Maria won this year's local sailboat race by beating Sue, the winner in each of the four previous years. We can conclude from this that Maria trained hard.The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
Answer(s): C
The only way we can conclude anything about Maria's training from the fact that she beat four-time winner Sue, is if that level of training was necessary to the purpose. Which is what we get in option [Maria could beat a four- time...]. If this option is false--if Maria could beat Sue in some other way--then the conclusion would be devastated. All that the author needs to assume is the need for hard training on Maria's part; Sue's training level is beside the point, which knocks out options both [Sue did not train as...] and [If Sue trained hard...].Option [If Maria trained hard...] is the exact opposite of what we need, and a classic misunderstanding of LSAT formal logic. And that which is usually true [Sue is usually a faster sailboat...] cuts no ice in the face of Maria's victory this year.
Dietician: "The French Paradox" refers to the unusual concurrence in the population of France of a low incidence of heart disease and a diet high in fat. The most likely explanation is that the French consume a high quantity of red wine, which mitigates the ill effects of the fat they eat. So North Americans, with nearly the highest rate of heart disease in the world, should take a cue from the French: if you want to be healthier without cutting fat intake, drink more red wine.Which one of the following statements, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion of the dietician's argument?
Answer(s): B
Drink red wine, North America, if you want to keep eating fatty foods and yet get healthier. So sayeth the author. The evidence is the combination of low incidence of heart disease and high fat diet common to a nation of heavy red wine drinkers. Sounds miraculous. But if B. is true, then North Americans are certainly not going to get healthier, as the conclusion states, on a heavy red wine regimen.
We are in a new industrial revolution that requires management trainees to develop "action learning" from real experience within business and industry, rather than getting tied up with theory and academia. Business schools seem unable, on their own, to tear themselves away from their largely academic roots and move closer to the realities of today's business and industry; too often, trainees in business schools find themselves studying hypothetical cases instead of real ones. Furthermore, business schools have been slow to respond to the needs of business. Therefore, business schools should allow business executives to set curricula for management trainees that could then be taught by academics.The argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?
Answer(s): E
The conclusion, signaled by "Therefore," is that b-schools should allow business executives to set curricula.The evidence is wordy, but boils down to the idea that b-school academics are out of touch with the real world.That's as it may be, but to give over an academic function like curriculum design to a group of outsiders, it has to be true that those outsiders can bring to the task something unique, something that the academic types lack.That's what correct choice [Today's business executives have] states. If this option is false if academics have the same business insights that executives do -- then there's no need to turn curriculum design over to the outsiders.
Each of seven television programs -- H, J, L, P, Q, S, V -- is assigned a different rank: from first through seventh (from most popular to least popular). The ranking is consistent with the following conditions:J and L are each less popular than H.J is more popular than Q.S and V are each less popular than L.P and S are each less popular than Q.S is not seventh.Which one of the following could be the order of the programs, from most popular to least popular?
We usually pit each individual rule against the choices for acceptability questions, but here we can save even more time by using what we have learned in Step 4 of the Training Method. If we check first for "H--J--Q," we can throw out options [J, H, L, Q, V, S,P] and [B. H, L, Q, J, S, P, V] immediately. We can look for "H--L--V" in the remaining choices and thus knock out options [.H, J, V, L, Q, S,P] and [E. H, L, V, J, Q, P, S] violates Rule 5's proscription against ranking S seventh.
Each of seven television programs--H, J, L, P, Q, S, V--is assigned a different rank: from first through seventh (from most popular to least popular). The ranking is consistent with the following conditions:J and L are each less popular than H.J is more popular than Q.S and V are each less popular than L.P and S are each less popular than Q.S is not seventh.If J is more popular than L, and S is more popular than P, then which one of the following must be true of the ranking?
Answer(s): A
For the purposes of this question, we can refine the Master Sketch in line with the two new if's (take them one at a time) by showing that Q and L both rank below J and above S, and that P falls below S. The wild card is V, about which we (as usual) know nothing except that it falls below L on the sketchOption [J is second.] has it right and option [J is third.] has it wrong: J is second, not third. Either options [L is third.] or [Q is third.] is true -- one of the Q / L pair must be third -- but we cannot tell which. P is a contender for seventh place option [P is seventh], but then so is V.
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.