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 35 )

Updated On: 19-Jan-2026
Page 35 of 188
PDF with 934 Questions

People ought to take into account a discipline's blemished origins when assessing the scientific value of that discipline. Take, for example, chemistry. It must be considered that many of its landmark results were obtained by alchemists -- a group whose superstitions and appeals to magic dominated the early development of chemical theory.

The reasoning above is most susceptible to criticism because the author

  1. fails to establish that disciplines with unblemished origins are scientifically valuable
  2. fails to consider how chemistry's current theories and practices differ from those of the alchemists mentioned
  3. uses an example to contradict the principle under consideration
  4. does not prove that most disciplines that are not scientifically valuable have origins that are in some way suspect
  5. uses the word "discipline" in two different senses

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

The question stem tells you that you're looking for a flaw in the argument. The author's argument in a nutshell says that in order to assess the value of a scientific discipline, you have to look at its origins. And as an example, he cites chemistry. According to his argument, to assess the value of chemistry, we have to take into account that its early practitioners believed in magic. This should have prompted you to say, "So what? Who cares what alchemists believed?" And that's essentially what option [fails to consider how chemistry's current...] says. The author fails to consider that chemistry is no longer practiced by alchemists, who believe in magic, so it makes no sense to judge its value based on how it was practiced in the past.



A government ought to protect and encourage free speech, because free speech is an activity that is conducive to a healthy nation and thus is in the best interest of its people.

The main conclusion above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. An activity that is in the best interest of the people ought to be protected and encouraged by a nation's government.
  2. Basic, inalienable rights of the people ought to be protected and encouraged by government.
  3. An activity that helps a government to govern ought to be protected and encouraged by it.
  4. A government ought to protect and encourage an activity that is conducive to the interests of that government.
  5. Universal human rights that are in the best interest of the people ought to be protected and encouraged by a nation's government.

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

This question stem may seem a bit unfamiliar, but hopefully you recognized it as a variation of a standard Assumption question. We're looking for the assumption that would complete the argument, so again, we need to identify the argument's evidence and conclusion. The author's conclusion is stated up front: A government ought to protect and encourage free speech. The Keyword "because" signals the author's evidence, that "free speech . . . is conducive to a healthy nation and thus is in the best interest of its people." This sounds like a pretty good argument so far, but it's missing a subtle step: We know that free speech is in the best interests of the people, but who's to say that the government ought to act in that interest? It seems obvious, but this notion isn't stated in the argument, and it's necessary for the argument to work.



The current theory about earthquakes holds that they are caused by adjoining plates of rock sliding past each other; the plates are pressed together until powerful forces overcome the resistance. As plausible as this may sound, at least one thing remains mysterious on this theory. The overcoming of such resistance should create enormous amounts of heat. But so far no increases in temperature unrelated to weather have been detected following earthquakes.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the argument?

  1. No increases in temperature have been detected following earthquakes.
  2. The current theory does not fully explain earthquake data.
  3. No one will ever be sure what the true cause of earthquakes is.
  4. Earthquakes produce enormous amounts of heat that have so far gone undetected.
  5. Contrary to the current theory, earthquakes are not caused by adjoining plates of rock sliding past one another.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

An earthquake theory is plausible save one mystery: There should be lots of heat given off during earthquakes, but such increases in heat have not been detected.
What's the main point? Simply that--the current theory doesn't fully explain earthquake data; specifically, the absence of enormous amounts of heat.



Legal theorist: It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone for any other reason than that he or she is a serious threat to the property or lives of other people. The breaking of a law does not justify incarceration, for lawbreaking proceeds either from ignorance of the law or of the effects of one's actions, or from the free choice of the lawbreaker. Obviously mere ignorance cannot justify incarcerating a lawbreaker, and even free choice on the part of the lawbreaker fails to justify incarceration, for free choice proceeds from the desires of an agent, and the desires of an agent are products of genetics and environmental conditioning, neither of which is controlled by the agent.

The claim in the first sentence of the passage plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

  1. It is offered as a premise that helps to show that no actions are under the control of the agent.
  2. It is offered as background information necessary to understand the argument.
  3. It is offered as the main conclusion that the argument is designed to establish.
  4. It is offered as evidence for the stated claim that protection of life and property is more important than retribution for past illegal acts.
  5. It is offered as evidence for the stated claim that lawbreaking proceeds from either ignorance of the law, or ignorance of the effects of one's actions, or free choice.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

The question stem tells us we need to identify the purpose of the first sentence, so we need to put it in context.
Standing alone, the first sentence could be a conclusion or evidence, but the rest of the stimulus makes its purpose clear. Sentence1 essentially says that the only reason to lock someone up is to prevent them from harming others/others' property. Sentence 2 rules out lawbreaking alone as a justification, and sentence 3 elaborates on this point. So the last two sentences support the first by excluding another justification for locking people up. Therefore, the first sentence must be the conclusion.



A certain gene can be stimulated by chemicals in cigarette smoke, causing lung cells to metabolize the chemicals in a way that makes the cells cancerous. Yet smokers in whom this gene is not stimulated have as high a risk of developing lung cancer from smoking as other smokers do.

If the statements above are true, it can be concluded on the basis of them that

  1. stimulation of the gene by chemicals in cigarette smoke is not the only factor affecting the risk for smokers of developing lung cancer
  2. nonsmokers have as high a risk of developing lung cancer as do smokers in whom the gene has not been stimulated
  3. smokers in whom the gene has been stimulated are more likely to develop lung cancer than are other smokers
  4. the gene is more likely to be stimulated by chemicals in cigarette smoke than by other chemicals
  5. smokers are less likely to develop lung cancer if they do not have the gene

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

The question stem identifies this as an Inference question, so you'll probably have to bypass pre-phrasing and, instead, evaluate each choice. The argument introduces a gene that can be turned on by cigarette smoke, leading to cancerous cells. However, smokers with genes that are not turned-on have the same risk of lung cancer as do other smokers. Therefore, there must be something else at play here beside stimulation of the gene.



Viewing page 35 of 188
Viewing questions 171 - 175 out of 934 questions



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

Join the LSAT Test Discussion