It is impossible to do science without measuring. It is impossible to measure without having first selected units of measurement. Hence, science is arbitrary, since the selection of a unit of measurement -- kilometer, mile, fathom, etc. -- is always arbitrary.The patteni of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the argument above
Answer(s): A
The most efficient way through this Parallel Reasoning question is to recognize the kinds of statements that comprise the original argument, and then to search for the argument that contains not only the same types of statements, but the same number of them as well. Hopefully you recognized the first two sentences as statements of necessity: Paraphrasing, these boil down to "science requires measuring" and "measuring requires selecting units." These of course can be combined (science requires selecting units), another feature we'll be looking for in the correct choice. Moving on, let's hold the conclusion (signaled by "hence") for last and finish with the evidence: "Selecting units is always arbitrary" -- that's a simple statement of fact -- and that brings us to the conclusion that science is therefore arbitrary. So what do we have here? Two linked statements of necessity, a fact and a conclusion. That's certainly enough to go on.
Professor Beckstein: American Sign Language is the native language of many North Americans. Therefore, it is not a foreign language, and for that reason alone, no student should be permitted to satisfy the university's foreign language requirement by learning it.Professor Sedley: According to your argument, students should not be allowed to satisfy the university's foreign language requirement by learning French or Spanish either, since they too are the native languages of many North Americans. Yet many students currently satisfy the requirement by studying French or Spanish, and it would be ridiculous to begin prohibiting them from doing so.Their statements commit Professors Beckstein and Sedley to disagreeing about which one of the following?
Answer(s): E
Here's a two-question stimulus to chew on. The word "disagreeing" in the first stem signals a Point-At-Issue question. Professor Beckstein argues that because ASL is native to many North Americans, it shouldn't satisfy the university's foreign language requirement. Professor Sedley counters that French and Spanish fit the same definition, but it would be ridiculous to exclude them from satisfying the requirement. Both discuss North American students for whom English is not their native language, and whether or not those other languages should be allowed to satisfy the university's foreign language requirement. This common thread leads us to:Beckstein would answer yes, the fact justifies the prohibition; Sedley would say no, it doesn't.
Professor Beckstein: American Sign Language is the native language of many North Americans. Therefore, it is not a foreign language, and for that reason alone, no student should be permitted to satisfy the university's foreign language requirement by learning it.Professor Sedley: According to your argument, students should not be allowed to satisfy the university's foreign language requirement by learning French or Spanish either, since they too are the native languages of many North Americans. Yet many students currently satisfy the requirement by studying French or Spanish, and it would be ridiculous to begin prohibiting them from doing so.Professor Sedley uses which one of the following strategies of argumentation in responding to Professor Beckstein's argument?
Now to this business of Sedley's "strategy of argumentation"; this is, as mentioned above, LSAT-speak for a Method of Argument question. This is actually not an uncommon line of reasoning: Sedley tries to show that if Beckstein's argument holds (if a language shared by many North Americans can't be used to satisfy the university's foreign language requirement), French and Spanish would not be able to satisfy the requirement either, based on Beckstein's criterion. But that, in Sedley's words, would be "ridiculous." The elements in option [attempting to demonstrate that the reasoning...] match his method perfectly: He's trying to show that the reasoning (stated above) used to form a conclusion (ASL should not be allowed to satisfy the requirement) would lead to another conclusion (don't allow French or Spanish either) that's undesirable (it would be ridiculous to prohibit French or Spanish from satisfying the requirement).
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consist of protein that is distilled from natural sources and supplemented with vitamins and minerals. Although the amino acids contained in such products stimulate the production of growth hormones, these hormones produce growth in connective tissue rather than in muscle mass; this does not improve muscle strength. Hence, athletes, who need to improve their muscular strength, should not consume engineered foods.The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?
Answer(s): C
Here's another assumption question, so let's zero in on the components of the argument. The last sentence (signaled by the Keyword "Hence") contains the conclusion: Athletes looking to improve muscle strength should not consume engineered foods. The first sentence is largely irrelevant to this conclusion, but the muscle issue comes up in the second sentence, where we learn that the amino acids in engineered foods stimulate growth hormones, which causes growth of connective tissue but not muscle mass. The argument seems to make sense if increasing muscle mass is the only possible benefit from engineered foods--but what if there are other benefits? Wouldn't it then be reasonable to infer that even athletes who are interested in increasing muscle still might benefit from these foods, and should consider consuming them? This alternative possibility would wreak havoc with the argument, so the author must be assuming that outside of increasing muscle strength, consuming engineered foods confers no benefits at all to athletes.
Some types of organisms originated through endosymbiosis, the engulfing of one organism by another so that a part of the former becomes a functioning part of the latter. An unusual nucteomorph, a structure that contains DNA and resembles a cell nucleus, has been discovered within a plant known as a chlorarachniophyte. Two versions of a particular gene have been found in the DNA of this nucleomorph, and one would expect to find only a single version of this gene if the nucleomorph were not the remains of an engulfed organism's nucleus.Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?
This next Inference question involves a scientifically challenging argument. But buried amidst the technical terms is some fairly straightforward formal logic, so hopefully you didn't let yourself get bogged down in the terminology. Endo (no reason not to shorten this) is a process by which one organism engulfs another and the engulfed organism becomes a functioning part of the whole. Something strange that looks like a cell nucleus (let's shorten its cumber somename to nuc) has been found inside a plant (chlor); can you see where this is going? Perhaps endosymbiosis occurred here? What follows requires some interpretation (and that's, after all, what Inference questions are all about--interpretingand combining): If the nuc was NOT originally part of an organism that got engulfed, then we'd expect one version of a particular gene in its DNA. That's a simple formal logic statement, albeit one with complicated terms. Nonetheless, the contrapositive applies: If there's NOT one version of the gene, then the nuc WAS part of something that got engulfed. And we're told, in fact, that there are TWO versions of the gene, so we know for sure that engulfing took place.
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.