Reviewer: Although finalism -- the view that there are purposes in nature -- has been universally rejected, this book launches another attack on that view. Its arguments are based on a complete misunderstanding of the operation of pure chance in nature and so it fails as a critique of finalism. Finalism, therefore, is clearly more plausible than people have thought.Which one of the following is most closely parallel in its flawed reasoning to the flawed reasoning in the reviewer's argument?
Answer(s): C
Considering the sheer length of this Parallel Reasoning question, we have to believe that there are some shortcuts possible; after all, there's simply no time to slog through every word here. And indeed, the Training strategies cut it down to size. First, compare conclusions: The original conclusion, signaled by the trusty Keyword "therefore," is that finalism must be "more plausible" than previously thought. Scanning the choices, we see that four of them match this structure well enough, but option [Experts agree that red wines from...].concludes that something "is false" and can be cut for that reason alone. In fact, the phrase "Therefore it is false" is all you need to read of option [Experts agree that red wines from..... Similarly, the evidence in the original begins with a view that has been "universally rejected." That's a totally unqualified statement that's not matched by option [Few botanists deny that a recently discovered...]'s "Few...deny" or option [Sociologists agree that the psychological development of...]'s notion that sociologists agree that something maybe the case.
Appliance dealer: Appliance manufacturers commonly modify existing models without giving the modified versions new model names. Some people have complained that this practice makes it impossible for consumers to be certain that the appliance they are about to purchase is identical to the one they may have seen at a neighbor's or read about in a consumer magazine. Yet manufacturers' modifications to existing models are invariably improvements that benefit the buyer. Therefore, consumers have little reason to object to this practice.Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the dealer's argument?
Answer(s): D
Another Weaken question, so as always we paraphrase the argument looking for familiar structures, gaps in the reasoning, and alternative possibilities. The conclusion is that consumers shouldn't object to manufacturers using old model numbers on upgraded appliances. The reason is that while some people complain that they can't tell if the model they're about to buy is the exact model they're interested in, all modifications are improvements over a previous model. So why should consumers worry about the practice? Well, what if it causes confusion between the old and newer models? What if someone wants a new and improved model she heard of but is sold an older model with the same model name? If option [Improved versions of...] is true, this would be a legitimate concern, and the conclusion that consumers have little reason to object to the practice would be weakened.
In our solar system only one of the nine planets-- Earth--qualifies as fit to sustain life. Nonetheless, using this ratio, and considering the astonishingly large number of planetary systems in the universe, we must conclude that the number of planets fit to sustain some form of life is extremely large.The argument is questionable because it presumes which one of the following without providing justification?
Answer(s): B
The stem tells us the argument is flawed, and even tells us the source of the problem: an unjustified assumption. So we'll bring all of our strategies for Flaw and Assumption questions to bear on the problem. The author concludes that there are a lot of planets able to sustain life, based on the fact that one out of the nine planets in our solar system sustains life, and there are a huge number of planetary systems in the universe. If, similar to our system, roughly one planet in each other system can sustain life, then this makes sense -- but what if this is not the case? What if the same ratio doesn't obtain out there in the far reaches of the universe? Then the conclusion would be unsupported. For the conclusion to stand, our solar system must be similar to many other systems (at least in this respect), and no evidence is provided to that effect.
Sociologist: Suggestions for improved efficiency that derive from employers are unlikely to elicit positive responses from employees, who tend to resent suggestions they did not generate. An employer should therefore engage the employee in a non-threatening dialogue that emphasizes the positive contributions of the employee to the development of such ideas. Then the ideas employers want to try will be implemented more quickly and effectively.Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the sociologist's reasoning?
Finally, we need to find the principle that helps the argument, which means we're looking for a strengthener stated in general terms. According to the sociologist, employees don't like to be told flat-out by their employers how to improve efficiency. Instead, an employer should have a more personable chat with an employee, in which both can contribute to the discussion. This will secure employee buy-in, so to speak, and will result in better implementation of the ideas employers want to try. This is actually a masterpiece of corporate manipulation: The trick is to get employees to believe they're contributing, essentially in order to get them to work better (read: harder), while implementing "the ideas that employers want to try." Inherent in this scheme is the notion that employees will implement new ideas more quickly and efficiently if they perceive themselves to be a positive part of the process, instead of just having orders handed down to them. Option [Employees are more likely to carry out...] supports this in every way: Employees are more likely to implement new ideas on improving efficiency that they think they helped to generate.
Editorial: The structure of the present school calendar was established to satisfy the requirements of early- twentieth-century agricultural life. In those days, farmers needed their children to have long breaks during which they could remain at home and help with the harvest. The contemporary school year is thus made up of periods of study interspersed with long breaks. But agricultural life no longer occupies most of our citizens, so we can now make changes that serve the interests of children. Therefore, long breaks should be removed from the school calendar.Which one of the following is an assumption on which the editorial's argument depends?
Answer(s): E
We lead off with an Assumption question, so we know to look for the usual suspects: scope shifts, gaps in the reasoning, and stray terms that need to be connected. Here, the latter applies. Did you notice the issue that appears to drop in out of nowhere? The argument hums along nicely until the notion of children's interests is introduced. How do we know what would "serve the interests of children" if the author doesn't tell us? If a factor (agricultural needs) that made long school breaks necessary is no longer relevant, one could certainly argue that long breaks are no longer necessary, but to say that long breaks should be eliminated in the name of student interests requires an additional step -- the author has to somehow show that shorter breaks would actually be better for children.
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.