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 33 )

Updated On: 19-Jan-2026
Page 33 of 188
PDF with 934 Questions

Zoos have served both as educational resources and as entertainment. Unfortunately, removing animals from their natural habitats to stock the earliest zoos reduced certain species' populations, endangering their survival. Today most new zoo animals are obtained from captive breeding programs, and many zoos now maintain breeding stocks for continued propagation of various species. This makes possible efforts to reestablish endangered species in the wild.

Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by the information above?

  1. Zoos have played an essential role in educating the public about endangered species.
  2. Some specimens of endangered species are born and bred in zoos.
  3. No zoos exploit wild animals or endanger the survival of species.
  4. Nearly all of the animals in zoos today were born in captivity.
  5. The main purpose of zoos has shifted from entertainment to education.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

This is an Inference question. Because the right answer must be supported by statements in the passage, you should avoid answer choices using extreme language. There usually won't be enough information in the passage to support choices that speak in terms of "all" or "every" or "never". Only option [Some specimens of endangered species are...] is supported by the passage, specifically the last two sentences of the paragraph.
The stimulus tells us that zoos maintain breeding stocks for continued propagation of various species, and that this makes possible efforts to reestablish endangered species in the wild. Therefore, you can infer that some (though not all, or even most) specimens of endangered species are born and bred in zoos.



Only a very small percentage of people from the service professions ever become board members of the 600 largest North American corporations. This shows that people from the service professions are underrepresented in the most important corporate boardrooms in North America.

Which one of the following points out a flaw committed in the argument?

  1. Six hundred is too small a sample on which to base so sweeping a conclusion about the representation of people from the service professions.
  2. The percentage of people from the service professions who serve on the boards of the 600 largest North American corporations reveals little about the percentage of the members of these boards who are from the service professions.
  3. It is a mistake to take the 600 largest North American corporations to be typical of corporate boardrooms generally.
  4. It is irrelevant to smaller corporations whether the largest corporations in North America would agree to have significant numbers of workers from the service professions on the boards of the largest corporations.
  5. The presence of people from the service professions on a corporate board does not necessarily imply that that corporation will be more socially responsible than it has been in the past

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

As soon as you see percentages being discussed, you should pay close attention. And since the question stem tells you that there is a flaw in the argument, it's a good bet that the author is going to confuse the numbers in some way. The author concludes that people from the service professions are underrepresented in boardrooms because only a very small percentage of people from the service professions ever become board members of the largest corporations. Well, that doesn't make much sense. There are probably millions of people in any industry you can think of, including the service industry; but there are only a few people (relatively speaking) that are board members of the largest corporations. So by the author's reasoning, virtually every industry would be underrepresented. Therefore, the author's conclusion doesn't logically follow from the evidence. Option [The percentage of people from the service professions] correctly identifies this flaw; it points out that the way you tell whether a group is Underrepresented is to look at the percentage of board members who come from a particular group -- not by looking at what percentage of the group become board members.
Once you have identified this fundamental flaw, none of the other answer choices should have distracted you.
Note that options [It is a mistake to take the 600 largest...], [It is irrelevant to smaller corporations whether...] and [The presence of people from the service professions on...] have outside the scope elements, namely, corporate boardrooms generally, smaller corporations, and social responsibility.



If there are any inspired musical performances in the concert, the audience will be treated to a good show. But there will not be a good show unless there are sophisticated listeners in the audience, and to be a sophisticated listener one must understand one's musical roots.

If all of the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

  1. If there are no sophisticated listeners in the audience, then there will be no inspired musical performances in the concert.
  2. No people who understand their musical roots will be in the audience if the audience will not be treated to a good show.
  3. If there will be people in the audience who understand their musical roots, then at. least one musical performance in the concert will be inspired.
  4. The audience will be treated to a good show unless there are people in the audience who do not understand their musical roots.
  5. If there are sophisticated listeners in the audience, then there will be inspired musical performances in the concert.

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

This Inference question clearly has a formal logic feel to it, so you can bet that you'll need to know your contrapositives to find the correct answer. Here's the chain of statements: Inspired musical performances guarantee a good show. So IMP--> GS. But there won't be a good show unless there are sophisticated listeners. "X cannot be true unless Y" is logically equivalent to "X implies Y," and so the second statement means that if there is a good show, there must be sophisticated listeners. Combining this with the first sentence gives us IMP --> GS --> SL. Now, being a sophisticated listener requires one to know one's musical roots. So if there are sophisticated listeners out there, they must understand their musical roots. Throwing this in gives us IMP --> GS --> SL --> UMR. From here, many statements are deducible.



Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases one's risk of lung cancer. But no one thinks the government should impose financial impediments on the owning of parrots because of this apparent danger. So by the same token, the government should not levy analogous special taxes on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles.

Each of the following principles is logically consistent with the columnist's conclusion EXCEPT:

  1. The government should fund education by taxing nonessential sports equipment and recreational gear.
  2. The government should not tax those who avoid dangerous activities and adopt healthy lifestyles.
  3. The government should create financial disincentives to deter participation in activities it deems dangerous.
  4. The government should not create financial disincentives for people to race cars or climb mountains, even though these are dangerous activities.
  5. The government would be justified in levying taxes to provide food and shelter for those who cannot afford to pay for them.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

The stem tells us we need to find the principle that's inconsistent (i.e., logically conflicts) with the columnist's conclusion. So the first step is to identify that conclusion. The Keyword "so" signals the conclusion: we shouldn't apply taxes on a bunch of things connected to dangerous activities.
What choice contradicts this conclusion? Only option [The government should create financial disincentives to...], according to which, we should use financial incentives (like taxes) to discourage dangerous activities (like parachuting, etc.).



Scientist: Some critics of public funding for this research project have maintained that only if it can be indicated how the public will benefit from the project is continued public funding for it justified. If the critics were right about this, then there would not be the tremendous public support for the project that even its critics acknowledge.

If the scientist's claims are true, which one of the following must also be true?

  1. The benefits derived from the research project are irrelevant to whether or not its funding is justified.
  2. Continued public funding for the research project is justified.
  3. Public support for the research project is the surest indication of whether or not it is justified.
  4. There is tremendous public support for the research project because it can be indicated how the public will benefit from the project.
  5. That a public benefit can be indicated is not a requirement for the justification of the research project's continued public funding.

Answer(s): E

Explanation:

This one's tricky, and might have been a good candidate to skip during your first pass through the section. It's an Inference question, a kind that's typically not vulnerable to prephrasing, and it has a formal logic element jumbling together the terms "some," "only," "not," and the hypothetical "if." Eeek! Surely no picnic. But there is a clever way into this, and it involves working backwards, beginning at the end. That's where the most concrete information appears, so it makes sense to note that and work from there. Here's what we know: There is public support for the project; the critics acknowledge it. "If the critics were right about this" (referring to something that comes earlier), then there would NOT be support. But there is support, so guess what? The critics must be wrong. About what? About "this." What's "this"? It's what the critics "maintain" in the first sentence: Public funding for the project is justified only if the public can see the benefit. In other words, the critics believe that the public seeing the benefit is required for public funding to be justified -- the "only if" tells us that. And if the critics are wrong in thinking so, as we deduced above from the latter part of the stimulus, then the public seeing a benefit is NOT required for the justification of the public funding.



Viewing page 33 of 188
Viewing questions 161 - 165 out of 934 questions



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

Join the LSAT Test Discussion