support@Free-Braindumps.com
Register Login
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
  1. Home
  2. Exams
  3. Test Prep
  4. LSAT Test

Test Prep LSAT Test Exam Prep
Law School Admission Test: Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension, Analytical Reasoning (Page 15 )

Updated On: 24-Aug-2026
Page 15 of 188
PDF with 934 Questions

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.

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

  1. If the government claims that something is unsafe then, in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that thing should be assumed to be unsafe.
  2. Fear that a certain kind of event will occur is well founded if those who have control over the occurrence of events of that kind stand to benefit financially from such an occurrence.
  3. If a potentially dangerous thing is safe only because the financial security of those responsible for its operation depends on its being safe, then eliminating that dependence is not in the best interests of the public.
  4. The government sometimes makes unsupported claims about what situations will arise, but it does not act to prevent a certain kind of situation from arising unless there is a real danger that such a situation will arise.
  5. If a real financial threat to a major industry exists, then government action to limit that threat is justified.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

Now we need a principle that justifies the editorial's position. Remember, the editorial concludes that the danger of a nuclear accident is real, based on the government's protection of the nuclear industry. But on the other hand, the government also says that there's no danger of a nuclear accident. A principle that would help this argument would explain away this contradiction while preserving the "bankruptcy" argument made in the last half of the stimulus. That's what option [The government sometimes makes unsupported claims about...]. does.
Option [The government sometimes makes unsupported claims about...] addresses the government claim in the first sentence of the stimulus, but then goes on to identify what's really important. Sure, the government sometimes talks nonsense, but here's what you can count on: the government doesn't take preventative steps unless there's a real risk. Here, the government has taken preventative steps, since they've limited the liability of the nuclear industry, and so, given the principle in option [The government sometimes makes unsupported claims about...], we would be able to infer that there is a real danger, and so the public's fears would be well- founded. So this option supports the argument.



Linda says that, as a scientist, she knows that no scientist appreciates poetry. And, since most scientists are logical, at least some of the people who appreciate poetry are illogical.

Which one of the following is most parallel in its reasoning to the flawed reasoning above?

  1. Ralph says that, as an expert in biology, he knows that no marsupial lays eggs. And, since most marsupials are native to Australia, at least some of the animals native to Australia do not lay eggs.
  2. Franz says that, as a father of four children, he knows that no father wants children to eat candy at bedtime.
    And, since most fathers are adults, at least some of the people who want children to eat candy at bedtime are children.
  3. Yuri says that, as a wine connoisseur, he knows that no wine aged in metal containers is equal in quality to the best wine aged in oak. And, since most California wine is aged in metal containers, California wine is inferior to at least the best French wine aged in oak.
  4. Xi says that, as an experienced photographer, she knows that no color film produces images as sharp as the best black-and-white film. And, since most instant film is color film, at least some instant film produces images less sharp than the best black-and-white film.
  5. Betty says that, as a corporate executive, she knows that no corporate executives like to pay taxes. And, since most corporate executives are honest people, at least some people who like to pay taxes are honest people.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

A quick scan of the stimulus and choices reveals a remarkable similarity therein. All, for instance, begin with evidence in the form of No A (scientists/marsupials/fathers/wine aged in metal/color film/corporate execs) are B (appreciate poetry/lay eggs/want kids to eat candy at bedtime/is equal in quality to oak-aged wine/produces equally sharp images/like to pay taxes). The only wrong answer that can be quickly discarded after a quick scan is [Yuri says that, as a wine connoisseur, he knows that...]: Of the stimulus and the five choices, only option [Yuri says that, as a wine connoisseur, he knows that...] fails to present a conclusion that includes the phrase At least some X. So this option cannot be correct.



Automobile-emission standards are enforced through annual inspection. At those inspections cars are tested while idling; that is, standing still with their engines running. Testing devices measure the levels of various pollutants as exhaust gases leave the tail pipe.

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that current enforcement of automobile-emission standards might be ineffective in controlling overall pollutant levels?

  1. As an emission-control technology approaches its limits, any additional gains in effectiveness become progressively more expensive.
  2. The testing devices used must be recalibrated frequently to measure pollutant levels with acceptable accuracy.
  3. The adjustments needed to make a car idle cleanly make it likely that the car will emit high levels of pollutants when moving at highway speeds.
  4. Most car owners ask their mechanics to make sure that their cars are in compliance with emission standards.
  5. When emission standards are set, no allowances are made for older cars.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

This is a tricky question stem.
What's really going on here is that you're going to be questioning the logic of the enforcement program. The stimulus tells you that car emission standards are enforced through annual inspection. At inspection, cars are tested while idling, and the test measures the levels of pollutants leaving the tail pipe. You have to determine which answer choice, if true, would show why that particular testing program would not be effective in controlling overall pollutant levels. Option [The adjustments needed to make a car idle cleanly...] does the job by suggesting that reducing "idling" pollution emissions will increase pollution emissions while driving.



The indigenous people of Tasmania are clearly related to the indigenous people of Australia, but were separated from them when the land bridge between Australia and Tasmania disappeared approximately 10,000 years ago. Two thousand years after the disappearance of the land bridge, however, there were major differences between the culture and technology of the indigenous Tasmanians and those of the indigenous Australians. The indigenous Tasmanians, unlike their Australian relatives, had no domesticated dogs, fishing nets, polished stone tools, or hunting implements like the boomerang and the spear-thrower. Each of the following, if true, would contribute to an explanation of differences described above EXCEPT:

  1. After the disappearance of the land bridge the indigenous Tasmanians simply abandoned certain practices and technologies that they had originally shared with their Australian relatives.
  2. Devices such as the spear-thrower and the boomerang were developed by the indigenous Tasmanians more than 10,000 years ago,
  3. Technological innovations such as fishing nets, polished stone tools, and so on, were imported to Australia by Polynesian explorers more recently than 10,000 years ago.
  4. Indigenous people of Australia developed hunting implements like the boomerang and the spear-thrower after the disappearance of the land bridge.
  5. Although the technological and cultural innovations were developed in Australia more than 10,000 years ago, they were developed by groups in northern Australia with whom the indigenous Tasmanians had no contact prior to the disappearance of the land bridge.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

The question stem tells us that we need to explain the differences, just a variation on the resolve the paradox theme. But remember, if an answer choice does explain the difference, it's incorrect. We're looking for the one that has no effect. We know that the Tasmanians and Australians are related, and we know that they were separated about 10,000 years ago when a land bridge disappeared. Within two thousand years, there were significant differences between the Tasmanians and Australians. Each one of the incorrect answer choices will explain how those differences came about, but option [Devices such as the spear-thrower and...] doesn't, so it's correct. If the Tasmanians developed those weapons over 10,000 years ago, that doesn't explain why they don't have them now. It does explain why the Australians have them, since the Australians were linked to the Tasmanians by the land bridge when the weapons were developed. But it doesn't explain why the Tasmanians no longer have them. So option [Devices such as the spear-thrower and...] is the correct answer.



On a Tuesday, an accountant has exactly seven bills -- numbered 1 through 7 -- to pay by Thursday of the same week. The accountant will pay each bill only once according to the following rules:

Either three or four of the seven bills must be paid on Wednesday, the rest on Thursday.
Bill 1 cannot be paid on the same day as bill 5.
Bill 2 must be paid on Thursday.
Bill 4 must be paid on the same day as bill 7.
If bill 6 is paid on Wednesday, bill 7 must be paid on Thursday.

If exactly four bills are paid on Wednesday, then those four bills could be

  1. 1,3, 4, and 6
  2. 1, 3, 5, and 6
  3. 2, 4, 5, and 7
  4. 3, 4, 5, and 7
  5. 3, 4, 6, and 7

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

A "partial" acceptability question. As always, we'll check the rules against the choices, crossing out choices that violate a rule. Rule 1 is not violated by any choice. Rule 2 says that bills 1 and 5 can't be paid on the same day.
Option [1, 3, 5, and 6] has 1 and 5 together, so it's out. Notice also choice [3, 4, 6, and 7], which leaves 1 and 5 to be paid together on Thursday, another violation of Rule 2. Rule 3 is violated by option [2, 4, 5, and 7], which has bill 2 on Wednesday, and Rule 4 is violated by option [1,3, 4, and 6], which has 4 without 7. With only one choice left, we've found our answer, [3, 4, 5, and 7].



  PDF
Viewing page 15 of 188
Viewing questions 71 - 75 out of 934 questions


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

AI Tutor AI Tutor 👋 I’m here to help!