If you have no keyboarding skills at all, you will not be able to use a computer. And if you are not able to use a computer, you will not be able to write your essays using a word processing program.If the statements above are true, which one of the following must be true?
Answer(s): C
Next up is the first Inference question of the section, and a quick scan reveals "if" is as far as the eye can see, so chances are we have a formal logic problem on our hands. And indeed, this is an excellent exercise in handling if-then and contrapositives. If X (no keyboard skills) then Y (not able to use a computer) and if Y (not able to use a computer) then Z (not able to write essays with a word processor). Thanks to the common Y term, these two statements can be combined to form if X then Z: "If you have no keyboard skills, then you cannot write essays with a word processor." That would be a fine answer, but is not among the choices. Its contrapositive, however, is: "If you can write essays with a word processor, then you must have at least some keyboard skills" (i.e., must NOT have no skills).
Rossi: It is undemocratic for people to live under a government in which their interests are not represented. So children should have the right to vote, since sometimes the interests of children are different from those of their parents.Smith: Granted, children's interests are not always the same as their parents'; governmental deficits incurred by their parents' generation will later affect their own generation's standard of living. But even if children are told about the issues affecting them, which is not generally the case, their conceptions of what can or should be done are too simple, and their time horizons are radically different from those of adults, so we cannot give them the responsibility of voting.Which one of the following most accurately describes Rossi's argument?
Answer(s): A
Our first double question stimulus is up next, and the first is a Method of Argument question that tells us up front to concentrate on how Rossi's argument proceeds. It's a short argument. Sentence 1 is a judgment: Living under a government that doesn't represent people's interests is undemocratic. The second sentence, beginning with the usual conclusion Keyword "so," concludes that children should be allowed to vote, since their interests sometimes differ from those of adults. Here, children are used as an example of a group that's not represented and that should be, at least based on the judgment in the first sentence.
Smith's statements can most directly be used as part of an argument for which one of the following views?
Answer(s): D
Here's a slight twist: If we're to use Smith's statements as part of an argument for a view, essentially we're asked which choice contains a scenario that Smith's statements would strengthen. Not the usual form for a strengthen question, but hey, no biggie. First Smith agrees that children's and adults' interests sometimes differ, and even provides an example. She then presents perhaps the most obvious rebuttal to Rossi's position, namely that there are still a number of things about kids that suggests that giving them the vote is not such a good idea. There's no sense obsessing over the details if you get this basic gist. We can't possibly know what views will be presented in the choices, so let's again move right to them, looking for the one supported by Smith's argument.
To accommodate the personal automobile, houses are built on widely scattered lots far from places of work and shopping malls are equipped with immense parking lots that leave little room for wooded areas. Hence, had people generally not used personal automobiles, the result would have to have been a geography of modern cities quite different from the one we have now.The argument's reasoning is questionable because the argument
What's the flaw? Let's check it out. To make room for cars, housing developments and shopping mall developed in a certain way. The author concludes (note the Keyword "Hence") that had cars not been so popular, modern cities would be much different than they are now. This boils down to a simple argument of causation: Cars cause a certain geography; take away the cause, and the result will change. But who's to say that the same geography would not have resulted anyway?What if a different popular form of transportation that emerged instead of cars had the same effect? Cars may have been sufficient to bring about the geography described, but nowhere does it say they're necessary -- that is, that something else couldn't bring about the same living and shopping environments described in the argument. It's invalid to argue that without cars, cities would be different, because while the automobile did bring about the world described, it need not be the only thing that could have created that environment.
Many of the presidents and prime ministers who have had the most successful foreign policies had no prior experience in foreign affairs when they assumed office. Although scholars and diplomats in the sacrosanct inner circle of international affairs would have us think otherwise, anyone with an acute political sense, a disciplined temperament, and a highly developed ability to absorb and retain information can quickly learn to conduct a successful foreign policy. In fact, prior experience alone will be of little value to a foreign policymaker who lacks all three of these traits.If all of the statements above are true, which one of the following must be true?
Answer(s): B
Here's another Inference question, so let's understand each statement and see if we can prephrase any connections upfront. It doesn't take a president or prime minister lots of prior experience in foreign affairs to achieve success in foreign policy. Although some experts disagree, all it takes are certain characteristics to succeed in foreign policy. Without the traits that the author cites, previous experience in foreign affairs alone is little value.
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.