Studies have shown that photosynthesis, the process by which plants manufacture life-sustaining proteins from sunlight and carbon, is actually intensified if the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increased. Since carbon dioxide levels are increased by the burning of fossil fuels and by other human industrial activities, it is obvious that these industrial activities are purely beneficial to agriculture and those of us who depend upon it.The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?
Answer(s): B
The conclusion, beginning "It is obvious that," is a categorical value judgment: Industrial activities are wholly beneficial. Not only does option [Because exercise has been shown to...] is conclusion -- exercise is wholly beneficial -- parallel the original, but no other choice's even comes close. Option [Because a high fiber diet has been shown to...] is conclusion is a comparison -- such-and-such is even more healthful. And the conclusions of the other three are all recommendations -- that which someone "ought to do." As straightforwardly as that, option [Because exercise has been shown to...] must be correct, and we can cut past all the verbiage to discover it.
Raphaela: Forcing people to help others is morally wrong. Therefore, no government has the right to redistribute resources via taxation. Anyone who wants can help others voluntarily. Edward: Governments do have that right, insofar as they give people the freedom to leave and hence not to live under their authority.Raphaela and Edward disagree about the truth of which one of the following?
To Raphaela, government may not use taxation to redistribute income, period, because that policy is morally wrong and unnecessary to boot. To Edward, government may use taxation in that way, as long as a citizen is free to say that's it, I'm leaving, I won't be taxed in this fashion. So they would be at loggerheads over option [Any government that permits emigration...], Edward saying that the government has met the necessary condition for income redistribution through taxes, Raphaela denying that the government has any right to that policy whatsoever. Since option [Any government that does not permit...] is an example of a government that fails to meet Edward's precondition, and since Raphaela denies absolutely any government's right to use taxes for redistribution, option [Any government that does not permit...] is a statement on which they would surely agree. Voluntarism [Every government should allow...] is a given to Raphaela and of no evident interest to Edward. The likelihood is that both would be in sympathy with sentiment of option [Every government should allow...], but really, there's not enough evidence to be sure. Option [Any government that redistributes...] states Raphaela's position pretty well, but since Edward never mentions the freedom vs. necessity of people's helping others, it's quite possible that option [Any government that redistributes...] is a philosophical position that Edward might agree with and even approve of. And since Raphaela never mentions emigration and never responds to Edward, we cannot be sure of her views on government and emigration [Any government that forces...], though from the tenor of her comments she's more likely to agree with Edward on option [Any government that forces...] than disagree.
Galanin is a protein found in the brain. In an experiment, rats that consistently chose to eat fatty foods when offered a choice between lean and fatty foods were found to have significantly higher concentrations of galanin in their brains than did rats that consistently chose lean over fatty foods. These facts strongly support the conclusion that galanin causes rats to crave fatty foods.Which one of the following, if true, most supports the argument?
Answer(s): D
The author's alleged cause-and-effect (galanin causes a craving for fats in rats) is based on a correlation: The rats who opted for fat had more galanin than those who opted for lean. But who's to say that the fatty foods ingested by the former rats didn't account for the greater amounts of galanin? The experiment would better support causation if option [The rats that preferred fatty foods...] were true and the differing galanin levels were a preexisting condition.
Some government economists view their home countries as immune to outside influence. But economies are always open systems; international trade significantly affects prices and wages. Just as physicists learned the shortcomings of a mechanics based on idealizations such as the postulation of perfectly frictionless bodies, government economists must look beyond national borders if their nations' economies are to prosper.The argument's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
Answer(s): A
Why must government economists reach out and look to international trade for a country's prosperity? Why is that a necessity? Because no economy is an island "immune to outside influence"; international trade has a significant impact. Maybe so, but the argument only works if the author assumes that anything that has a significant impact on prosperity has to be examined by the economists. If option [A national economy cannot prosper...] is false, if an economy can prosper without all of its major influences coming under the government economists' scrutiny, then the need expressed by the conclusion is in serious doubt.
If relativity theory is correct, no object can travel forward in time at a speed greater than the speed of light. Yet quantum mechanics predicts that the tachyon, a hypothetical subatomic particle, travels faster than light. Thus, if relativity theory is correct, either quantum mechanics' prediction about tachyons is erroneous or tachyons travel backward in time.The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following arguments is most similar to that in the argument above
Answer(s): C
This one is a pip, because it looks long and forbidding and yet it can be assaulted and conquered in way under a minute. The conclusion is in either/or form: if a certain concept isn't wrong, then one or the other of two phenomena must be true. Well, only option [The human brain can survive without...] is conclusion is in that form. The conclusions of options [According to a magazine article...] and [Alexander the Great was buried either in...] are assertions of that which is "likely" to be true. Option [If the defendant committed the crime...] is a flat-out statement of fact ("The defendant is guilty"), while option [If the big bang theory is correct...] is a prediction ("The universe will stop expanding"). Regardless of what else is going on in the other choices, then, [The human brain can survive without...] has to be the correct answer.
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.