'd be well served to read the argument with an eye towards forming a general paraphrase. The arbitrator tells of a shipping manager who admits to making a decision (close the old facility on the 14th, open the new on the 17th). But he shirks responsibility for the consequences of this decision (the new facility failed to open on time; business was lost). He shifts the blame, but the arbitrator concludes that he too is responsible because he was aware of possible delays and should have planned ahead for them. It's very difficult to predict the principle we seek word for word, but we can look for something that speaks to personal responsibility stemming from a proactive awareness of the various angles of a situation. In other words: plan ahead, or don't complain when things go wrong. And that's what we get in option [A manager should take foreseeable problems...]: The "typical delays" were foreseeable, and by insisting that the manager take some blame for the lost business, the arbitrator acts according to the principle that such foreseeable circumstances should be taken into account by a manager when making decisions. Option [A manager should take foreseeable problems...] states in general terms what the arbitrator specifically says: The manager should have known there may have been a delay when he made the decision to close the old plant, and therefore he should own up to part of the blame.



The price of a full-fare coach ticket from Toronto to Dallas on Breezeway Airlines is the same today as it was a year ago, if inflation is taken into account by calculating prices in constant dollars. However, today 90 percent of the Toronto-to-Dallas coach tickets that Breezeway sells are discount tickets and only 10 percent are full-fare tickets, whereas a year ago half were discount tickets and half were full-fare tickets. Therefore, on average, people pay less today in constant dollars for a Breezeway Toronto-to-Dallas coach ticket than they did a year ago.

Which one of the following, if assumed, would allow the conclusion above to be properly drawn?

  1. A Toronto-to-Dallas full-fare coach ticket on Breezeway Airlines provides ticket-holders with a lower level of service today than such a ticket provided a year ago.
  2. A Toronto-to-Dallas discount coach ticket on Breezeway Airlines costs about the same amount in constant dollars today as it did a year ago.
  3. All full-fare coach tickets on Breezeway Airlines cost the same in constant dollars as they did a year ago.
  4. The average number of coach passengers per flight that Breezeway Airlines carries from Toronto to Dallas today is higher than the average number per flight a year ago.
  5. The criteria that Breezeway Airlines uses for permitting passengers to buy discount coach tickets on the Toronto-to-Dallas route are different today than they were a year ago.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

This is a tricky Assumption question. And it looks like we're going to have to do a little math on this one. Let's start with what we know. We know that the price of a full fare coach ticket from Toronto to Dallas is the same as last year. We also know that this year, 90 percent of Toronto to Dallas coach tickets are discount tickets, and 10 percent are full-fare tickets. This compares with last year's breakdown of 50 percent discount tickets, and 50 percent full-fare tickets. Based on this evidence, the author concludes that on average, people are paying less for a coach ticket than a year ago. Well, what seems to be missing here? The price of a discount ticket. You have to know what the price of a discount ticket was last year, and what the price is this year, to make an effective comparison. Let's put in some numbers to see why this is so. If the discount tickets were half the price of full fare tickets last year, and half the price this year, then you can see how the author's conclusion would be valid: 90 percent of people would be getting half-off fares this year, as compared to only 50 percent getting half off fares a year ago. So, on average, passengers would be paying less this year. But what if last year the discount tickets were half off, and this year, the "discount" tickets are only 5 percent off? Now, even though most people are getting "discount" tickets, most people are still paying practically full fare, and the author's conclusion that on average people are paying less would be invalid. So now let's get back to the question. You had to find what the author was assuming for the conclusion to be valid. As we just saw, the author must be assuming that there isn't a big difference between the cost of last year's discount tickets and the cost of this year's discount tickets. And that's exactly what correct answer choice [A Toronto-to-Dallas discount coach ticket on Breezeway Airlines costs about the same amount in] says.



Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear power plants are entirely safe and hence that the public's fear of nuclear accidents at these plants is groundless. The government also contends that its recent action to limit the nuclear industry's financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents at power plants is justified by the need to protect the nuclear industry from the threat of bankruptcy. But even the government says that unlimited liability poses such a threat only if injury claims can be sustained against the industry; and the government admits that for such claims to be sustained, injury must result from a nuclear accident. The public's fear, therefore, is well founded.

If all of the statements offered in support of the editorial's conclusion correctly describe the government's position, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of those statements?

  1. The government's claim about the safety of the country's nuclear power plants is false.
  2. The government's position on nuclear power plants is inconsistent.
  3. The government misrepresented its reasons for acting to limit the nuclear industry's liability.
  4. Unlimited financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents poses no threat to the financial security of the country's nuclear industry.
  5. The only serious threat posed by a nuclear accident would be to the financial security of the nuclear industry.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

We're to accept that the government's position is accurately portrayed, and need to infer what must be true on the basis of that portrayal.
While it's usually difficult to prephrase answers to Inference questions, perhaps a general sense of contradiction jumped out at you? After all, the government does appear to be speaking out of both sides of its PR office. On the one hand we have assurances to the public that nuclear power is perfectly safe. At the same time, however, the government is taking an action that seems to be necessary only if injury claims resulting from a nuclear accident can be sustained. If there's really no danger of injury, then such claims can't be sustained, and no limits to the industry's financial liability in case of accidents would be necessary. But the government has acted to protect the industry. Evidently, the government's pronouncements to the public regarding the safety of the plants doesn't match its own beliefs underlying its action to limit the nuclear industry's financial liability. Something doesn't jibe here. As option [The government's position on] puts it, the government's position on nuclear power plants (specifically relating to the safety issue) is inconsistent.



Viewing page 14 of 188
Viewing questions 66 - 70 out of 934 questions



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

Join the LSAT Test Discussion