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?
Answer(s): A
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?
Answer(s): D
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?
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?
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?
Answer(s): B
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.
Post your Comments and Discuss Test Prep LSAT Test exam prep with other Community members: