Leatherbacks, the largest of the sea turtles, when subjected to the conditions of captivity, are susceptible to a wide variety of fatal diseases with which they would never come in contact if they lived in the wild. It is surprising; therefore, that the likelihood that a leatherback will reach its theoretical maximum life expectancy is about the same whether that animal is living in captivity or in the wild.Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?
Answer(s): C
"Resolve the discrepancy" means Paradox, so let's scope out the mystery and think about what might resolve it.Paraphrase: Leatherbacks in captivity are prone to deadly diseases that they would never get out in the wild.Considering this, the author finds it odd that leatherbacks in the wild don't seem to have a greater chance of reaching maximum life expectancy. But just because one aspect of captivity is more life-threatening for leatherbacks doesn't mean there aren't other factors that make captivity actually safer for them. So we should look for a choice that, if true, would balance out the equation. C. provides an obvious solution. Predators would presumably not be a problem for turtles in captivity,but they're a huge source of danger for those in the wild. So while certain diseases may kill only the captive leatherbacks, predators even the score out in the wild. If option [Most leatherbacks that perish in...] is true, then the similarity in the likelihood of reaching the maximum life expectancy between leatherbacks cooped up and those swimming free seems more understandable.
Chairperson: The board of directors of our corporation should not allow the incentives being offered by two foreign governments to entice us to expand our operations into their countries without further consideration of the issue. Although there is an opportunity to increase our profits by expanding our operations there, neither of these countries is politically stable.The chairperson's reasoning most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?
Answer(s): D
This type of Principle question asks to which principle in the choices the argument most closely conforms, which means the right answer will be a general restatement of the argument's gist. The chairperson warns that the company shouldn't hastily gobble up the incentives to expand globally without giving the prospect more thought. Profits may rise, sure, but the countries in question are politically unstable. So the principle we seek will be a straightforward mirror of these elements, and will have to capture the proper tone, as well. Notice that the chairperson is not slamming the door on the opportunity or making any grand pronouncements on what should be done; she's merely, as D. puts it, advocating caution in this matter. The rest of option [Corporations should always be cautious about...] is perfectly in line with the situation; every term matches up. In contrast, all of the wrong choices go to extremes.
Maria: Thomas Edison was one of the most productive inventors of his time, perhaps of all time. His contributions significantly shaped the development of modern lighting and communication systems. Yet he had only a few months of formal schooling. Therefore, you do not need a formal education to make crucial contributions to technological advancement.Frank: That is definitely not true anymore. Since Edison's day there have been many new developments in technology; to make crucial contributions today you need much more extensive technical knowledge than was needed then.Frank's reasoning in his response to Maria is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
Answer(s): A
The stem indicates that Frank's reasoning goes off the rails, so let's keep our eye out for the classic flaws.First, Maria's point: Edison contributed greatly in the technological arena with little formal schooling, so evidently formal education is not required to make such contributions. Seems reasonable. But Frank says that's not true anymore; contributing to today's technological environment requires lots more technical knowledge than it did in Edison's day. That may make sense, if not for the scope shift between "formal schooling" and "technical knowledge." Frank's conclusion regarding formal education ("that's not true" means "you do need formal education to contribute") is derived from evidence about the need for technical knowledge. But who says technical knowledge requires formal education? Certainly not Frank.
In some countries, there is a free flow of information about infrastructure, agriculture, and industry, whereas in other countries, this information is controlled by a small elite. In the latter countries, the vast majority of the population is denied vital information about factors that determine their welfare. Thus, these countries are likely to experience more frequent economic crises than other countries do.The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
Answer(s): B
Another Assumption question, so the familiar drill applies; let's analyze the components of the argument and see what's missing. And this one has "connect the dots" written all over it. Remember back in Q. 1 when the idea of student interests seemed to drop in out of nowhere? Did you notice its counterpart here? In countries where the elite control the flow of information on certain topics, most people are denied important information on topics that are relevant to their welfare. From this, the author concludes (notice the Keyword "Thus") that these countries are likely to have economic crises more often than other countries. Where does that come from? From out of nowhere, really, which tells us there's a big chunk missing here. The argument works only if the idea of economic crises is connected with the notion of people being denied information vital to their welfare. Option [Economic crises become more frequent as...] connects the dots, so to speak, by forging the necessary link between these parts of the argument.
Hana said she was not going to invite her brothers to her birthday party. However, among the gifts Hana received at her party was a recording in which she had expressed an interest. Since her brothers had planned to give her that recording, at least some of Hana's brothers must have been among the guests at Hana's birthday party after all.A reasoning error in the argument is that the argument
A Flaw question keep your eyes peeled for the usual suspects. We can call this one "Hana and Her Brothers." It's almost certain that if someone tried to put this argument over on you in person you'd interject "But what if someone else gave her the record?" Reasonable, right? Just because the brothers planned to give her that recording doesn't mean that the existence of the recording among the gifts proves some of them were there, because it's quite possible that someone else planned to, and did, in fact, give her that record. It would probably be too easy an answer if the test makers stated the flaw this clearly, so they probably felt obligated to dress it up a bit in the abstract wording of option [fails to establish that something true of...], but the idea is the same:Now here does the argument state that the desire to get Hana that particular record, "something true of some people" (her brothers), is unique only to those people (maybe someone else had the same idea).
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.