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 36 )

Updated On: 19-Jan-2026
Page 36 of 188
PDF with 934 Questions

In a poll of eligible voters conducted on the eve of a mayoral election, more of those polled stated that they favored Panitch than stated that they favored any other candidate. Despite this result, another candidate, Yeung, defeated Panitch by a comfortable margin.

Each of the following, if true, contributes to a resolution of the discrepancy described above EXCEPT:

  1. Of Yeung's supporters, a smaller percentage was eligible to vote than the percentage of Panitch's supporters who were eligible to vote.
  2. A third candidate, Mulhern, conducted a press-conference on the morning of the election and withdrew from the race.
  3. The poll's questions were designed by staff members of Panitch's campaign.
  4. Of the poll respondents supporting Yeung,70 percent described the election as "important" or "very important," while 30 percent of respondents supporting Panitch did the same.
  5. The poll, conducted on a Monday, surveyed persons in the downtown area, and the percentage of Yeung's supporters who work downtown is lower than that of Panitch's supporters.

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

In the question stem, "discrepancy" signals paradox, and our first step in a Paradox question is to identify a (seeming) contradiction in the stimulus. This is a familiar one: Despite the fact that polled eligible voters favored one candidate, another candidate won the election by a wide margin. The paradox is a relatively simple one, and so, it is cleared up by four of the five choices. Our job is to pick the one choice that does NOT resolve the discrepancy. Obviously, we can't predict a choice that will not resolve the discrepancy, so let's move into the choices to search for the right answer. [Of Yeung's supporters, a smaller percentage...] discusses ineligible supporters, an issue not mentioned in the scenario, and one that does nothing to resolve the facts. Ineligible supporters of either candidate were not polled, nor did they vote. They are truly outside the scope of the stimulus.



Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue shortfall of a billion dollars in the coming fiscal year. Since there is no feasible way to increase the available funds, our only choice is to decrease expenditures. The plan before you outlines feasible cuts that would yield savings of a billion dollars over the coming fiscal year. We will be able to solve the problem we face, therefore, only if we adopt this plan.

The reasoning in the commissioner's argument is flawed because this argument

  1. relies on information that is far from certain
  2. confuses being an adequate solution with being a required solution
  3. inappropriately relies on the opinions of experts
  4. inappropriately employs language that is vague
  5. takes for granted that there is no way to increase available funds

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

We're looking for a flaw, and it's quite possible you sensed that the commissioner goes a little too far in her conclusion. Some organization or institution (we're not told who the poor saps are) is short a whopping billion dollars (so that's where all the petty cash went...). Funds cannot be increased, so the only way is to decrease outlays. Fair enough so far. Then a plan is introduced that will save, lo and behold, a billion dollars over the next year (no more free coffee in the company cafeteria?). So the problem can be solved ONLY if this plan is adopted. And there's where the commish overreaches. Just because this plan will save the billion, what evidence is provided that it is the only way to do so? Perhaps itis, but the commissioner gives no evidence to that effect, which she must do if she is going to claim that this is the ONLY way to solve the problem. Option [confuses being an adequate...] fancies this up a little, but says the same thing: The plan may be adequate, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's required--that is, that nothing else could do the trick.



Critic: Emily Dickinson's poetry demonstrates that meaning cannot reside entirely within a poem itself, but is always the unique result of an interaction between a reader's system of beliefs and the poem; and, of course, any two readers from different cultures or eras have radically different systems of beliefs.

If the critic's statements are true, each of the following could be true EXCEPT:

  1. A reader's interpretation of a poem by Dickinson is affected by someone else's interpretation of it.
  2. A modern reader and a nineteenth-century reader interpret one of Shakespeare's sonnets in the same way.
  3. A reader's interpretation of a poem evolves overtime.
  4. Two readers from the same era arrive at different interpretations of the same poem.
  5. A reader's enjoyment of a poem is enhanced by knowing the poet's interpretation of it.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

This question has a Logic Games feel to it. We're given statements we're to assume are true (rules), and are asked to find the one statement that cannot be true. There are two statements we must take as givens, which we should paraphrase in our own words: 1) That a poem's meaning is derived from the interaction between the poem and the reader's beliefs, not just from the poem itself, is shown by Dickinson's poetry. 2) No two readers from different eras have the same set of beliefs. There's only one thing we can deduce from these statements:
Since beliefs in part determine meaning, and beliefs necessarily differ from one era to another, then people from different eras CANNOT derive the same meaning from a particular poem. Option [A modern reader and a nineteenth-century reader...] is thus impossible: Based on the "rules" of the passage, two readers from different centuries cannot have the same take on a Shakespeare sonnet.



Archaeologist: The fact that the ancient Egyptians and the Maya both built pyramids is often taken as evidence of a historical link between Old- and New-World civilizations that is earlier than any yet documented. But while these buildings are similar to each other, there are important differences in both design and function. The Egyptian pyramids were exclusively tombs for rulers, whereas the Mayan pyramids were used as temples. This shows conclusively that there was no such link between Old- and New-World civilizations.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the archaeologist's argument?

  1. The argument equivocates with respect to the term "evidence."
  2. The argument appeals to emotion rather than to reason.
  3. The argument assumes the conclusion it is trying to prove.
  4. The argument incorrectly relies on words whose meanings are vague or imprecise.
  5. The argument presumes that no other evidence is relevant to the issue at hand.

Answer(s): E

Explanation:

Another flaw question, so keep your eyes peeled for where the logic goes astray. You can't get a clearer signal of an author's conclusion than the phrase "This shows conclusively that . . ." So the author thinks there's definitely no link between Old- and New-World civilizations simply because some evidence that's used to demonstrate a possible link is not perfect. Sure, says the archaeologist, the Mayans and Egyptians both built pyramids, but there are certain differences between them in design and function. Therefore, no link between Old and New. Well, this could, we suppose, support the notion that the Egyptians and Mayans weren't linked, but not too well--perhaps the Mayans somehow learned pyramid building from the Egyptians but incorporated their own look and functionality to suit their culture. More info is needed even to prove conclusively that there was no link between these two civilizations. Yet the author even goes one step further, concluding based on this specific Egyptian-Mayan example that no Old-World/New-World link exists at all. The evidence provided is simply too paltry for this definitive pronouncement in the final sentence.
Option [The argument presumes that no other...] is a fancy way of saying this. The author mistakenly assumes no other evidence is needed.



Manuscripts written by first-time authors generally do not get serious attention by publishers except when these authors happen to be celebrities. My manuscript is unlikely to be taken seriously by publishers for I am a first- time author who is not a celebrity.

The structure of which one of the following arguments is most similar to the structure of the argument above

  1. Challengers generally do not win elections unless the incumbent has become very unpopular. The incumbent in this election has become very unpopular. Therefore, the challenger may win.
  2. Fruit salad that contains bananas is ordinarily a boring dish unless it contains two or more exotic fruits. This fruit salad has bananas in it, and the only exotic fruit it has is guava. Thus, it will probably be boring.
  3. Thursday's city council meeting is likely to be poorly attended. Traditionally, council meetings are sparsely attended if zoning issues are the only ones on the agenda. The agenda for Thursday is exclusively devoted to zoning.
  4. The bulk of an estate generally goes to the spouse, if surviving, and otherwise goes to the surviving children. In this case there is no surviving spouse; hence the bulk of the estate is likely to go to the surviving children.
  5. Normally about 40 percent of the deer population will die over the winter unless it is extremely mild. The percentage of the deer population that died over the recent winter was the normal 40 percent. I conclude that the recent winter was not unusually mild.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

The conclusion of the argument to which we must find a parallel reads like so: "My MS. is unlikely to be taken seriously by publishers." How come? Because of the generalization that first-time authors like the speaker don't get taken seriously, except under one possible exception -- celebrity status -- which the speaker doesn't possess. So the right answer will conclude the unlikelihood of something occurring -- in other words, it'll be a prediction of that which probably won't happen and one based on the fact that a possible exception has not been met.



Viewing page 36 of 188
Viewing questions 176 - 180 out of 934 questions



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

Join the LSAT Test Discussion