Detective: Because the embezzler must have had specialized knowledge and access to internal financial records, we can presume that the embezzler worked for XYZ Corporation as either an accountant or an actuary. But an accountant would probably not make the kind of mistakes in ledger entries that led to the discovery of the embezzlement. Thus it is likely that the embezzler is one of the actuaries.Each of the following weakens the detective's argument EXCEPT:
Answer(s): D
Not too swift this detective, if the stem is any clue. Four weakeners means there are lots of ways to attack this argument, so hopefully you kept your eye out for possible loopholes. This nasty business of embezzlement is an inside job, states the detective. Because the embezzler must have had special knowledge and access to certain records, the detective thinks the perpetrator must be either an XYZ accountant or actuary. Then she rules out the accountants on account of the fact that they're not likely to make the kind of mistake found in the ledger, and the conclusion is predictable: The embezzler is probably an actuary. Well, there are a lot of possible holes here, and hopefully one or two "But what if...?" scenarios flitted through your mind. Any number of things can foil this argument, and maybe you came up with some on your own. You're not likely to prephrase all four weakeners, but you should at least have a general idea of what you're looking for before hitting the choices -- something that makes it more likely that the embezzler is not really an XYZ actuary.
Until 1985 all commercial airlines completely replenished the cabin air in planes in flight once every 30 minutes. Since then the rate has been once every hour. The less frequently cabin air is replenished in a plane in flight, the higher the level of carbon dioxide in that plane and the easier it is for airborne illnesses to be spread.Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?
Answer(s): E
Next up is another Inference question, and the stimulus, not surprisingly, consists of a bunch of statements but no real argument perse. Let's see what we can deduce from them. Up until 1985, cabin air in commercial plane flights was replenished every half hour; since then, every hour. Two things are correlated with less frequent replenishings: higher CO2 levels, and greater ease for illness to be spread. (Note that technically, we can't tell whether these two things are related to each other; maybe increased CO2 makes it easier for illness to spread, but maybe these things are independent results. That's likely to be the basis of a wrong choice or two.) A simple prephrase here is possible: We can combine the statements to infer that since 1985, commercial plane rides have contained more CO2 than they did before, and that it's also easier to contract airborne illnesses on them. Let's look for either of those things among the choices.
There is no genuinely altruistic behavior. Everyone needs to have a sufficient amount of self-esteem, which crucially depends on believing oneself to be useful and needed. Behavior that appears to be altruistic can be understood as being motivated by the desire to reinforce that belief, a clearly self-interested motivation.A flaw in the argument is that it
Another chance to debunk an argument, and this one starts out with a categorical assertion that genuine altruistic behavior is a hoax. The evidence is that everyone needs self-esteem, and that requires the belief that one is useful and needed. What appears to be altruistic behavior, therefore, can be understood to be motivated by people's selfish desire to see themselves as useful. A bit convoluted, eh? This is not an easy flaw to prephrase, but it turns out that the problem lies in the phrase "can be understood as being motivated..." The author doesn't actually say that selfish motivations definitely underlie altruistic behavior; he says that the altruistic behaviors can be understood to be based on selfish motivations. That's a subtle but crucial difference.F. picks up on this notion, pointing out that the author assumes that just because one can understand ("interpret") altruistic acts in a certain way (as "self-interested"), they actually are that way. Not one of the more obvious flaws, but 1) it works, and 2) the rest don't.
Current maps showing the North American regions where different types of garden plants will flourish are based on weather data gathered 60 years ago from a few hundred primitive weather stations. New maps are now being compiled using computerized data from several thousand modern weather stations and input from home gardeners across North America. These maps will be far more useful.Each of the following, if true, helps to support the claim that the new maps will be more useful EXCEPT:
Answer(s): B
Here's a "Strengthen EXCEPT" question, so we'll look to get as much as we can out of the stimulus and then evaluate the choices, eliminating the ones that help the argument while looking for the odd-man-out. The stem even provides the conclusion the new maps will be more useful. Here's the story: Current maps indicating where certain garden plants will grow in North America are based on old weather data gathered from a few hundred primitive weather stations. For the new maps, the data is computerized and gathered from thousands of "modern" stations as well as from home gardeners. Well, something about these new factors must make the new maps better, although the author never explicitly connects these things to the idea that the maps will be more useful. At least some of the strengtheners will undoubtedly cement this connection, while the right answer will be outside the scope or possibly even weaken the argument.
A smoker trying to quit is more likely to succeed if his or her doctor greatly exaggerates the dangers of smoking. Similar strategies can be used to break other habits. But since such strategies involve deception, individuals cannot easily adopt them unless a doctor or some other third party provides the warning.Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Next we're out for an assumption, so let's paraphrase this short argument and see if we can spot the missing link. We're told that it will be easier for a smoker to quit if the dangers of smoking are exaggerated by his or her doctor. But since this involves deception, the author states that individuals need a doctor or some third party to pull this off. Since the author argues that doctors or others are necessary to pull off the deception, he must believe that one can't successfully deceive oneself. Scanning the choices for something along these lines, option [People generally do not find it...] stands out. Applying the Denial Test, if people can easily deceive themselves, then why are doctors or third parties necessary to provide the warning? If we deny option [People generally do not find it...], the argument falls apart, which confirms that it is an assumption necessary to the argument.
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.