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 23 )

Updated On: 19-Jan-2026
Page 23 of 188
PDF with 934 Questions

Plant manager: We could greatly reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide our copper-smelting plant releases into the atmosphere by using a new process. The new process requires replacing our open furnaces with closed ones and moving the copper from one furnace to the next in solid, not molten, form. However, not only is the new equipment expensive to buy and install, but the new process also costs more to run than the current process, because the copper must be reheated after it has cooled. So overall, adopting the new process will cost much but bring the company no profit.
Supervisor: I agree with your overall conclusion, but disagree about one point you make, since the latest closed furnaces are extremely fuel-efficient.

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

  1. The overall conclusion is about a net effect but is based solely on evidence about only some of the factors that contribute to the effect.
  2. The support for the overall conclusion is the authority of the plant manager rather than any independently verifiable evidence.
  3. The overall conclusion reached merely repeats the evidence offered.
  4. Evidence that is taken to be only probably true is used as the basis for a claim that something is definitely true.
  5. Facts that are not directly relevant to the argument are treated as if they supported the overall conclusion

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

Now we need to identify the flaw in the plant manager's reasoning. The plant manager concludes that the new process is more expensive, but he's only taken two factors into consideration. Other factors, such as fuel efficiency, might be important as well, but the plant manager ignores them.



Ambiguity inspires interpretation. The saying "We are the measure of all things," for instance, has been interpreted by some people to imply that humans are centrally important in the universe, while others have interpreted it to mean simply that, since all knowledge is human knowledge, humans must rely on themselves to find the truth.

The claim that ambiguity inspires interpretation figures in the argument in which one of the following ways?

  1. It is used to support the argument's conclusion.
  2. It is an illustration of the claim that we are the measure of all things.
  3. It is compatible with either accepting or rejecting the argument's conclusion.
  4. It is a view that other statements in the argument are intended to support.
  5. It sets out a difficulty the argument is intended to solve.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

The phrase mentioned in the question stem (ambiguity inspires interpretation) is the very first line of the stimulus. So what role does it play? There's only one more sentence to the stimulus, and it's an extended example, signaled by the evidence Keyword phrase "for instance." So the phrase "ambiguity inspires interpretation" is the conclusion, supported by the example of the differing interpretations of the phrase "we are the measure of all things."



Franklin: It is inconsistent to pay sports celebrities ten times what Nobel laureates are paid. Both have rare talents and work hard.
Tomeka: What you've neglected to consider is that unlike Nobel laureates, sports celebrities earn millions of dollars for their employers in the form of gate receipts and TV rights.

Franklin's and Tomeka's statements provide the most support for holding that they disagree about the truth of which one of the following?

  1. Nobel laureates should be taken more seriously.
  2. Nobel laureates should be paid more than sports celebrities.
  3. Sports celebrities and Nobel laureates work equally hard for their employers.
  4. There is no rational basis for the salary difference between sports celebrities and Nobel laureates.
  5. The social contributions made by sports celebrities should be greater than they currently are.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

The stem tells us to find the point at issue here. Franklin says that it doesn't make sense to pay sports celebrities more than Nobel laureates. Tomeka points out a relevant distinction: sports stars earn lots of cash for their employers in ways that laureates can't. So Tomeka suggests a line of reasoning for paying the sports stars more, whereas Franklin says there is no rational basis for doing so.



Studies of the reliability of eyewitness identifications show little correlation between the accuracy of a witness's account and the confidence the witness has in the account. Certain factors can increase or undermine a witness's confidence without altering the accuracy of the identification. Therefore, police officers are advised to disallow suspect lineups in which witnesses can hear one another identifying suspects.

Which one of the following is a principle underlying the advice given to police officers?

  1. The confidence people have in what they remember having seen is affected by their awareness of what other people claim to have seen.
  2. Unless an eyewitness is confronted with more than one suspect at a time, the accuracy of his or her statements cannot be trusted.
  3. If several eyewitnesses all identify the same suspect in a lineup, it is more likely that the suspect committed the crime than if only one eyewitness identifies the suspect.
  4. Police officers are more interested in the confidence witnesses have when testifying than in the accuracy of that testimony.
  5. The accuracy of an eyewitness account is doubtful if the eyewitness contradicts what other eyewitnesses claim to have seen.

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

The question stem tells us to identify the principle behind the advice given to police officers. So what's the advice? It's signaled by the Keyword "therefore": cops are told not to trust identifications made when witnesses can hear one another. The rest of the stimulus explains why not. There's no connection between confidence and accuracy when it comes to identification, and some factors increase confidence without increasing accuracy. So we can understand why police officers would want to avoid these factors. Based on this information, police officers are advised to disallow identifications in which witnesses can hear one another, and so witnesses being able to hear each other must be one of those factors that increase confidence without increasing accuracy. So option [The confidence people have in what they remember...] is the principle lying behind the advice police officers receive.



All actions are motivated by self-interest, since any action that is apparently altruistic can be described in terms of self-interest. For example, helping someone can be described in terms of self-interest: the motivation is hope for a reward or other personal benefit to be bestowed as a result of the helping action.

Which one of the following most accurately describes an error in the argument's reasoning?

  1. The term "self-interest" is allowed to shift in meaning over the course of the argument.
  2. The argument takes evidence showing merely that its conclusion could be true to constitute evidence showing that the conclusion is in fact true.
  3. The argument does not explain what is meant by "reward" and "personal benefit."
  4. The argument ignores the possibility that what is taken to be necessary for a certain interest to be a motivation actually suffices to show that that interest is a motivation.
  5. The argument depends for its appeal only on the emotional content of the example cited

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

Getting the right answer to this question requires you to spot a scope shift. The author concludes that all actions are motivated by self-interest.
Why? Because any action that is apparently altruistic can be described in terms of self-interest. As additional support, the author then gives an example of an altruistic act, and proceeds to describe it in terms of self-interest.
Do you see how this is a subtle scope shift? The author is using evidence of how an action might be described to support a conclusion of what is actually motivating the action. These two things are not identical. Option [The argument takes evidence showing merely that...] gets at this discrepancy. Just because it could be true that helping someone was motivated by self-interest, (in other words, you could describe it that way) doesn't mean that it is in fact true that the action was motivated by self-interest.



Viewing page 23 of 188
Viewing questions 111 - 115 out of 934 questions



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

Join the LSAT Test Discussion