On the surface, Melville's Billy Budd is a simple story with a simple theme. However, if one views the novel as a religious allegory, then it assumes a richness and profundity that place it among the great novels of the nineteenth century. However, the central question remains: Did Melville intend an allegorical reading? Since there is no textual or historical evidence that he did, we should be content with reading Billy Budd as a simple tragedy.Which one of the following most accurately expresses the principle underlying the argument?
Answer(s): D
Finding a principle that underlies an argument is much like finding an assumption stated in general terms.Here's the situation: Melville's Billy Budd can be read as a religious allegory, or as a simple story. According to the argument, there is no evidence as to which interpretation Melville himself intended, and as such we should read it as a simple story. Butt hat takes for granted that the author's intention is key to our interpretation. What if Billy Budd can function as allegory even if Melville didn't intend it that way? Then the conclusion would have no basis. Therefore, the author must view a writer's intention for his work as integral to whether it can be viewed as allegory. The principle the author applies here is "If you don't know the author's intention, don't view the work allegorically".
Town councillor: The only reason for the town to have ordinances restricting where skateboarding can be done would be to protect children from danger. Skateboarding in the town's River Park is undoubtedly dangerous, but we should not pass an ordinance prohibiting it. If children cannot skateboard in the park, they will most certainly skateboard in the streets. And skateboarding in the streets is more dangerous than skateboarding in the park.The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the town councilor's argument
Answer(s): B
The Training Method of comparing conclusions doesn't allow us to eliminate any choices, as the conclusion of the original and all five choices take the form of a recommendation of what should not be done. So we need to look further. We're told that skateboarding in the park is dangerous, and if children can't skateboard there, then they'll skateboard on the streets, which is more dangerous. Since the reason to pass an ordinance restricting where children skateboard is to protect them from danger, the councillor believes they shouldn't pass an ordinance prohibiting skateboarding in the park. That logic is certainly ripe for a general paraphrase: Something is bad, but we shouldn't apply a specific remedy because that will cause a situation that's worse. Option [Insecticides are designed to protect crops...] hits the nail on the head. Insecticides can protect tomato crops against aphids, but using it will make matters worse (the key concept not found in the other choices) by killing wasps, which themselves kill pests that the insecticides don't. Since in this particular case it would be safer not to use insecticides (not to pass the ordinance), it shouldn't be used (shouldn't be passed). A perfect match.
Town councillor: The only reason for the town to have ordinances restricting where skateboarding can be done would be to protect children from danger. Skateboarding in the town's River Park is undoubtedly dangerous, but we should not pass an ordinance prohibiting it. If children cannot skateboard in the park, they will most certainly skateboard in the streets. And skateboarding in the streets is more dangerous than skateboarding in the park.Which one of the following principles, if established, would provide the strongest support for the town councillor's argument?
Answer(s): E
Last up is another Principle question that plays off the same scenario. What general rule is the town councillor applying in making her argument? We've already deciphered the argument and abstracted its general structure in our effort to parallel it in the previous question, so this one is somewhat of a gift. We said above that the argument, in general terms(which is what Principle questions are always after), boils down to this: "Something is bad, but we shouldn't apply a specific remedy because that will cause a situation that's worse." Sticking to the terms of this argument, ordinances and danger, this matches up perfectly with the principle in option [Ordinances that seek to eliminate dangers should not be enacted if...]
Journalist: One reason many people believe in extrasensory perception (ESP) is that they have heard of controlled experiments in which ESP is purportedly demonstrated. However, ESP is a myth and the public is deluded by these experiments, for a prominent researcher has admitted to falsifying data on psychic phenomena in order to obtain additional grants.The reasoning in the journalist's argument is flawed because this argument
This next LR section begins with a Logical Flaw question, so it pays to keep our eyes and ears peeled for the Classic flaws that appear perennially on the test. And we're not disappointed: According to the argument, many people hear about research into ESP, and are thus convinced that ESP is real. The author, however, concludes that ESP is a myth, and that those people have been fooled, all based on evidence that one renowned researcher cheated on his or her experiments. In other words, the author attempts to debunk an entire field with evidence concerning only one specific case. In LSATlingo, we call this a "non-representative sample," and it's a faulty form of reasoning that's not uncommon on the test. One simply can't hold forth on the general state of ESP research on the basis of one specific example. "Overgeneralizes" is a perfect way to describe this flaw.
One way kidney stones can form is when urine produced in the kidneys is overly concentrated with calcium or oxalate. Reducing dietary calcium has been thought, therefore, to decrease the likelihood that calcium will concentrate and form additional stones. Oddly enough, for many people the chances of recurrence are decreased by increasing calcium intake.Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?
"Resolve the apparent discrepancy" in the stem signals a Paradox question, so we need to locate the mystery, paraphrase it in user-friendly terms, and think about possible solutions. Why, if excess calcium in the urine forms kidney stones, is the chance of recurrence decreased by adding more calcium to one's diet? It may seem that more calcium in the diet would mean more in the urine, but nowhere does it say that the amount of calcium in the urine is directly proportional to the amount of calcium one consumes. Perhaps there's a mechanism that causes an increase in dietary calcium to lead to a decrease in urinary calcium. Perhaps increasing calcium intake has some other, unmentioned effect, which reduces the chances that calcium in the urine will form stones. Option [Increasing calcium intake increases the amount of...] provides such an alternative: If increasing calcium intake increases calcium elimination in the intestines, and causes less calcium to go to the kidneys, then it's much easier to understand how increasing calcium intake can actually decrease the chances that new stones will form.
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.