Some biologists believe that the capacity for flight first developed in marine reptiles, claiming that feathers are clearly developed from scales. Other biologists rightly reject this suggestion, pointing out that bats have no scales and that nonmarine reptiles also have scales. Those who believe that flight first developed in tree- dwelling reptiles reject the claim that the limbs of land-dwelling reptiles might have developed into wings. They insist that it is more likely that tree-dwelling reptiles developed wings to assist their leaps from branch to branch. Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the passage by the claim that nonmarine reptiles have scales?
Answer(s): A
The stem alerts us that we have to work out the role played by a part of the argument, so it behooves us to first try to categorize the claim in question as either evidence or conclusion. Let's look at the claim in context: "Other biologists rightly reject this suggestion, pointing out that . . . nonmarine reptiles also have scales." Sure sounds like evidence, right? -- something that's "pointed out" to "rightly reject a suggestion." The suggestion is the one that precedes this, which means that the claim in the stem is simply used as evidence against the claim that flight first developed in marine reptiles.
Studies have shown that, contrary to popular belief, middle-aged people have more fear of dying than do elderly people.Each of the following, if true, contributes to an explanation of the phenomenon shown by the studies EXCEPT:
Answer(s): C
There are four good explanations for the phenomenon shown by the studies in this argument, so we know that we will have to understand the phenomenon and then jump straight to the answer choices. Just one short sentence to deal with: According to studies, middle-aged people fear dying more than elderly people do. (The phrase ". . . contrary to popular belief" also lets us know that most people think the opposite is true, but that shouldn't concern us since we're interested only in the phenomenon itself, not what people believe about it.) Each wrong choice will make it easier to understand why middle-aged folks are more afraid to die than are old people, while the correct choice will not address this question, most likely because it deviates from the scope.And so it does: As there is no stated clear connection between depression and fearing death, the fact that depression often sets in during middle age does nothing to explain the phenomenon described. Depression, while perhaps seemingly relevant at first glance, is actually at least one step removed from the scope here.
Historian: Leibniz, the seventeenth-century philosopher, published his version of calculus before Newton did. But then Newton revealed his private notebooks, which showed he had been using these ideas for at least a decade before Leibniz's publication. Newton also claimed that he had disclosed these ideas to Leibniz in a letter shortly before Leibniz's publication. Yet close examination of the letter shows that Newton's few cryptic remarks did not reveal anything important about calculus. Thus, Leibniz and Newton each independently discovered calculus.Which one of the following is an assumption required by the historian's argument?
Answer(s): E
This argument is like a soap opera -- lots of back and forth and intrigue over where the true credit for a discovery lies.The last sentence (set off by "Thus") contains the author's conclusion that Leibniz and Newton each discovered calculus independently. What's the evidence for this claim? Despite Newton's thoughts on calculus that predate Leibniz's publication, and even his sharing some of these ideas with Leibniz, close examination reveals that nothing significant was conveyed to Leibniz on the subject. But is this enough to warrant the conclusion that they therefore each discovered calculus independently. Here's where your ability to form alternatives and to ask yourself "But what if...?" is rewarded: What if someone else contributed to their discovery of calculus? If Leibniz or Newton or both had been given crucial details from some outside source, then the author wouldn't be able to argue that these two each discovered calculus independently. The author must therefore be assuming that no third party was involved. Whether you thought of this on your own, or recognized the validity of the option [Neither Newton nor Leibniz learned crucial...]. when you saw it, it's all the same -- another point on the board.
For a ten-month period, the total monthly sales of new cars within the country of Calistan remained constant. During this period the monthly sales of new cars manufactured by Marvel Automobile Company doubled, and its share of the new car market within Calistan increased correspondingly. At the end of this period, emission standards were imposed on new cars sold within Calistan. During the three months following this imposition, Marvel Automobile Company's share of the Calistan market declined substantially even though its monthly sales within Calistan remained constant at the level reached in the last month of the ten-month period.If the statements above are true, which one of the following CANNOT be true?
Here's the story: The monthly sales of cars in Calistan were constant for a ten-month period, during which monthly sales of Marvel cars doubled, with a corresponding market share increase. This is a little vague, so perhaps some actual numbers would clarify: The same number of new cars were sold each month in the country as a whole, so let's say 1000 are sold each month. Marvel, however, has doubled sales from month 1 to month 10, so let's say they sold 100 in month 1 (a 10% market share) and 200 in month 10 (a 20% market share). After this period, emission standards went into effect. In the following three months, Marvel's monthly sales remained constant (200), but its market share dropped a lot. Market share is a company's percentage of sales relative to total sales, so a decrease in market share for Marvel means an increase in market share of all other companies combined. The only way for that to happen is if total sales for all companies other than Marvel increased during this three-month period -- again, this is the only way Marvel's market share can plummet while its sales stay constant. A., which states the opposite, is therefore the impossibility we seek.
Because addictive drugs are physically harmful, their use by athletes is never justified. Purists, however, claim that taking massive doses of even such nonaddictive drugs as aspirin and vitamins before competing should also be prohibited because they are unnatural. This is ridiculous; almost everything in sports is unnatural, from high-tech running shoes to padded boxing gloves to highly-specialized bodybuilding machines. Yet, none of these is prohibited on the basis of its being unnatural. Furthermore, we should be attending to far more serious problems that plague modern sports and result in unnecessary deaths and injuries. Therefore, the use of nonaddictive drugs by athletes should not be prohibited.Which one of the following statements, if true, would be the strongest challenge to the author's conclusion?
We begin answering a Weaken question by figuring out the components of the argument. The conclusion is that the use of nonaddictive drugs such as aspirins and vitamins should not be prohibited. Why? Because nonaddictive drugs are just as unnatural as sporting equipment, and people have no objection to sporting equipment. Furthermore, there are more serious problems than nonaddictive drugs in modern sports that should be addressed -- problems leading to injury and death. One way to weaken the argument is to connect the factor that the author's not concerned about with the one he is: The correct answer will tend to connect nonaddictive drugs in some way to harm. Perhaps you prephrased a weakener along these lines, or if not, hopefully you saw the devastating effect that E., if true, would have on the argument. If the use of nonaddictive drugs by athletes caused injury or death, then nonaddictive drug use would fall squarely into the category of the author's "more serious problems," and the argument to not prohibit such drugs would be weakened.
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.