The process by which nylon is manufactured releases large amounts of the gas nitrous oxide, which is harmful to the environment. Since the processing of cotton fiber does not release environmentally harmful gases, there would be less environmental damage done if cotton fiber rather than nylon were used to make products such as thread and rope.Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?
Answer(s): C
Now we're out to weaken an argument, so it pays to note its components while looking for gaps and possible alternatives.Making nylon involves the release of a gas that damages the environment. Making cotton fiber doesn't release gases that harm the environment, so the author concludes that there would be less environmental damage if cotton were used for certain products instead of nylon. To weaken this, we're looking for something that suggests that switching to cotton for certain products would not necessarily be a boon for the environment.
John: It was wrong of you to blame me for that traffic accident. You know full well that the accident was due to my poor vision, and I certainly cannot be held responsible for the fact that my vision has deteriorated. Michiko: But I can hold you responsible for your hazardous driving, because you know how poor your vision is. People are responsible for the consequences of actions that they voluntarily undertake, if they know that those actions risk such consequences.The principle that Michiko invokes, if established, would justify which one of the following judgments?
Answer(s): A
It's hard to see how John is relevant here at all -- the stem tells us to apply the principle in Michiko's argument to the scenarios in the choices, so it makes sense to jump right to his argument to locate the principle in question. If we need John, we know where to find him. A principle is a general statement of what ought to be the case, and Michiko's second sentence has principle written all over it: If you voluntarily take an action that you know will involve some risks, then you're responsible for the consequences -- on its face, not such an unusual proposition. So in evaluating each choice, we'll be looking for one of two things: 1) a person (as we see, Colleen in all five cases) who knows what could result from what she's about to do and thus is held responsible for her actions; or 2) a person who does not know the possible repercussions and is therefore not held accountable. Either scenario would be justified by Michiko's principle.
Psychiatrist: Take any visceral emotion you care to consider. There are always situations in which it is healthy to try to express that emotion. So, there are always situations in which it is healthy to try to express one's anger.The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
Answer(s): B
An assumption is necessary here in order for the conclusion to stand, and a quick glance at the choices clues us in that this is most likely a "connect the dots" type of problem, being that each one is concerned with linking various elements that we'll no doubt find in the passage. We're told that visceral emotions are always in some cases healthy to try to express; therefore there are cases in which it is healthy to try to express anger. Well, that works only if anger is a visceral emotion, right? "Anger" in the conclusion appears out of nowhere, and needs to be connected to "visceral emotion" from the evidence in order for the conclusion to work.
Cigarette companies claim that manufacturing both low-and high-nicotine cigarettes allows smokers to choose how much nicotine they want. However, a recent study has shown that the levels of nicotine found in the blood of smokers who smoke one pack of cigarettes per day are identical at the end of a day's worth of smoking, whatever the level of nicotine in the cigarettes they smoke.Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the finding of the nicotine study?
Here's a popular LSAT topic: cigarettes. And we know from the stem that we're looking for a choice that helps make a study's finding more understandable. "Explain" questions are a subset of Paradox questions, and we shouldn't be surprised if the finding is unusual or puzzling. And so it is, as the ever-helpful Contrast Keyword "However" suggests. By producing both low- and high-nicotine cigarettes, the cigarette companies think they're offering smokers a choice as to how much nicotine they wish to consume. But the study found equal levels of nicotine in the blood of smokers who smoke one pack a day, no matter what the level of nicotine in their cigarettes. This is certainly hard to understand, but perhaps you picked up on the shift between nicotine consumed and nicotine found in the blood--perhaps there's something about the latter that evens things out no matter how much nicotine is initially imbibed. That's worth keeping in mind as we hit the choices, and look...
Editorial: The premier's economic advisor assures her that with the elimination of wasteful spending the goal of reducing taxes while not significantly decreasing government services can be met. But the premier should not listen to this advisor, who in his youth was convicted of embezzlement. Surely his economic advice is as untrustworthy as he is himself, and so the premier should discard any hope of reducing taxes without a significant decrease in government services.Which one of the following is a questionable argumentative strategy employed in the editorial's argument?
A Flaw question -- maybe one the classics, maybe not. Let's see. The first sentence is a bit convoluted, but hopefully you didn't get overly bogged down in it because the rest of the passage contains the real action. The premier, according to the editorialist, shouldn't listen to the advisor because he was once convicted of embezzlement, and his advice is therefore likely to be as shady as he is. Who a there! That is a classic flaw, after all, as you doubt know that an argument needs evidence to support it other than a personal attack on an individual. This is what's sometimes called an "ad hominem" attack, an attack on a person's character rather than on his position. Scanning the choices with this prephrase in mind yields C.: The editorial attacks the source of a claim rather than the claim itself.
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.