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 31 )

Updated On: 24-Aug-2026
Page 31 of 188
PDF with 934 Questions

The student body at this university takes courses in a wide range of disciplines. Miriam is a student at this university, so she takes courses in a wide range of disciplines.

Which one of the following arguments exhibits flawed reasoning most similar to that exhibited by the argument above?

  1. The students at this school take mathematics. Miguel is a student at this school, so he takes mathematics.
  2. The editorial board of this law journal has written on many legal issues. Louise is on the editorial; board, so she has written on many legal issues.
  3. The component parts of bulldozers are heavy. This machine is a bulldozer, so it is heavy.
  4. All older automobiles need frequent oil changes. This car is new, so its oil need not be changed as frequently.
  5. The individual cells of the brain are incapable of thinking. Therefore, the brain as a whole is incapable of thinking.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

Some students reported having trouble with this one on test day in December 1999. For some, it was because the logic struck them as correct, not "flawed" at all (even though the question stem is quite clear on that point).
"Hey," they protested, "the students there take a wide range of courses and Miriam's a student--she must take a wide range too!"
Nosiree! This is an example of a classic whole-to-part miscalculation. It is true of the student body taken in the aggregate that they take a wide range of courses. This doesn't have an impact on any one individual. It is eminently possible for a student, Miriam for instance, to take nothing but literature courses, and yet the generalization would remain true. So we're looking for a choice containing a similar error.



Opponent of offshore oil drilling: The projected benefits of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster. The oil already being extracted from these areas currently provides only 4 percent of our country's daily oil requirement, and the new wells would only add one-half of 1 percent.
Proponent of offshore oil drilling: Don't be ridiculous! You might just as well argue that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for more than a few minutes.

The drilling proponent's reply to the drilling opponent proceeds by

  1. offering evidence in support of drilling that is more decisive than is the evidence offered by the drilling opponent
  2. claiming that the statistics cited as evidence by the drilling opponent are factually inaccurate
  3. pointing out that the drilling opponent's argument is a misapplication of a frequently legitimate way of arguing
  4. citing as parallel to the argument made by the drilling opponent an argument in which the conclusion is strikingly unsupported
  5. proposing a conclusion that is more strongly supported by the drilling opponent's evidence than is the conclusion offered by the drilling opponent

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

"Don't be ridiculous!" begins the proponent's reply to the opponent--no punches pulled here. The opponent of offshore oil drilling argues that drilling in certain areas is not worth the risk; these areas contribute only a small amount of oil overall to the country, and new wells there would contribute only a small percentage of that.
Obviously, the proponent doesn't agree that the new wells shouldn't be drilled simply because they will add very little to the country's oil supply. If that reasoning held, he argues, we wouldn't allow new farms, because no one farm is capable of feeding the entire country for long. The farm example is meant to sound ridiculous, and by extension imply that the opponent's reasoning regarding the new wells is ridiculous as well. Option [citing as parallel to the argument made by...] describes this method: The farm example is provided as a parallel argument, the implausibility of which is meant to highlight the "ridiculous" nature of the opponent's argument.



Opponent of offshore oil drilling: The projected benefits of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster. The oil already being extracted from these areas currently provides only 4 percent of our country's daily oil requirement, and the new wells would only add one-half of 1 percent.
Proponent of offshore oil drilling: Don't be ridiculous! You might just as well argue that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for more than a few minutes.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the drilling proponent's reply?

  1. New farms do not involve a risk analogous to that run by new offshore oil drilling.
  2. Many of the largest oil deposits are located under land that is Unsuitable for farming.
  3. Unlike oil, common agricultural products fulfill nutritional needs rather than fuel requirements.
  4. Legislation governing new oil drilling has been much more thoroughly articulated than has that governing new farms.
  5. The country under discussion imports a higher proportion of the farm products it needs than it does of the oil it needs.

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

Now we get to debunk the debunker -- the proponent's implication that the opponent's argument is ridiculous ain't so hot after all, and perhaps you spotted the problem your first time through: The opponent doesn't pooh- pooh the new wells simply because of their measly output, but because such a small amount is "not worth the risk of environmental disaster." What's analogous to this risk in the proponent's farm example? Nothing. The proponent ignores this aspect of the opponent's argument. If, as option [New farms do not involve a risk analogous to that...] has it, new farms pose no such analogous risk, then the supposedly parallel example that's meant to refute the opponent's argument isn't parallel after all, rendering its implication meaningless. If option [New farms do not involve a risk analogous to that...] is true, the first line of the proponent's response can be thrown back at him.



A running track with a hard surface makes for greater running speed than a soft one, at least under dry conditions, because even though step length is shorter on ' a hard surface, the time the runner's foot remains in contact with the running surface is less with a hard surface.
Which one of the following, if true, is evidence that the explanation given above is only a partial one?

  1. Dry running conditions can be guaranteed for indoor track races only.
  2. In general, taller runners have greater average step length than shorter runners do.
  3. Hard tracks enhance a runner's speed by making it easier for the runner to maintain a posture that minimizes wind resistance.
  4. The tracks at which the world's fastest running times have been recorded are located well above sea level, where the air is relatively thin.
  5. To remain in top condition, a soft track surface requires different maintenance procedures than does a hard one.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

This question stem requires some translation. We're looking for something that, if true, would show that the author's explanation is only a partial one. So we're looking for a weakener of the explanation: something that points to another factor. Another way of thinking about this question is to recognize that the stem is telling you that the author is arguing that X (and only X) causes Y. You need to look for the answer choice that says Z also causes Y. The author's conclusion is that hard tracks are faster; the author says this is because the runner's foot is in contact with a hard surface for a shorter period of time. The correct answer choice will therefore give you another reason why hard tracks are faster. And that's what option [Hard tracks enhance a runner's speed by...] does. It tells you that hard tracks also make it possible for runners to minimize the effect of wind resistance, again making their times faster. If option [Hard tracks enhance a runner's speed by...].is true, then the author's explanation of why hard tracks are fast is only a partial explanation.



Goswami: I support the striking workers at Ergon Foods. They are underpaid. The majority of them make less than $20,000 per year.

Nordecki: If pay is the issue, I must disagree. The average annual salary of the striking workers at Ergon Foods is over $29,000.

Goswami and Nordecki disagree over the truth of which one of the following statements?

  1. The average annual salary at Ergon Foods is over$29,000.
  2. Pay is the primary issue over which the workers are striking at Ergon Foods.
  3. It is reasonable to support striking workers who are underpaid.
  4. The striking workers at Ergon Foods are underpaid.
  5. It was unreasonable for the workers at ErgonFoods to go on strike.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

This is a Point-at-Issue question. Goswami concludes that the striking workers are underpaid. His evidence is that the majority of the workers make less than $20,000 per year. Nordecki counters that if pay is the issue then he disagrees with Goswami. Disagrees about what? In order to answer that question, look at the evidence Nordecki uses to disagree with Goswami. The evidence that he offers relates directly to the pay of the workers:
he says that the average salary is $29,000. So Nordecki must be disagreeing with Goswami on the issue of whether the workers are underpaid.



  PDF
Viewing page 31 of 188
Viewing questions 151 - 155 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!