Juan: Unlike the ancient Olympic games on which they are based, the modern Olympics include professional as well as amateur athletes. But since amateurs rarely have the financial or material resources available to professionals, it is unlikely that the amateurs will ever offer a serious challenge to professionals in those Olympic events in which amateurs compete against professionals. Hence, the presence of professional athletes violates the spirit of fairness essential to the games.Michiko: But the idea of the modern Olympics is to how case the world's finest athletes, regardless of their backgrounds or resources. Hence, professionals should be allowed to compete.Which one of the following most accurately expresses the point at issue between Juan and Michiko?
Answer(s): A
Since both Juan and Michiko helpfully use the Conclusion Keyword "Hence," we can readily see that Juan's point is that pros should be barred from the Olympics while Michiko thinks otherwise. That each speaker mentions Olympic ideals, whether of fairness (Juan) or of intent (Michiko), serves to bolster [whether the participation of both amateur and...] as their point at issue.Michiko never mentions the ancient games at all, so option [whether both amateur and professional athletes...] cannot be a point at issue between her and Juan. Neither can option [whether the athletes who compete in the modern...]., since it's an assertion that Michiko believes and that Juan concedes (when he argues that the amateurs are no match for the pros). Finally, Michiko takes her stand "regardless of [the athletes'] backgrounds or resources," so neither option [whether any amateur athletes have...] nor [whether governments sponsor professional as...], each of which raises those very background and resource issues, will pass muster as the issue over which Michiko and Juan go toe to toe.
Juan: Unlike the ancient Olympic games on which they are based, the modern Olympics include professional as well as amateur athletes. But since amateurs rarely have the financial or material resources available to professionals, it is unlikely that the amateurs will ever offer a serious challenge to professionals in thoseOlympic events in which amateurs compete against professionals. Hence, the presence of professional athletes violates the spirit of fairness essential to the games.Michiko: But the idea of the modern Olympics is to how case the world's finest athletes, regardless of their backgrounds or resources. Hence, professionals should be allowed to compete.Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines Juan's argument?
Answer(s): D
F. directly severs the link between training resources and Olympic performance in the modern era. As a result, Juan's pessimism that Olympic amateurs can never seriously challenge pros because of the latter's material advantages is highly unjustified. If option [In general, amateur athletes tend to...] is true, then the pros may still have an edge over the amateurs, but not for the reason that Juan proposes.
A recent national study of the trash discarded in several representative areas confirmed that plastics constitute a smaller proportion of all trash than paper products do, whether the trash is measured by weight or by volume. The damage that a given weight or volume of trash does to the environment is roughly the same whether the trash consists of plastics or paper products. Contrary to popular opinion, therefore, the current use of plastics actually does less harm to the environment nationwide than that of paper products.The main conclusion of the argument is that
Answer(s): E
Any prediction of the right answer has to follow from the blatant Conclusion Keyword "Therefore." The statement that follows, that plastics are currently less environmentally harmful than paper, is simply and properly rewritten by option [at this time more harm is being done to...]. Option [plastics constitute a smaller proportion of...] is cited in the stimulus's first sentence as a piece of evidence. Option [the ratio of weight to volume is...] raises an issue (weight vs. volume) that the stimulus's first two sentences discard as irrelevant.The author's aim is to use the truth to counter public opinion, not to persuade us of it [popular opinion regards the use of...]. And option [contrary to popular opinion, a shift away from...] concern with benefits and alternative behaviors couldn't be further removed from the scope of the argument.
A recent national study of the trash discarded in several representative areas confirmed that plastics constitute a smaller proportion of all trash than paper products do, whether the trash is measured by weight or by volume. The damage that a given weight or volume of trash does to the environment is roughly the same whether the trash consists of plastics or paper products. Contrary to popular opinion, therefore, the current use of plastics actually does less harm to the environment nationwide than that of paper products.Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
As noted above, the conclusion is a broad one: Environmentally speaking, the use of paper causes more harm than does the use of plastic. But all of the author's evidence concerns the environmental impact of paper trash and plastic trash. What about paper vs. plastic production, which clearly falls under the scope of general use? The only way that the argument can work is if the production issue is taken off the table, and that's what option [The production of any paper product is] does, by indicting the production of paper as causing more damage than the production of plastic.
Consultant: Most workers do not have every item they produce judged for quality, but each piece a freelance writer authors is evaluated. That is why freelance writers produce such high-quality work.The consultant's statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?
Answer(s): B
Rather than predict anything, we can simply check each choice against the stimulus and look for that which must be true. Option [A piece authored by...] need not, since the strictness of evaluation is never mentioned and hence need not be the reason for freelancers' high-quality work. But option [By having every piece of...] echoes the author's overall point. The workers in this option is talking about are the freelance writers. They, at least, are always evaluated and "that is why" they produce (they "are caused to produce") high-quality work.The wise student gives at least a cursory glance at those that remain. Option [No other workers produce higher...] makes an irrelevant and unwarranted distinction between freelancers and others; for all we know, other types of workers may produce even better work than do freelance writers. And option [Only freelance writers have...] is a flagrant misreading of sentence 1's second clause. The statement "All freelance writers are evaluated" cannot be read to mean "Only freelance writers are evaluated," as option [Only freelance writers have...] would have it. Finally, the author takes no position on the quality of workers other than freelance writers; notwithstanding that most workers don't enjoy quality control, they still might produce plenty of high- quality 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.