Palmistry -- the art of understanding an individual's present personality and predicting his or her future state through the study of the shape, size, and lines of the hands -- is an unscientific technique. In a study, most palmists' assertions about the present financial status of the individuals in the sample population were found to be mere intelligent guesses.Which one of the following is an assumption necessary to the argument?
Answer(s): B
Argument constructionPalmistry is the art of understanding an individual's personality and predicting his future state through the study of the shape, size, and lines of the hands. But it is an unscientific technique. Many palmists' predictions about the present financial status of the individuals in the sample population were purely smart guesstimates and not scientific deductions.Predict an AssumptionAs per the given definition, Palmistry is the art of:1. Understanding the personality2. Foretelling the future stateOf an individual.By seeing your hand, a palmist will both:be able to understand the kind of person that you are today (A) and predict what's going to happen in your future (B)The Conclusion is: Palmistry is Unscientific.Why: Because the study shows that Palmists' assertions about the present Financial Status failed (were merely intelligent guesses).Predictive Assumption(s): Here are the assumptions that this argument makes:Predictive Assumption 1: The study is correct, with no major flaw in its design or calculations.Predictive Assumption 2: Financial status is related to personality (Palmistry is about understanding the present personality whereas the study tested assertions about present financial status. So, the researchers must have thought that present financial status is related to/ a part of personality).Predictive Assumption 3: If Palmistry cannot do A, it cannot do B too. (Though the report only concerns a present attribute of a person (his present financial status), the author makes a conclusion about Palmistry in general, including its ability to predict future states.)Predictive Assumption 4: Scientific things never behave unexpectedly.Answer choices [Individuals with the same financial status usually do not have a similar personality.] This is incorrect. Palmistry seeks to understand the (present) personality, not the financial status, of an individual. The relation between personalities of individuals with same financial status, or between the financial statuses of individuals with a similar personality is not covered or hinted at in the argument.[There is a stable correlation between an individual's personality...] This is correct. This matches our second predictive assumption.[Palmistry is an effective means of predicting how personalities...] This is incorrect. This is irrelevant.[There are numerous other methods for understanding the personality...] This is incorrect. This is out of scope.The argument is not concerned about the other techniques.[The financial future of a person is one of the most important concerns that palmists address.] This is incorrect.This is irrelevant. The argument is not concerned about the type of issues palmists address.
Each year, the number of students caught copying in examination is nearly the same as the number of students caught driving without a valid driving license and the number of students caught traveling without a valid ticket. Therefore, the outcry about copying in examination ought to be put to rest, as the act of copying in examination is in fact almost as mundane as the acts of driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket.Which one of the following, if true, would most effectively undermine the author's argument?
Argument constructionThe argument attempts to convince that since the number of students caught copying in examination each year is nearly the same as the number of students caught driving without a valid driving license each year, and the number of students caught traveling without a valid ticket, the uproar about the act of copying in examination is not required. Copying in examination in fact almost as commonplace as the acts of driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket.Conclusion: The act of copying in examination is in fact almost as mundane as the acts of driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket.Predict a WeakenerWe need to weaken the conclusion that the act of copying in examination is almost as ordinary as the acts of driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket. We must cast a doubt over the comparison between the act of copying in examination and the acts of driving without a valid driving license and traveling without a valid ticket. The weakener of the argument would be something that shows Copying in Examinations to be extraordinary (in some respect) as compared to the other two acts. Though all the three acts mentioned attract punishments, do the quantum or the degree of punishments differ? Certainly, they do! The punishments for driving without a valid driving license and traveling without a valid ticket are usually monetary; however, those for copying in examination could be: disgrace, discredit for the test, reexamination, repetition of the course, debarring from the course, and in the extreme case, criminal prosecution. These are certainly severer than the monitory punishments. And this makes the act of copying in examination incomparable to that of driving without a valid driving license and traveling without a valid ticket.Predictive Weakener: The consequences for the act of copying in examination are severer than those for driving without a valid driving license and traveling without a valid ticket.Answer choices explanation:[Although the number of students caught driving without a valid driving license ...] This is incorrect. The statement does not talk about the act of copying in examination. It tries to make a relationship between the other two acts, which are not the focus of the conclusion.[The punishments upon being caught copying in examination...] This is correct. This matches our predictive weakener.[Fewer students would take their chances with driving without a valid driving license ...] This is incorrect. The premise mentions that the number of students caught each year for the three acts of wrongdoings is similar.This option states that there are fewer students who are inclined to try driving without a valid driving license and traveling without a valid ticket than are inclined to try copying in examination. So, we can infer that there is a relatively greater number of students who copy in examinations. Thus, this option rather bolsters the claim that the act of copying in examination is in fact almost as mundane as (or, in fact, more mundane than) the acts of driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket. It is rather a strengthener.[Cheating in general--including copying in examination--is more ...] This is incorrect. This is not a weakener.It is a generic statement and lacks reasoning to weaken the argument.[The prevalence of wrongdoings such as copying in examination...] This is incorrect. From the premise, we know that the number of students caught copying in examination is similar to the number driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket. However, the probability of getting caught for each of these three wrongdoings may be different. For example, copying in examinations may be more strictly checked than traveling without a valid ticket. Therefore, the prevalence of the three wrongdoings may be different. This option does not give us any information to mark out copying in examinations as in any way extraordinary or distinct from the other two wrongdoings.
If Amy were a tall and fair actress from the mainstream film industry, she would have won the best actress award. She is not a tall and fair actress since she has not won the best actress award.The conclusion above is flawed because the author does not consider that Amy could
Answer(s): C
Argument constructionThis is a typical conditional statement. If then argument with its contrapositive.We have the conditional statement:P: Amy were a tall and fair actress from the mainstream film industry.Q: She would have won the best actress award.P -> QThus, the contrapositive statement would be:~Q -> ~P~Q: Amy has not won the best actress award.~P: She is not a tall and fair actress from mainstream film industry.In words:If Amy has not won the best actress award, she is not a tall and fair actress from the mainstream film industry.We can rewrite the contrapositive statement using since as:Since Amy has not won the best actress award, she is not a tall and fair actress from the mainstream film industry./p>The statement can also be rewritten asAmy is not a tall and fair actress from the mainstream film industry since she has not won the best actress award.Now let's bring out the statement given in the argument.She (Amy) is not a tall and fair actress since she has not won the best actress award.Predict a FlawComparing the two statements, we find that 'from the mainstream film industry,' is missing in the argument statement. Thus, this makes the conclusion unsound. Amy could still be a tall and fair actress but from a non- mainstream industry.Predictive Flaw: Amy could be a tall and fair actress from a non-mainstream industry.Answer choices explanation:[have won an award for scriptwriting] This is incorrect. This is irrelevant. The premise is that Amy has not won the best actress award. Scriptwriting domain is not relevant.[be a singer from the mainstream film industry] This is incorrect. Singing domain is also irrelevant.[be a tall and fair actress from a non-mainstream film industry] This is correct. This matches our predictive flaw.[be an actress belonging to a mainstream theatre group] This is incorrect. First, it misses that the qualification 'tall and fair'; second, we cannot conclude that the 'mainstream theatre group' is not a part of mainstream film industry.[have won an award for some other mainstream work] This is incorrect. All we know that she has not won the best actress award. Rest is not relevant.
A hundred students of Midtown college were asked to pick their preference for one of three genres of movies:romantic, drama, and tragedy. Each of them picked one of the three genres. More than half picked romantic, more than a quarter picked drama and at least one picked tragedy. When asked about the genre of the movie Titanic, however, more than three quarter viewed it as a romantic movie.If all of the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?
Answer(s): D
Argument constructionThe survey covers 100 students in Midtown college. They were asked to pick their preference for one of the three genres of movies: romantic, drama, and tragedy. More than 50% picked romantic, more than 25% picked drama and at least 1 student picked tragedy. When asked about the movie Titanic, however, more than 75% viewed it as a romantic movie.Predict an InferencePresenting the information mathematically will help.Say R represents Romantic genre; D represents Drama genre; and T represents Tragedy genre.Let's first find out the minimum values of R, D and T.It is given that there are 100 students, thus, the percent figures represent the actual numbers.We know thatMore than 50% picked romantic, thus R 51;More than 25% picked drama, thus D 26;At least 1 student picked tragedy, thus T 1Let's now find out the maximum values of R, D and T. Remember that a student could choose only one of the three genres, and every student did choose one of these three genres. So, the sum of R, D and T would be 100.We know thatMaximum value of R would happen when the values of D and T are minimum. So, it would be 100 - 26 - 1= 73Likewise, Maximum value of D would be 100 -51 - 1 = 48Maximum value of T would be 100 - 51 - 26 = 2351 R 7326 D 481 T 23We have to see in how many ways the number of votes for Titanic viewed as a romantic movie can be more than 75%.Since there can be many inferences, we need to see the option statements to get the correct answer.Answer choices explanation:[Only the students whose preferences were romantic and drama genres of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie.] This is incorrect. This is not necessarily true. Even some students from each genre can make the figure more than 75%. For example, 60 students who voted R, 30 students who voted D and 5 students who voted T could have viewed Titanic as a romantic movie. Further, since 'more than 75%' can stretch up to 100%, even all the 100 students covered in the survey can view Titanic as a romantic movie.[Only the students whose preferences were romantic and tragedy genres of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie.] This is incorrect. For the same reasoning, as with option [Only the students whose preferences were romantic and drama genres ...] this option is incorrect.[At least one student from each genre of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie.] This is incorrect. This is not necessarily true. If the maximum number of students (73) whose preference is romantic movies and the minimum number of students (26) whose preference is drama movies view Titanic as a romantic movie, the total number of students equals 73 + 26 = 96 number of students > 75%. So, even if none of the students whose preference is tragedy movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie, the given survey fact - more than 75% of students view Titanic as a romantic movie can still hold.[Some students whose preference was romantic genres of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie.] This is correct. The minimum number of students whose preference is Romantic movies is 51. This means that the maximum number of students whose preference is drama or tragedy movies is 100 -51= 49. This is less than 75% of all surveyed students. Since the number of students who view Titanic as a romantic movie is more than 75%, some students whose preference is romantic movies must view Titanic as a romantic movie.[Some students whose preference was tragedy genres of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie] This is incorrect. This is not necessarily true. With the same reasoning as used in option C, this is incorrect.
Arguing for the acquittal of his client from the charge of murdering the client's wife, the attorney reasoned that since neither the garage nor the main door of the client's home was bolted on the night of the murder, a thief must have trespassed on the home to steal valuables, and upon an unexpected confrontation with the client's wife, murdered her.The flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?
Argument constructionThe argument is simple to understand. An attorney argues that since the garage and the main door of the client's house were not bolted on the murder-night, a thief must have intruded the home to steal valuables. The client's wife would have confronted him and this led the thief to murder her. This follows that his client who is accused of the murder must be acquitted.Flaw in the argumentThe attorney's argument, simply put, is:(Garage and main door were open) => (A Thief must have entered) => (Since a thief was present in the house that night, he must be the murderer) => (His client must be acquitted) What is the flaw in the argument?Only on the basis that the garage and the main door were not bolted on the murder-night, the attorney claims that the chance that a thief must have broken into the house is 100%. He does not consider that other explanations for the garage and main door not being bolted might be possible. For example, the client may have committed the murder and then himself opened the garage and the main door to make it look like the work of an outsider.Also, what are the chances that if an outsider did come in, that outsider was a thief? Was any theft noted or reported at the client's home that night? Was a thief noticed in the vicinity of the client's home that night? The attorney provides no evidence to substantiate his claim that a thief came into the client's house that night.Further, if a thief did come into the house and was indeed confronted by the client's wife, is there any proof of such a confrontation in the house that night? Further, is such a confrontation a sufficient reason to drive a thief to murder?Thus, the evidence that the garage and the main door were not bolted on the murder-night does not actually absolve the attorney's client. The client can still be the culprit. The flaw in the attorney's argument is that the attorney does not even consider that there might be other explanations for the open garage and main door and presents the explanation that best serves his and his client's interests as the only one possible.Predict a parallel argumentUpon looking at the options, we find that the options are on varied topics. So, we need to read each of them one by one and select the best option. To find the parallel flaw argument, we first need to analyze the question argument.The evidence: The garage and the main door were not bolted on the murder-night.The argument: The evidence suggests that there is a very high probability that a thief must have intruded into the client's home; therefore, this thief must be the murderer too and the client should be absolved of the murder charge.The flaw: The evidence does not support the claim that there is no probability that the client committed the murder.The argument provides evidence and concludes (from that evidence) that there is only one possible outcome and other possibilities do not exist.We need to find an option argument that possesses the above elements.Answer choices [The city administration could not find a solution ...] This is incorrect. The element that is not parallel to the question argument is that the city administration itself takes the blame and does not transfer the blame to another entity.[Due to the work strike of railroads and the non-availability of sufficient buses ...] This is incorrect. There is no flaw in the argument. A flawed judgment is not drawn. Since commuting by rail and bus are the only two options for John, he must have faced hard-time with commuting during the rush hours when the railroad was on strike and the number of buses was not sufficient during the rush hours.[In the 100-meter race, Amy's co-participants won Silver and Bronze ...] This is correct. Though Amy is an excellent racer, it does not mean that other participants cannot beat her in the race. They all or at least three can beat Amy. If this is so, Amy does not have a chance to win Gold. This a perfect parallel flawed argument.[The evidence collected reveals that the financial fraud was executed ...] This is incorrect. There is no flaw in the argument. The evidence suggests that either some team members or a third party may have executed the financial fraud, which is valid reasoning.[In an annual test of Midland high school students, the average score of neither...] This is incorrect. There is no flaw in the argument. This is a quantitative argument. It tests your concept on weighted average. Note that the weighted average of the two groups' averages can neither be greater than the greater of the two averages nor be smaller than the smaller of the two averages. For example, say the number of boys = 100 and their average score = 40; the number of girls = 50 and their average score = 45. The combined average of 150 students would lie between 40 to 45, which is less than 50. Even if you swap the number of boys and the number of girls, the weighted average would still between 40 to 45 (value will not be the same), which is less than 50.
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.