Books updating the classification systems used by many libraries are not free -- in fact they are very expensive. The only way to sell copies of them is to make the potential buyers believe they need to adopt the most recent system. Thus, these frequent changes in the classification systems are just a ploy by the publishers to make libraries buy their products.The reasoning above is most vulnerable to criticism because it
Answer(s): B
In this flaw question, the author errs in arguing that the only possible reason to change the library classification systems is for publishers to make money. Perhaps there are other, less suspicious reasons for doing so.
During the three months before and the three months after a major earthquake in California, students at a college there happened to be keeping a record of their dreams. After experiencing the earthquake, half of the students reported dreaming about earthquakes. During the same six months, a group of college students in Ontario who had never experienced an earthquake also recorded their dreams. Almost none of the students in Ontario reported dreaming about earthquakes. So it is clear that experiencing an earthquake can cause people to dream about earthquakes.Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
Answer(s): A
Isn't there a song "California Dreaming"? We don't think this is what they had in mind. We need to strengthen the argument that experiencing an earthquake can cause people to dream about earthquakes. The evidence is that almost none of the students in Ontario, who never experienced an earthquake, dreamt about earthquakes, while half the Californian students did dream about earthquakes after going through a major quake. Well, we know that we can weaken a causal argument by severing the link between the supposed cause and the effect, and one way to do that here is to show that students from California dreamed about earthquakes before the big one hit. Then it wouldn't seem as likely that experiencing the quake caused the dreams. (Maybe something else, like media coverage from previous quakes, keeps Californians -- even those who haven't personally experienced one -- dreaming of quakes all the time...) Since this would damage the argument, the author assumes that they didn't dream much about quakes before the one in question, and the argument would be strengthened if this assumption were bolstered. Choice option [Before the California earthquake, no more of...] accomplishes this. The Ontario group is the control group, so if the Californian dreams prior to the quake were similar to the Ontario dreams (almost none about earthquakes), then the possible alternative discussed above is discounted, the author's assumption is shored up, and we'd be more likely to believe the conclusion in the final sentence.
It is wrong to waste our natural resources, and it is an incredible waste of resources to burn huge amounts of trash in incinerators. When trash is recycled, fewer resources are wasted. Because less trash will be recycled if an incinerator is built, the city should not build an incinerator.Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
Answer(s): D
Another Inference question, so our job is to interpret and combine statements. A few facts, pretty basic stuff:Wasting natural resources is wrong; burning lots of trash in incinerators wastes resources. We can combine these to infer that burning lots of trash in incinerators is wrong, but unfortunately that's not among the choices.However, the correct inference is nothing more than a simple interpretation of the latter statement: If "it is an incredible waste of resources to burn huge amounts of trash in incinerators," then it makes perfect sense that if it wishes to avoid wasting resources, the city can't incinerate huge amounts of trash.
Human intelligence is not possible without human emotions. A computer is something that can never have emotions, so for that reason alone a computer will never be able to display intelligence.Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Answer(s): E
Did you pick up on the scope shift in this Assumption question? Did you notice the mismatched terms? If not, take another look before reading on. Hint: look closely. Okay: Human intelligence requires human emotions. A computer can't have human emotions. Therefore, a computer can't display human intelligence. What's wrong with that? Nothing -- but that's not what the author says. She concludes that computers can't display intelligence period; she leaves out the word "human," and therein lays the shift. What if there are other kinds of intelligence that don't require emotions? Then the author couldn't argue that computers can never display intelligence based solely on the fact that they don't have emotions. If the author wants to make a case about intelligence in general based on the evidence given, then she needs the connection cited in option [Being intelligent requires the capacity to...]. (Note: If you missed the distinction between human intelligence and intelligence in general, option [Being intelligent requires the capacity to...] probably looked to you like a restatement of the first sentence.)
Several recent studies establish that most people would want to be informed if they had any serious medical condition. In each study, over 80 percent of the people surveyed indicated that they would want to be told.Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument EXCEPT:
Answer(s): C
This Weaken question provides a virtual clinic in analyzing a study; four of the choices will weaken the conclusion based on the study results, while the right answer will be the choice that's irrelevant, outside the scope, or even strengthens the argument. The conclusion is that most people would want to be told if they had a serious medical condition, based on the fact that 80 percent of those surveyed said that they would want to be told. When looking to weaken any argument that relies on a study, experiment, or survey, we look for choices that would invalidate (or at least seriously call into question) the results of the survey, and the weakeners here, as discussed below, fall into fairly common categories. The choice that does not weaken the argument predictably strays from the scope, and that's choice [Some of the researchers conducting the...]: The background of the researchers has no impact upon how those surveyed chose their answers, or on how the author interprets the results.
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.