In the decade from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, large corporations were rocked by mergers, reengineering, and downsizing. These events significantly undermined employees' job security. Surprisingly, however, employees' perception of their own job security hardly changed over that period. Fifty-eight percent of employees surveyed in 1984 and 55 percent surveyed in 1994 stated that their own jobs were very secure.Each of the following contributes to an explanation of the surprising survey results described above EXCEPT:
Answer(s): B
The question stem tells us that we're looking to explain surprising survey results. This just means that we have to resolve the paradox. So you should have first identified the paradox: even though massive downsizing occurred from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s, which the author tells us undermined employees' job security, results from surveys taken in 1984 and 1994 asking employees about their job security were surprisingly similar. The reason this is surprising is that we would expect the workers in 1994 to feel much less secure, having experienced so many mergers, layoffs, etc. All of the incorrect answer choices will help to explain how the results could be similar. The one that doesn't is option [Employees who feel secure in their jobs...]. How the employees feel about the jobs of others is irrelevant. The argument concerns one's confidence in one's own job security.
Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide. Not coincidentally, the earth's ozone layer has been continuously depleted throughout the last 50 years. Atmospheric ozone blocks UV-B, a type of ultraviolet radiation that is continuously produced by the sun, and which can damage genes. Because amphibians lack hair, hide, or feathers to shield them, they are particularly vulnerable to UV-B radiation. In addition, their gelatinous eggs lack the protection of leathery or hard shells. Thus, the primary cause of the declining amphibian population is the depletion of the ozone layer.Each of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument EXCEPT:
Answer(s): A
The question stem says that all of the answer choices would strengthen the argument EXCEPT the correct one.Therefore, the correct answer choice will either weaken the argument or have no effect at all. The conclusion of this argument is helpfully introduced by the Keyword "Thus": the primary cause of the declining amphibian population is the depletion of the ozone layer. The evidence is that populations have been declining at the same time the ozone layer has been depleted. Additionally, the ozone protects against UVB radiation, which can damage the genes of amphibians, who have no natural shields against the radiation. Option [Of the various types of radiation blocked by...], which suggests that no other type of ozone-blocked radiation damages genes, would strengthen the notion that UV-B is the primary cause of the declining amphibian population. After all, it rules out other causes. But that isn't the conclusion here. The author's conclusion is that ozone depletion is the primary cause of the declining amphibian population. That conclusion is unaffected by option [Of the various types of radiation blocked by...]. Whether the ozone caused damage to amphibian genes comes from one type of radiation or many doesn't matter to the author. He's only trying to show that it's ozone depletion and not something else.
All too many weaklings are also cowards, and few cowards fail to be fools. Thus there must be at least one person who is both a weakling and a fool.The flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?
Answer(s): C
The "All too many" is just literary, not logical, in nature. The first clause simply means Many or Some weaklings are cowards. The second clause can be read as Many or Most or Some cowards are fools. (Why are we seemingly being so loose in our translations? Because the choices are. Because whichever one of these turns out to be correct, it represents a significant verbal variation on the original. None of the choices reads "All too many X," or "few Y are not Z." So we have to stay a little flexible here.) With that in mind, a loose translation of the first clause would be: Some (or Most) of A are B, and the second as Some (or Most) B are C.When we turn to the conclusion, however, we can feel confident that it can be solidly translated. We know from our formal logic training that the phrase "At least one" means precisely one thing: SOME. So the conclusion is:Some weaklings are fools. Now, given that conclusion, we ought probably to be drawn first to options [All weasels are carnivores and no...], [Some painters are dancers, since...] and [A majority of the...], each of whose conclusions uses the word "Some" or the phrase "At least one." Let's start with those three.
Critic: Most chorale preludes were written for the organ, and the greatest chorale preludes written for the organ were written by J. S. Bach. One of Bach's chorale preludes dramatizes one hymn's perspective on the year's end. This prelude is agonizing and fixed on the passing of the old year, with its dashed hopes and lost opportunities. It does not necessarily reveal Bach's own attitude toward the change of the year, but does reflect the tone of the hymn's text. People often think that artists create in order to express their own feelings. Some artists do. Master artists never do, and Bach was a master artist.If the critic's statements are true, then on the basis of them which one of the following CANNOT be true?
This would be a good one to postpone, as some of the later questions were less involved than this one. The question stem asks you to find the choice that must be false, so the best approach is to read through the stimulus once but be prepared to check back with it when you consult the choices. (There's far too much detail to expect to be able to handle the choices without checking back.) As it turns out, the correct answer comes from the last few sentences. Master artists never create in order to express their own feelings. Bach is a master artist, so he never created works (chorale preludes or not) to express his feelings.
Quasars celestial objects so far away that their light takes at least 500 million years to reach Earth have been seen since 1963. For anything that far away to appear from Earth the way quasars do, it would have to burn steadily at a rate that produces more light than 90 billion suns would produce. But nothing that burns at a rate that produces that much light could exist for more than about 100 million years.If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of them?
Answer(s): E
Here's a rare Inference question that's vulnerable to prephrasing: Quasars burn so hot that they can't last for more than 100 million years, but light from quasars takes at least 500 million years to get here. Quasars have only been seen since 1963, and so any quasar light that anyone on Earth has seen has to be at least 500 million years old, and so, as option [No quasar that has ever been...] points out, that quasar itself cannot exist any more. By the time its light hits us, it's been dead for at least 400 million years.
Post your Comments and Discuss Test Prep LSAT Test exam prep with other Community members: