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 can be inferred from the passage above?
Answer(s): A
The second half of this two-parter is a straightforward Inference question. The author counters the objection that nonaddictive drugs are unnatural with "This is ridiculous..." He implicitly agrees that nonaddictive drugs are unnatural, but not only supports them but cites other "unnatural" things such as equipment that no one would dream of prohibiting. Clearly, in the author's book, something being unnatural is in no way sufficient grounds for banning it.
Not all works of art represent something, but some do, and their doing so is relevant to our aesthetic experience of them; representation is therefore an aesthetically relevant property. Whether a work of art possesses this property is dependent upon context. Yet there are no clear criteria for determining whether context-dependent properties are present in an object, so there cannot be any clear criteria for determining whether an object qualifies as art.The reasoning above is questionable because it fails to exclude the possibility that
Answer(s): C
This question is another LSAT masterpiece -- an argument put together with confusing language, until you don't know which end is up. Thankfully, from reading the stem first, we know right away to search for the flaw in the argument. If we keep track of scope as we read, we notice that the evidence discusses artwork that represents something, and that the conclusion talks about how there are no clear-cut criteria for determining whether any object qualifies as art. The scope has shifted from artwork that represents something to all art.Maybe there is something other than representation that can help determine whether or not an object is art!
If the flowers Drew received today had been sent by someone who knows Drew well, that person would have known that Drew prefers violets to roses. Yet Drew received roses. On the other hand, if the flowers had been sent by someone who does not know Drew well, then that person would have sent a signed card with the flowers. Yet Drew received no card. Therefore, the florist must have made some sort of mistake: either Drew was supposed to receive violets, or a card, or these flowers were intended for someone else.Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument?
Answer(s): B
This is yet another Weaken the Argument question. The conclusion, set off by the word "therefore," is that the florist made a mistake -- Drew was supposed to receive violets, or a card, or the flowers were for someone else. The evidence involves two conditions: Someone who knows Drew well would know that he prefers violets, and a person who doesn't know Drew well would have sent a card. According to the author, neither of these conditions is met: Drew got roses and no card. Well, we can't argue with the second condition; it's a simple formal logic statement to which we can apply the contrapositive: If a relative stranger sent the flowers, then there would be a card. If no card, then no stranger. So far so good. But what about the first condition? Did you notice the subtle scope shift? Someone well acquainted with Drew would know Drew prefers violets, but Drew actually received roses. But what one prefers and what one receives need not be the same thing; the author assumes that Drew's friends will always get him the flowers he prefers. B. breaks down this central assumption and thus weakens the argument, allowing for the possibility that someone who knows Drew well may indeed be the mysterious sender.
One of the most vexing problems in historiography is dating an event when the usual sources offer conflicting chronologies of the event. Historians should attempt to minimize the number of competing sources, perhaps by eliminating the less credible ones. Once this is achieved and several sources are left, as often happens, historians may try, though on occasion unsuccessfully, to determine independently of the usual sources which date is more likely to be right.Which one of the following inferences is most strongly supported by the information above?
Next up is another Inference question. There's nothing particularly concrete that jumps off the page, nor is there any kind of formal logic to speak of, so our best bet is to get the overall gist and then hit the choices. The topic is "historiography and you shouldn't get alarmed if you don't have a precise definition at your fingertips. That's not necessary; we learn soon enough that the author is simply concerned with how historians date events.When there are multiple sources with conflicting accounts of when something happened, the author suggests narrowing down the field by chopping off the sources that are least credible. If there are still a number of sources remaining, historians should set them aside and determine themselves which date seems most plausible. This, however, doesn't always work.
Bank deposits are credited on the date of the transaction only when they are made before 3 P.M. Alicia knows that the bank deposit was made before 3 p.m. So, Alicia knows that the bank deposit was credited on the date of the transaction.Which one of the following exhibits both of the logical flaws exhibited by the argument above?
It's common for one of the usual two Parallel Reasoning questions on each LR section to ask you to mimic the logic of a flawed argument, but here we get two flaws to mirror -- and in such a short argument, to boot. The formal logic term "only" denotes necessity, which means that we can interpret the first sentence to mean that if a deposit is credited on the date of the transaction, then it must have been made before 3 P.M. That doesn't mean that depositing before 3 P.M. is a sure guarantee that it will be credited on that date; it's necessary for that to happen, but not sufficient -- other factors could intervene. So even if Alicia makes a deposit before 3,there's no guarantee that it will be credited that day; it has simply met a first requirement. So the first flaw is the familiar confusion between necessary and sufficient conditions brought about by a faulty interpretation of the term "only." Options [John believes that 4 is a prime number and...] and [Pat wants to become a social worker.It is well known that...] have no "only if" components, so they can be axed right away.
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.