Social critic: The whole debate over the legal right of rock singers to utter violent lyrics misses the point. Legally, there is very little that may not be said. But not everything that may legally be said, ought to be said. Granted, violence predates the rise in popularity of such music. Yet words also have the power to change the way we see and the way we act.Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the passage?
Answer(s): D
We're looking for the inference that's best supported by the passage. The social critic thinks that the debate over the right to use violent lyrics in rock music "misses the point," which makes it reasonable to ask "What is the point, then?" The critic's point is that even though we can legally say just about anything, there are many things that shouldn't be said. Sure, there was violence before violent rock lyrics, but words are powerful things.There's no obvious connection to prephrase from all this, so we need to evaluate the choices and eliminate the common wrong answer types while recognizing the inference that's supported by these statements. Option [If rock musicians voluntarily censor their...] matches the scenario best: Since words have the power to change the way we see and act, it's reasonable to believe that censoring violent song lyrics can reduce violence.
For all species of higher animals, reproduction requires the production of eggs but not necessarily the production of sperm. There are some species whose members are all female; the eggs produced by a rare female-only species of salamander hatch without fertilization. This has the drawback that all offspring have genetic codes nearly identical to that of the single parent, making the species less adaptive than species containing both male and female members.If the statements above are true, each of the following could be true EXCEPT:
Answer(s): B
"Could be true "EXCEPT" means that the right answer must be false, while the wrong choices need only be consistent(that is, not in conflict) with the statements in the passage. Your best bet in this kind of question is to focus on the most concrete information in the stimulus, because that provides the best possibilities for violations. To wit: The first sentence in the argument says that all species of higher animals produce eggs for reproduction. That's a pretty definite fact, no? It's a fact that's clearly trampled on by choice B, which says that some species of higher animals don't produce eggs.
As part of a survey, approximately 10,000 randomly selected individuals were telephoned and asked a number of questions about their income and savings. Those conducting the survey observed that the older the person being queried, the more likely it was that he or she would refuse to answer any of the questions. This finding clearly demonstrates that, in general, people are more willing when they are younger than when they are older to reveal personal financial information to strangers over the telephone.The argument above is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
Answer(s): A
"The argument above is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that" in the question stem is LSAT-speak for our old friend, the Logical Flaw question. When we read "the finding clearly demonstrates that" in the final sentence, we know we've found the conclusion: People are more willing when they are younger to reveal personal financial info to strangers in phone surveys. Notice how the conclusion compares the attitudes of young people with the attitudes of the same people once they're older. But the evidence has a different scope-- the surveyors are comparing different people to one another. It is this shift in scope that foils the argument.Maybe the older people who didn't want to give up their financial info would have felt the same way when they were younger, and the differences cited in the study are not due to aging but rather some fundamental difference in the age groups surveyed. Answer choice [offers no evidence that the individuals queried...] captures this perfectly; the evidence in the survey in no way supports the notion that the older info hoarders would have been more forthcoming earlier in life.
If something would have been justifiably regretted if it had occurred, then it is something that one should not have desired in the first place. It follows that many forgone pleasures should not have been desired in the first place.The conclusion above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
This assumption question is almost formulaic, as long as you don't get bogged down in the abstract wording.The argument is: If you do something that you should regret, then you shouldn't have desired it; therefore, many forgone pleasures should not have been desired to begin with. Both the evidence and conclusion contain "something that should not have been desired in the first place." The term that seems to appear out of nowhere in the conclusion is "forgone pleasures."In order to legitimately link "forgone pleasures" to "not desired in the first place," we need to connect the new term -- "forgone pleasures" -- to the element in the evidence linked to "not desired in the first place": "justifiably regretted."Choice [Many forgone pleasures...] provides this connection. If the wording throws you, think of it in terms of algebraic variables. The argument can be abstracted as follows: If X (justifiably regretted), then Y (should not have been desired). It follows that Z (forgone pleasures) is Y. Well, that works only if we connect Z with X.
Several thousand years ago, people in what is now North America began to grow corn, which grows faster and produces more food per unit of land than do the grains these people had grown previously. Corn is less nutritious than those other grains, however, and soon after these people established corn as their staple grain crop, they began having nutrition-related health problems. Yet the people continued to grow corn as their staple grain, although they could have returned to growing the more nutritious grains.Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain why the people mentioned continued to grow corn as their staple grain crop?
Answer(s): E
The question stem is asking us to explain a certain behavior that we find at the end of the passage. People in North America started growing corn thousands of years ago. Corn can provide more food per acre, and can grow faster than other grains, but corn is also less nutritious. After the people started growing corn, they started having nutritional problems.Even though the people could have switched back to other grains, the people chose to continue to grow corn.Why?There must be some additional benefit to staying with corn that outweighs the nutritional problems they were experiencing. That's what we need to look for among the choices.
Post your Comments and Discuss Test Prep LSAT Test exam prep with other Community members:
Our website is free, but we have to fight against AI bots and content theft. We're sorry for the inconvenience caused by these security measures. You can access the rest of the LSAT Test content, but please register or login to continue.