Navigation in animals is defined as the animal's ability to find its way from unfamiliar territory to points familiar to the animal but beyond the immediate range of the animal's senses. Some naturalists claim that polar bears can navigate over considerable distances. As evidence, they cite an instance of a polar bear that returned to its home territory after being released over 500 kilometers (300 miles) away.Which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the validity of the evidence offered in support of the naturalists' claim?
Answer(s): B
The stem points us right to the part of the argument we need to focus on: the evidence supporting the naturalists' claim. Our job is to find the choice that weakens its validity. First we get a definition of navigation, followed by the claim and evidence referred to in the stem. Some naturalists think polar bears can navigate over long distances because a polar be aronce journeyed 300 miles to reach home. The naturalists seem enthused about this account, evidently believing it to bean instance of navigation. But the definition of navigation is an animal's ability to find its way home from unfamiliar territory that's beyond their senses, neither of which we hear anything about in the case of the wayward bear. The evidence given here would mean squat if the bear's journey was through familiar territory or if the 300 miles was not out of range of the bear's senses. B.speaks to the former, making it seem likely that the bear knew the route all along. That would strongly suggest that this particular account is not credible support for the naturalists' claim.
City council member: Despite the city's desperate need to exploit any available source of revenue, the mayor has repeatedly blocked council members' attempts to pass legislation imposing real estate development fees. It is clear that in doing so the mayor is sacrificing the city's interests to personal interests. The mayor cites figures to show that, in the current market, fees of the size proposed would significantly reduce the number of building starts and thus, on balance, result in a revenue loss to the city. But the important point is that the mayor's family is heavily involved in real estate development and thus has a strong financial interest in the matter.Which one of the following most accurately and completely expresses the main conclusion of the city council member's argument?
Answer(s): C
One argument, two questions. First we need to find the main point. The city seems eager for money, but the mayor won't allow legislation imposing fees for real estate. Think ahead! If that's the conclusion, the rest of the argument will be structured to provide evidence that the city wants money but the mayor's blocking said legislation. Is that what we get? Nope; the council member proceeds from there to a new point, and the conclusion Keyword phrase "it is clear that" is a strong clue that what's coming up is at least part of the main point. The council member accuses the mayor of putting his own interests above the city's. The next sentence contains the mayor's rationale for blocking the legislation, but the council member blows right past that, stating that the most important point is that the mayor's family is in the real estate biz and therefore has a financial interest in this matter. Can this last fact stand by itself; that is, can it satisfy the Training One Sentence Test? No; don't be fooled by the phrase "the most important point"; surely the council member didn't speak up merely to point out the mayor's family business and its interest in the matter. This last point relates back to the assertion that by blocking the legislation and not allowing fees on real estate development, the mayor is sacrificing the city's welfare in favor of his own (which, incidentally, allows us to kill option [The mayor's family has a strong financial interest in...]). All the statements point in this direction, and a quick scan for this yields option [In blocking council members' attempts to...].
City council member: Despite the city's desperate need to exploit any available source of revenue, the mayor has repeatedly blocked council members' attempts to pass legislation imposing real estate development fees. It is clear that in doing so the mayor is sacrificing the city's interests to personal interests. The mayor cites figures to show that, in the current market, fees of the size proposed would significantly reduce the number of building starts and thus, on balance, result in a revenue loss to the city. But the important point is that the mayor's family is heavily involved in real estate development and thus has a strong financial interest in the matter.The reasoning in the city council member's argument is flawed because
Now that we've nailed down exactly what the council member said, let's now see what's wrong with it. As you recall, the mayor offers a rationale for his refusal to sign the legislation imposing real estate development fees.The council member begins her response with "But...", and we'd expect her to counter the mayor's figures in some way, or at least attempt to show that he's skewing the interpretation of same. Instead, she gives information about the mayor's family meant to suggest his self-interest alluded to earlier. But what about the mayor's evidence? She simply ignores it, citing his family's financial interests as the most important consideration in condemning the mayor's actions. But if his figures are correct and the city will actually lose money if the fees are imposed (a fact the council member doesn't contest), why is she so worried about his private concerns? If what's good for his family also happens to be good for the city, then how can the council member argue that the mayor is after his own benefit at the expense of the city? Maybe he is out for himself, but it doesn't seem to be at the city's expense, so there's no inconsistency here, as the council member suggests.
Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature due to global warming eventually result in declines in fish and seabird populations. A rise of just two degrees prevents the vertical mixing of seawater from different strata. This restricts the availability of upwelling nutrients to phytoplankton. Since zooplankton, which feed upon phytoplankton, feed the rest of the food chain, the declines are inevitable.Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the statement that zooplankton feed upon phytoplankton?
Next up is a Role of a Statement question, so categorizing the argument's components is paramount here.Let's shorten the terms to zoo and phyto for easier handling. The phrase in question is preceded immediately by "Since," which tells us right off the bat that we're probably dealing with some form of evidence. The conclusion that follows is that "the declines are inevitable," and this refers to declines of fish and seabird populations mentioned earlier. So you should at least get a sense that zoo feeding on phyto in some way plays a key part in the process that inevitably leads to the decline. Scanning the choices for something that recognizes this phrase as support or evidence for a larger point narrows the choices down to [It helps show how global temperature...]. and [It is offered in support of the idea that...] and option [It helps show how global temperature...] hits the nail on the head: The global temperature changes affect phyto; zoo feed on phyto and the rest of the food chain feed on zoo. So zoo feeding on phyto is the mechanism that comes between global temperature changes and the decline of the larger fish and seabird populations.
Retailers that excel in neither convenience nor variety of merchandise tend not to be very successful. Yet many successful retailers excel in just one of the areas and meet competitors' standards for the other. Hence, a retailer's success need not depend on excellence in both areas.The structure of the reasoning in the argument above is most parallel to that in which one of the following?
Answer(s): A
Parallel Reasoning is up next, so let's see if comparing conclusions can help us to knock off some of these lengthy choices. The conclusion, signaled helpfully by "Hence," is that a thing (success) does not depend on something else (excellence in two areas). So we'll first scan the choices' conclusions for something that's not necessary for something else. Option [Runners who have only average speed and...] meets that requirement, but option [Bicyclists who have only average speed are...]'s conclusion involves the issue of what's true of most races, something not found in the original. Option [Excellence in a particular swimming stroke is...]'s conclusion discusses the likelihood of winning, which isn't parallel either, while option [Most plants that are neither ornamental nor...]'s conclusion takes the form "not all X and Y are Z," which is way off.
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.