Editorialist: Some people argue that ramps and other accommodations for people using wheelchairs are unnecessary in certain business areas because those areas are not frequented by wheelchair users. What happens, however, is that once ramps and other accommodations are installed in these business areas, people who use wheelchairs come there to shop and work.Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the editorialist's statements?
Answer(s): E
The editorial boils down to two straightforward ideas: (1) It's alleged that some business areas don't need wheelchair accommodations because no one in wheelchairs goes there. (2) People in wheelchairs would go there if accommodations were provided. Put them together and you get [Some business areas are not frequented by...]. It must be true that the reason why at least the business areas of which the editorial speaks are devoid of folks in wheelchairs, is the lack of accommodations.
Many people think that the only way to remedy the problem of crime is by increasing the number of police officers, but recent statistics show that many major cities had similar ratios of police officers to citizens, yet diverged widely in their crime rates.The statistics cited function in the argument to
In response to the claim that having more police will reduce crime, the author offers statistics suggesting that crime varies widely among cities with the same police officer : citizen ratio. That juxtaposition can only be meant to suggest that, as [suggest that the number of...] says, the means of combatting crime must transcend the sheer issue of numbers of police, to include one or more other factors.
Scientists hoping to understand and eventually reverse damage to the fragile ozone layer in the Earth's upper atmosphere used a spacecraft to conduct crucial experiments. These experiments drew criticism from a group of environmentalists who observed that a single trip by the spacecraft did as much harm to the ozone layer as a year's pollution by the average factory, and that since the latter was unjustifiable so must be the former.The reasoning in the environmentalists' criticism is questionable because it
Answer(s): A
The ozone layer again. This spacecraft and the factory may produce equivalent harm to it, but the latter's is part of the everyday course of doing business, while the former's was specifically done in the service of finding a way to solve the ozone layer problem. By ignoring the differing contexts of the damage and the blatant moral difference between the two, the author has come up with a failed analogy.The author's conclusion isn't a generalization [justifies a generalization on...], so the problem can't be that he is using only one example to justify one. See [presupposes that experiments...], below for an example of a generalization. Option [fails to distinguish the goal of...] creates an irrelevant distinction between reversal of the ozone layer problem (which is pertinent to the argument) and prevention(which isn't). Contrary to option [attempts to compare two quantities that...] the spacecraft and factory are comparable: Each is a technological creation that causes harm to the ozone layer. The problem is that they're not completely comparable, which gets us back to option [treats as similar two cases that...]. Option [presupposes that experiments...] is generalization about experiments doesn't match the specific analysis of one situation that the author presents.
Curator: Since ancient times, the fine arts were developed and sustained with the aid of large subsidies from the aristocracies and religious institutions that were the public sectors of their day; it is doubtful that the arts would have survived without these subsidies. Clearly, contemporary societies should fulfill their obligation as stewards of cultural heritage without the assistance of aristocracies or religious institutions, so governments must help finance the maintenance,1 advancement, and enrichment of the fine arts today.The curator's argument depends on assuming which one of the following?
Answer(s): D
The only way you can conclude from the government's role as cultural steward that a government must subsidize the arts, is if being the cultural steward requires such subsidy. Option [Serving as stewards of...] connects the evidence and conclusion clauses of the curator's last sentence. If option [Serving as stewards of...] is false, then that role of cultural steward does not necessarily lead to the mandate of financial help that the curator alleges.
In a business whose owners and employees all belong to one family, the employees can be paid exceptionally low wages. Hence, general operating expenses are much lower than they would be for other business ventures, making profits higher. So a family business is a family's surest road to financial prosperity.The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
Answer(s): C
The alleged chain of phenomena (low family wages lower operating expenses higher profits greater family prosperity) hits a snag early on. Since a reasonable definition of "a family's financial prosperity" would have to touch on, at least, how much money the members of the family possess, there is a strong likelihood that running a family business in the way the author suggests would weaken the family's prosperity.
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.