Most people invest in the stock market without doing any research of their own. Some of these people rely solely on their broker's advice, whereas some others make decisions based merely on hunches. Other people do some research of their own, but just as often rely only on their broker or on hunches. Only a few always do their own research before investing. Nonetheless, a majority of investors in the stock market make a profit.If the statements in the passage are true, which one of the following must also be true?
Answer(s): A
As usual in an inference question, the stimulus is not an argument but a mere set of statements, these dealing with the different ways in which people make their investment decisions. Also as usual, not every statement is needed to lead to the correct answer, and here correct choice [Some people who make a profit on...] comes out of the first and last sentences only. Most investors don't do their own research (that's sentence 1) but most investors make a profit (that's sentence 5). Put them together, and it must be true that at least one investor who doesn't do his own research must make a profit; there's got to be some overlap between the two groups.
At some point in any discussion of societal justice, the only possible doctrinal defense seems to be "That is the way we do things here." Different communities that each recognize the dignity and equality of all citizens - will, for example, nevertheless settle on somewhat different provisions for the elderly. So we can see that general principles of justice are never sufficient to determine the details of social policies fixed within a particular state.Which one of the following statements, if true, most strengthens the argument concerning the general principles of justice?
Answer(s): D
This stimulus cuts a little deeper than most, philosophically speaking. The idea introduced in the first sentence and reinforced at the end is that any given state will have its own conception of "social justice" that goes beyond any universal set of principles about that which is just. The example they provide -- that two states may have different ideas about the just way to treat the elderly, even though both states operate under the same general ideals -- helps to clarify matters and also may help to identify [Two states founded on and adhering to...] as correct. In the same way as the stimulus example, it is revealing that two different states have different ideas about the just way to qualify for day care, even though their general principles of justice are the same.
The importance of the ozone layer to terrestrial animals is that it entirely filters out some wavelengths of light but lets others through. Holes in the ozone layer and the dangers associated with these holes are well documented. However, one danger that has not been given sufficient attention is that these holes could lead to severe eye damage for animals of many species.Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the statements above, if they are true?
Answer(s): E
Another Inference question in which the sentences don't add up to an argument. The right answer is perhaps most easily recognized once you see why the other four are wrong.F. is unwarranted because we have no information that all of the sunlight that might potentially damage the eyes is filtered out. The stimulus leaves room for a lot of other waves of sunlight that may harm the eyes. B. is way too comprehensive; the stimulus doesn't deal explicitly with the density of species distribution across the earth. The issue of immunity to eye damage through sunlight [Some species of animals have...] never comes up; and if nothing else, the word "most" kills option [A single wavelength of sunlight...] -- nothing in the stimulus refers to the majority of anything.
Some people claim that the reason herbs are not prescribed as drugs by licensed physicians is that the medical effectiveness of herbs is seriously in doubt. No drug can be offered for sale, however, unless it has regulatory- agency approval for medicinal use in specific illnesses or conditions. It costs about $200 million to get regulatory-agency approval for a drug, and only the holder of a patent can expect to recover such large expenses. Although methods of extracting particular substances from herbs can be patented, herbs themselves and their medicinal uses cannot be. Therefore, under the current system licensed physicians cannot recommend the medicinal use of herbs.The argument depends on the assumption that
Answer(s): C
The author commits a bit of a scope shift early on, one that needs to be repaired by the central assumption.She reports that people are questioning the reason why physicians don't prescribe herbs; they think it's because physicians doubt herbs' effectiveness. Next she says "No drug can be offered for sale, however, unless..." -- emphasis ours, to highlight the scope shift -- and the rest of the argument details the seemingly insuperable problems obstructing the offering of drugs for sale. But the issue was sheer prescription, or the word the author later uses, "recommendation." What about, one might ask in response, physicians prescribing free herbs? Couldn't they do so? Not to the author, they couldn't. So she must be assuming that a necessary condition of a physician's prescription be that the herb be offered as a "drug for sale." If option [a licensed physician cannot recommend...] is false -- if a physician can recommend an herb that's not a drug for sale -- then the argument falls apart.
Some people claim that the reason herbs are not prescribed as drugs by licensed physicians is that the medical effectiveness of herbs is seriously in doubt. No drug can be offered for sale, however, unless it has regulatory- agency approval for medicinal use in specific illnesses or conditions. It costs about $200 million to get regulatory-agency approval for a drug, and only the holder of a patent can expect to recover such large expenses. Although methods of extracting particular substances from herbs can be patented, herbs themselves and their medicinal uses cannot be. Therefore, under the current system licensed physicians cannot recommend the medicinal use of herbs.Which one of the following most accurately describes the argumentative technique used in the argument?
The author's sheer purpose is to counter the claim made in the first sentence by providing another reasonor "an alternative explanation," in option [questioning a claim about...] is words -- why physicians don't prescribe herbs.
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.