Most people who shop for groceries no more than three times a month buy prepared frozen dinners regularly. In Hallstown most people shop for groceries no more than three times a month. Therefore, in Hallstown most people buy prepared frozen dinners regularly.Which one of the following arguments has a flawed pattern of reasoning most like the flawed reasoning in the argument above?
Answer(s): D
We've already seen a standard Parallel Reasoning question, so not surprisingly we come upon the "mimic the logical flaw" variety, and the same drill applies: Compare conclusions to narrow the choices down, and then look further. The conclusion is fairly obviously signaled by the ubiquitous Keyword "Therefore," and let's restate it in general terms: In a certain place, most people do X (buy prepared frozen dinners regularly). Happily, all of the wrong choices fall on this count alone; that is, they all fail to mimic this simple structure in their conclusions.Options [It is clear that most drivers in West Island are safe...], [It is clear that Fernando's friends usually drive to...] and [It is clear that most of Janine's friends are good drivers, since...] all conclude something about a certain type of person instead of the more general "most people" in a certain place: Option [It is clear that most drivers in West Island are safe...] concludes something about most drivers; Option [It is clear that Fernando's friends usually drive to...] about Fernando's friends; and option [It is clear that most of Janine's friends are good drivers, since...] is about most of Janine's friends. Option [It is clear that John cannot drive, since he...] concludes something about a specific person, John, which is even further away from "most people do X."
Editorial: This political party has repeatedly expressed the view that increasing spending on education is a worthy goal. On other occasions, however, the same party has claimed that the government should not increase spending on education. So this party's policy is clearly inconsistent.The argument in the editorial depends on assuming which one of the following?
Another Assumption question to chew on, and not surprisingly, there's a scope shift that needs to be cleared up before the conclusion that the party's policy is inconsistent is viable. Why the inconsistency, according to the editorialist? Because the party has said that increasing spending on education is a good thing, yet at other times has claimed that the government shouldn't increase education spending. But noting the worthiness of a cause and suggesting it be acted upon are two different things; it's possible that despite thinking that the cause is worthy, other considerations cause the party to claim the government shouldn't do anything about it. In order for these positions to be truly inconsistent, as the editorialist contends, we need a more precise definition of inconsistency that shows these two positions to be mutually exclusive. Option [A consistent political policy does not hold that...] accomplishes this, by implying that a political policy is not consistent if it holds that a worthy action should not be done.The editorialist doesn't actually say this, but must assume this is the case in order for the conclusion to stand. If you weren't able to prephrase this answer, don't fret -- this was a tough one. But hopefully you saw the merits of option [A consistent political policy does not hold that...]. When you got to it, or even confirmed it using the Denial Test (see second bullet point below).
Science journalist: Brown dwarfs are celestial objects with more mass than planets but less mass than stars. They are identified by their mass and whether or not lithium is present in their atmospheres. Stars at least as massive as the Sun have lithium remaining in their atmospheres because the mixing of elements in their internal nuclear furnaces is incomplete. Stars with less mass than the Sun have no lithium because the element has been fully mixed into their nuclear furnaces and consumed. A brown dwarf does not have a fully functional nuclear furnace and so its lithium cannot be consumed.Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the science journalist's statements?
Answer(s): C
For Inference questions, we recommend that you focus on the most concrete statements because they're the ones that are most likely to lead to deductions or even directly to the right answer. Happily, that's the case here.We get a definition of brown dwarfs, followed by lots of information on stars. The star info might have thrown you off a bit, considering that brown dwarf shave less mass than stars and therefore cannot be stars themselves. But if you hang in there, the journalist gets back to brown dwarfs, and the most definitive statement comes at the end: A brown dwarf's lithium cannot be consumed. Well, at least that's pretty simple -- it means that brown dwarfs have lithium. Option [No celestial object that has no lithium in...], after a bit of translation, says that "any celestial object that has no lithium in its atmosphere is not a brown dwarf." Well, if brown dwarfs do have lithium.
Native speakers perceive sentences of their own language as sequences of separate words. But this perception is an illusion. This is shown by the fact that travelers who do not know a local language hear an unintelligible, uninterrupted stream of sound, not sentences with distinct words.Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Answer(s): E
One last Assumption question to round out the section, and the stimulus is fairly short. "This is shown by the fact that" is a long winded way of saying "here comes evidence for the conclusion in the previous sentence." The author concludes that native speakers' perception of sentences as a string of individual words is an illusion, based on evidence that traveling non-speakers don't hear it that way. But who's to say that the travelers have it right? Maybe this perception is not illusory, and those who don't speak the local language are simply unable to perceive sentences as sequences of separate words. The author takes for granted, without providing any justification, that the travelers' perception in this area is somehow more valid than that of the native speakers.Option [Native speakers' perceptions of their...] captures the gist of this assumption. If we deny this option, and say that the native speakers' take on the situation is the more accurate one, then the conclusion that their perception is illusory would not be supported at all by the evidence given.
Of the eight students -- George, Helen, Irving, Kyle, Lenore, Nina, Olivia, and Robert -- in a seminar, exactly six will give individual oral reports during three consecutive days -- Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Exactly two reports will be given each day -- one in the morning and one in the afternoon -- according to the following conditions:Tuesday is the only day on which George can give a report.Neither Olivia nor Robert can give an afternoon report. If Nina gives a report, then on the next day Helen and Irving must both give reports, unless Nina's report is given on Wednesday.Which one of the following could be the schedule of students' reports?
If we scan for George appearing on any day other than Tuesday (Rule 1), we see that option [Mon. morning:Olivia; Mon...] is incorrect (it schedules George for Wednesday).If we scan for Olivia and Robert in afternoon slots (Rule2), we knock out options [Mon. morning: Irving...] and [Mon. morning: Helen...] respectively. Of the remaining two choices, one is possible and the other not, and we have only one rule left. So let's scope out Nina.In option [Mon. morning: Lenore...] Nina doesn't appear at all, which seems O.K. In option [Mon. morning:Nina...] Nina appears on Monday - and whoops, there it is: Rule 3 would require Helen and Irving on Tuesday's schedule, and while option [Mon. morning: Nina...] does have Nina precede Helen and Irving, the scheduling doesn't quite work.
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.