David: Forbidding companies from hiring permanent replacements for striking employees would be profoundly unfair. Such companies would have little leverage in their negotiations with strikers. Lin: No, the companies would still have sufficient leverage in negotiations if they hired temporary replacements. Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by the exchange between David and Lin?
Answer(s): C
Next up we're looking for something that can be inferred from a conversation. David thinks that not allowing companies to hire permanent replacements for striking employees is unfair, since that would place them in a weak bargaining position with the strikers. Lin claims that companies would maintain leverage if they hire temporary replacements. It's not easy to prephrase the correct inference, so let's evaluate the choices, keeping a close eye on the scope of each statement.
A favorable biography of a politician omits certain incriminating facts about the politician that were available to anyone when the book was written. The book's author claims that, because he was unaware of these facts when he wrote the book, he is not accountable for the fact that readers were misled by this omission. In a biographer, however, ignorance of this kind cannot be used to evade blame for misleading readers.Which one of the following principles, if established, does most to justify the position advanced by the passage?
Answer(s): E
Here we need to locate a principle that would help justify the conclusion of the argument, so we're essentially looking fora strengthener stated in general terms. The final sentence provides the conclusion: A biographer's ignorance of well-known facts can't be used to escape blame for misleading readers. The second sentence is the key: "The book's author claims that, because he was unaware of these facts when he wrote the book, he is not accountable for the fact that readers were misled by this omission." The author feels that exactly the opposite is true; something like "A biographer is accountable for misleading readers if he is unaware of well- known facts." This is what choice E expresses.
Logician: I have studied and thoroughly mastered the laws of logic. So to argue that I sometimes violate the laws of logic in ordinary conversation would be like arguing that some physicist circumvents the laws of physics in everyday life.The reasoning in the logician's argument is questionable because this argument
Answer(s): D
When we see "the logician's argument is questionable because" in the question stem, we think "find the logical flaw." And we have to admit the test makers are not without a sense of irony, beginning a Logical Flaw question with the phrase "Having mastered the laws of logic. . ." Hmm...evidently not. So, because he has supposedly mastered logic, the logician claims that for him to commit a logical flaw in conversation would be like a physicist violating the everyday laws of physics. This seems fairly silly on its face. Does the logician mean that because no physicist can simply float off into space, for example, he, a master logician, cannot make a logical mistake? We can see immediately that the two situations are not the same. Violating the laws of physics is by definition impossible, whereas the logician can easily violate the laws of logic by misspeaking. The laws of physics and the laws of logic differ in important respects. The laws of physics apply universally and cannot be violated; the so-called "laws" of logic are learned and therefore can be violated.
One thousand people in Denmark were questioned about their views on banning cigarette advertising. The sample comprised adults who are representative of the general population, and who, ten years previously, had been questioned on the same issue. Interestingly, their opinions changed little. Results show that 31 percent are in favor of such a ban, 24 percent are against it, 38 percent are in favor, but only for certain media, and 7 percent have no opinion.The survey results in the passage best support which one of the following conclusions?
We need to infer a conclusion from a survey, so let's piece things together as best we can and then rigorously evaluate the choices. Just a bunch of facts: The sample was 1000 adults in Denmark, representative of the general population, and who happened to also be questioned ten years ago on the same issue: the banning of cigarette advertising. The results were little changed from the first survey: 31 percent in favor, 24 percent against, 38 percent in favor of a ban limited to certain media, and 7 percent no opinion. We can infer that roughly these same figures must have resulted ten years ago, since opinions have "changed little," but there's nothing really earth-shattering to prephrase from all this, so let's hit the choices.
Passenger volume in the airline industry has declined dramatically over the past two years, and thus fewer travelers and fewer planes are using airports. Since airport expansion can be warranted only by increases in air traffic volume, and since it will probably be at least five years before passenger volume returns to and then exceeds its previous level, it seems surprising that now is the time that airports are going ahead with plans to expand their passenger terminal facilities.Which one of the following, if true, provides the best reason in favor of the airports' timing of their planned expansions?
Answer(s): B
This question is basically a Paradox question in disguise. It's not obvious from the stem, but the author concludes that it is surprising that airports are expanding passenger terminals now, instead of five years from now when the number of passengers is expected to rise. The paradox arises because the author states that airport expansion is called for only when air traffic increases. But what if there is a valid reason to expand airport terminals when the number of passengers is low? That's the kind of alternative possibility we're looking for, and that choice B. provides: It's better to expand terminals when there are fewer people, because it will be less of an inconvenience to travelers. That's certainly a relevant consideration; the industry wouldn't want to aggravate people just as they're flocking back to airports. Beginning the construction now can be justified by the projection of increased passengers down the road coupled with the practical consideration presented in option [Low volume in passenger air travel permits...]
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.