Historian: Political regimes that routinely censor various forms of expression on the grounds that they undermine public morality inevitably attempt to expand the categories of proscribed expression to include criticisms that these regimes perceive to threaten their power. Accordingly, many totalitarian regimes classify as blasphemous or pornographic those writings that would, if widely influential, reduce public passivity.Which one of the following is an assumption on which the historian's reasoning depends?
Answer(s): C
Another standard Assumption question, and you know the drill: Paraphrase the components of the argument, then look for scope shifts, mismatched terms, and elements that need to be connected for the argument to work. The author states that totalitarian regimes that censor expression on moral grounds tend to expand the scope of the censored material to criticisms they perceive may threaten their power. The conclusion drawn from this, signaled by "Accordingly," is that writings that could reduce passivity are vilified (labeled as blasphemous or pornographic) by many totalitarian regimes.If totalitarian regimes wish to censor, on moral grounds, expression that challenges their power, and therefore, according to the historian, vilify as immoral writings that make people less passive, then the historian must be assuming a connection between reduced passivity and a threat to the regimes' power.
Ethicist: Both ASA and TPA are clot-dissolving agents. Recent studies show that the more expensive agent, TPA, would save at most two more lives than would ASA out of every 50 cardiac patients to whom they are post operatively administered. However, since the relatives of the patients who die simply because they were given the less expensive medicine would be particularly grieved, the financial saving involved in using ASA over TPA must also be weighed against such considerations.Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the ethicist's argument?
Next we're asked to figure out the conclusion of the ethicist's argument, so let's paraphrase: Of two clot- dissolving agents, the costlier one, TPA, would save at most two more lives out of every 50 cardiac patients than would ASA when given after an operation. But, since relatives of those who don't survive surgery would feel worse if the less effective, cheaper ASA were given, one shouldn't base the decision of which drug to use on financial concerns alone. Choices [TPA is a slightly more effective...], [SA is a less expensive...] and [Relatives of a patient who has died grieve...] repeat the facts of the matter; they are the evidence for the conclusion summarized in choice [The extra expense of TPA cannot be...]. We know the last part of the last sentence is the conclusion because it is prescriptive; it says what the author thinks should be done, based on all of the evidence given before. It's the only choice that passes the Training One Sentence Test; that is, if all the author were allowed was one sentence, choice [The extra expense of TPA cannot be...] is the statement that would best convey his point. Choices [TPA is a slightly more effective...], [SA is a less expensive...] and [Relatives of a patient who has died grieve...] are all too narrow to encapsulate the entire argument; as we saw, each is a piece leading up to the main point.
Ashley: Words like "of" and "upon," unlike "pencil" and "shirt," do not refer to anything. Joshua: I agree; and since such words are meaningless, they should be abandoned.Joshua's remarks indicate that he interpreted Ashley's statement to imply that
Answer(s): A
Here's a question type that used to be more common on the test, the old "crossed-wires" example. One person speaks, the second responds based on a misunderstanding of what was said, and we're asked to figure out what he was thinking in order to respond the way he did. So, how does Joshua interpret Ashley's statement? As far as scope shifts go, this one is pretty blatant: Ashley says that the words "of" and "upon" don't refer to anything. Joshua agrees, and says that because such words are meaningless, they should be abandoned. The logic of Joshua's response clearly relies on the notion that if a word does not refer to anything, then it's meaningless. That's his interpretation of Ashley's comment (although it's not what she actually said). That could be the answer, but evidently the test makers found that to be too easy, so instead they went with the contrapositive: "If a word has meaning, then it refers to something." Option [only words that refer to something have meaning] is the equivalent of this in "only" form.
Ethicist: Some would ban cloning on the grounds that clones would be subpeople, existing to indulge the vanity of their "originals." It is not illegal, however, to use one person as a vehicle for the ambitions of another. Some people push their children to achieve in academics or athletics. You do not have to have been born in a test tube to be an extension of someone else's ego.The assertion that it is not illegal to use one person as a vehicle for another's ambitions is used in the ethicist's argument in which one of the following ways?
Answer(s): D
There seems to be a bunch of them running around somewhere. Anyhow this time we're asked to determine the role of a statement in the argument, so it's best to keep our eye out for the argument's structural components. Some would ban cloning because clones would be a lower class of people designed to indulge the vanity of the original person. The next sentence is the assertion we're to categorize. It contains the crucial Keyword "however," which essentially tells us that it will likely contain some kind of refutation of the first claim.And so it does: The counter is that we already use other people as a vehicle for personal ambitions, and it's by no means illegal to do so. The ethicist provides an example of people who aren't clones who are used to indulge other's egos, but for our purposes we've already come upon the relevant issue: As the Keyword "however" suggests, the phrase in question supports the idea that using clones for vain purposes is not a sufficient reason to ban cloning.
Selena: Asteroid impact on the Earth caused the extinction of the dinosaurs by raising vast clouds of dust, thus blocking the Sun's rays and cooling the planet beyond the capacity of the dinosaurs, or perhaps the vegetation that supported them, to adapt. A worldwide dust layer provides evidence of asteroid impact at approximately the correct time, and a huge crater exists on the edge of the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico. Trent: That asteroid crater is not large enough for the requisite amount of dust to have been produced. Besides, the extinction of dinosaur species took many years, not just one or two. So the extinctions must have been due not to asteroid impact on the Earth but to some other kind of cause.Trent's argument assumes that
Answer(s): E
The stem tells us that Trent is the featured player in this one, but first Selena's argument. In a nutshell, Selena thinks asteroid impact unleashed a chain of events that caused the dinosaurs to die out. Trent responds that the extinction of the dinosaurs must have been due to some cause other than asteroid impact, based on the facts that the crater Selena mentions is too small to create the amount of dust required in her scenario, and that the extinction took many years.Both of Trent's facts seem to argue against the likelihood that the Mexican asteroid, by itself, did the dinosaurs in, but what if many asteroid impacts over time raised enough dust to set the process described in motion? (Notice that Selena never says that a single asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs.) If Trent accepted the possibility of multiple impacts, he'd have to rework his argument. For his argument as stated to stand, he'd have to assume that this didn't happen.
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.