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 32 )

Updated On: 19-Jan-2026
Page 32 of 188
PDF with 934 Questions

Teacher to a student: You agree that it is bad to break promises. But when we speak to each other we all make an implicit promise to tell the truth, and lying is the breaking of that promise. So even if you promised Jeanne that you would tell me she is home sick, you should not tell me that, if you know that she is well.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the teacher's argument depends?

  1. Most people always tell the truth.
  2. It is sometimes better to act in a friend's best interests than to keep a promise to that friend.
  3. Breaking a promise leads to worse consequences than does telling a lie.
  4. Some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones.
  5. One should never break a promise.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

On this question you needed to find the teacher's assumption. So that means you should have found the missing link between her conclusion and evidence. Her conclusion is that the student should not lie and say that Jeanne is home sick, even if the student had promised Jeanne that he would say that. The teacher supports this conclusion by saying that whenever we speak to each other we make an implicit promise to tell the truth, and lying is the implicit breaking of that promise. Did you see the double standard? The teacher concludes that the student should not break his promise to tell the truth to the teacher, even if that means breaking his promise to Jeanne. Therefore, the teacher must be assuming that it's OK to break some promises, but not others.



Despite the fact that antilock brakes are designed to make driving safer, research suggests that people who drive cars equipped with antilock brakes have more accidents than those who drive cars not equipped with antilock brakes.

Each of the following, if true, would help resolve the apparent discrepancy described above EXCEPT:

  1. Most cars equipped with antilock brakes are, on average, driven more carelessly than cars not equipped with antilock' brakes.
  2. Antilock brakes malfunction more often than regular brakes.
  3. Antilock brakes require expensive specialized maintenance to be even as effective as unmaintained regular brakes.
  4. Most people who drive cars equipped with antilock brakes do not know how to use those brakes properly.
  5. Antilock brakes were designed for safety in congested urban driving, but accidents of the most serious nature take place on highways.

Answer(s): E

Explanation:

Four viable resolutions, one clunker, states the stem. This tells us that the apparent discrepancy must not be a great mystery after all, considering there are four valid solutions to it right on the page. Our job is to find the odd man out. The argument is simple enough: Antilock brakes are designed for safety, but those who drive cars with these brakes have more accidents than those who drive cars without them.
Why? Each wrong choice posits a reasonable explanation of why this may be so.



President of the Regional Chamber of Commerce: We are all aware of the painful fact that almost no new businesses have moved into our region or started up here over the last ten years. But the Planning Board is obviously guilty of a gross exaggeration in its recent estimate that businesses are leaving the region at the rate of about four a week. After all, there were never more than about one thousand businesses in the region, so if they were really leaving at such a rate, they would all have been gone long ago.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the ground that it

  1. focuses on what is going out of a system while ignoring the issue of what is coming into the system
  2. confuses a claim about a rate of change within a system with a claim about the absolute size of the system
  3. argues against a position simply by showing that the position serves the interest of the Planning Board
  4. treats a claim about what is currently the case as if it were a claim about what has been the case for an extended period
  5. attacks what was offered as an estimate on the ground that it is not precise

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

If this guy is the President of the Chamber of Commerce, then the region can expect a lot more businesses to leave. The question stem tells you that his argument is flawed. The President concludes that the Planning Board is guilty of exaggerating the rate of businesses leaving the region. His evidence is that there have never been more than a thousand businesses in the region, and if they were really leaving at the rate of four per week over the past 10 years, then there wouldn't be any businesses left in the region. Did you spot the scope shift? The Planning Board, in its estimate of businesses leaving, said nothing about how long this had been occurring.
So the President seems to assume that the Board is claiming that this rate has been accurate for a long time.
Once you identified this flaw, it should have been easy to skim the choices for the correct answer. Businesses are currently leaving at four per week. The Planning Board did not say they've been leaving at four per week for 10 years. Option [treats a claim about what is currently the case...] points out the President's misrepresentation.



It is inaccurate to say that a diet high in refined sugar cannot cause adult-onset diabetes, since a diet high in refined sugar can make a person overweight, and being overweight can predispose a person to adult-onset diabetes.

The argument is most parallel, in its logical structure, to which one of the following?

  1. It is inaccurate to say that being in cold air can cause a person to catch a cold, since colds are caused by viruses, and viruses flourish in warm, crowded places.
  2. It is accurate to say that no airline flies from Halifax to Washington. No airline offers a direct flight, although some airlines have flights from Halifax to Boston and others have flights from Boston to Washington.
  3. It is correct to say that over fertilization is the primary cause of lawn disease, since fertilizer causes lawn grass to grow rapidly and rapidly growing grass has little resistance to disease.
  4. It is incorrect to say that inferior motor oil cannot cause a car to get poorer gasoline mileage, since inferior motor oil can cause engine valve deterioration, and engine valve deterioration can lead to poorer gasoline mileage,
  5. It is inaccurate to say that Alexander the Great was a student of Plato; Alexander was a student of Aristotle and Aristotle was a student of Plato.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

The author of the stimulus is evidently responding to someone claiming that a diet high in refined sugar can't cause diabetes. "That's inaccurate," says he. How come? Because such a diet can make one overweight, which in turn can lead to diabetes. This can be broken down algebraically: It's wrong to say that X can't cause Y, because X can lead to Z, which in turn can lead to Y.



During the recent economic downturn, banks contributed to the decline by loaning less money. Prior to the downturn, regulatory standards for loan making by banks were tightened. Clearly, therefore, banks will lend more money if those standards are relaxed.

The argument assumes that

  1. the downturn did not cause a significant decrease in the total amount of money on deposit with banks which is the source of funds for banks to lend
  2. the imposition of the tighter regulatory standards was not a cause of the economic downturn
  3. the reason for tightening the regulatory standards was not arbitrary
  4. no economic downturn is accompanied by a significant decrease in the amount of money loaned out by banks to individual borrowers and to businesses
  5. no relaxation of standards for loan making by banks would compensate for the effects of the downturn

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

This is a pretty straightforward example of a causal argument. The conclusion is that banks will lend more money if regulatory standards are relaxed. The evidence for this is that before the downturn, the standards were tightened. In other words, according to this author, the tightening of the standards is what caused the banks to loan less money. And remember, one of the assumptions inherent in a causal argument is that no other factor caused the result in question, in this case, loaning less money. And that's the assumption that correct answer [the downturn did not cause a...] identifies -- it rules out an alternative explanation, namely that the downturn itself, not the regulations, caused the banks to have less money to lend.



Viewing page 32 of 188
Viewing questions 156 - 160 out of 934 questions



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

Join the LSAT Test Discussion