Some vegetarians have argued that there are two individually sufficient reasons for not eating meat--one based on health considerations, and the other based on the aversion to living at the expense of other conscious creatures. But suppose that eating meat were essential to good health for humans. Then it would be less clear that an aversion to living at the expense of other conscious creatures is enough of a reason to stop eating meat.Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the supposition that eating meat is essential to good health?
Answer(s): D
Here's a Role of a Statement question, which means that we have to focus on the context of a particular idea; in this case, a supposition. We're given two independent sufficient reasons vegetarians advance for not eating meat: it's not healthy, and it's not good to live at the expense of other creatures. "Sufficient" here is meant to imply that either reason can standalone as a reason to avoid meat. But suppose eating meat were essential to good health, says the author. "Then..."-- well, how convenient! The author follows the supposition in question with the word "Then," which clearly signals that what's coming up next must be the reason the supposition was included. Then, claims, the author, it wouldn't be as clear that the other reason, the aversion to living at other creatures' expense, would be a sufficient reason to avoid meat. So by casting doubt on one reason, the author tries to weaken the other reason as well.
The increasing complexity of scientific inquiry has led to a proliferation of multiauthored technical articles. Reports of clinical trials involving patients from several hospitals are usually coauthored by physicians from each participating hospital. Likewise, physics papers reporting results from experiments using subsystems developed at various laboratories generally have authors from each laboratory.If all of the statements above are true, which one of the following must be true?
Answer(s): B
A standard Inference question comes at us next, so as usual we'll look to interpret and combine statements.Technical articles written by multiple authors are increasing due to the increasing complexity of science. Fair enough. An example of doctors from different hospitals co-authoring such articles is then given; no problem.Another example involving physics papers is then offered, showing how authors from different laboratories collaborate on those. No obvious connection jumps out, so let's go right to the choices looking for the one that must be true.
Helena: Extroversion, or sociability, is not biologically determined. Children whose biological parents are introverted, when adopted by extroverts, tend to be more sociable than children of introverted parents who are not adopted.Jay: Your conclusion does not follow. Some of these children adopted by extroverts remain introverted no matter how young they are when adopted.Jay's response suggests that he interpreted Helena's remarks to mean that
One short dialogue left to go, and we're asked for Jay's interpretation of Helena's remarks, as evidenced by his response. Helena's argument relates to the age-old nature/nurture controversy: Since kids born to introverts (non-social people) are generally more social when raised by extroverts (more social folks), Helena concludes that sociability is not hereditary; that is, is not biologically determined. Jay takes exception to her conclusion, stating that some children of introverts adopted by extroverts remain introverted. But to say, as Jay does, that some adopted kids will remain introverted doesn't rule out the possibility that extroversion is still primarily a learned trait. Helena never argues that every single kid born to introverted parents will blossom into a social butterfly if adopted by extroverts, but evidently, in attempting to counter her argument, that's what Jay heard her say. He distorts her argument into a position that's much more extreme than she intended, entirely ignoring the phrase "tend to be..." Helena's argument doesn't preclude the possibility that some adopted kids will remain introverted. Simply stating that some of these kids exist counters her argument only if she stated that biology has absolutely nothing to do with sociability. In advancing his supposed refutation, that's evidently what Jay heard.
Marmosets are the only primates other than humans known to display a preference for using one hand rather than the other. Significantly more marmosets are left-handed than are right-handed. Since infant marmosets engage in much imitative behavior, researchers hypothesize that it is by imitation that infant marmosets learn which hand to use, so that offspring reared by left-handed parents generally share their parents' handedness.Which one of the following, if true, most supports the researchers' hypothesis?
Answer(s): E
The hypothesis that the marmosets pick up their handedness by imitation hinges on the assumption of a causal link between the infants' handedness and the handedness of the adults allegedly being imitated.
Sheila: It has been argued that using computer technology to add color to a movie originally filmed in black and white damages the integrity of the original film. But no one argues that we should not base a movie on a novel or a short story because doing so would erode the value of the book or story. The film adaptation of the written work is a new work that stands on its own. Judgments of it do not reflect on the original. Similarly, the colorized film is a new work distinct from the original and should be judged on its own merit. It does not damage the integrity of the original black-and-white film.Sheila's argument uses which one of the following techniques of argumentation?
Answer(s): A
"Similarly" hands you this one on a platter. Sheila's support for movie colorization rests on the analogy she perceives between movies and prose. Works in each medium, she argues, should be considered unique unto themselves, and not as assaults on the integrity of any source material.Sheila's example is a parallel one, not a piece of counter evidence [It offers a counterexample to...] Popular opinion as to colorization option [It appeals to popular opinion on...] goes unmentioned. Sheila offers nothing but value judgments, so she is not presenting a set of facts [It draws an inference from a...] nor can she possibly be making a distinction between value judgments and facts [It distinguishes facts from...]. Another problem with E. is that the general principle to which it alludes -- namely, that works of art are distinct entities -- is never stated but rather is inferable (by us) from Sheila's two analogous cases.
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.