Scientist: In the public sphere, the fact that there are fundamental disagreements in the field of economics is widely discussed even ridiculed whereas the fundamental disagreements in fields such as physics and chemistry go largely unremarked. This is because economic controversies, unlike controversies in physics and chemistry, tend to have grave political significance.If the scientist's view is correct, it provides a reason for accepting which one of the following?
Answer(s): D
The scientist in the passage argues that the reason economic controversies are widely discussed (and sometimes ridiculed) in the public sphere, while those in fields like physics and chemistry go largely unremarked, is because economic debates have grave political significance. This implies that the political implications of a field's disagreements influence how much they are discussed in the public sphere.Chosen option logically follows from this reasoning. It suggests that if the disagreements in physics and chemistry were to take on similar political significance as those in economics, they would also be more widely discussed and no longer go unremarked. This aligns with the scientist's reasoning, which attributes the visibility of economic debates to their political implications.
For the average person who needs a transfusion, blood from a relative is more likely to be infected with hepatitis than is blood from a blood bank. Therefore, the risk of contracting hepatitis from a transfusion is higher for people receiving blood from relatives than for people receiving blood from blood banks.Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Answer(s): E
If blood from both relatives and blood banks is screened for hepatitis, then the risk of contracting hepatitis from either source would be significantly reduced. This fact would weaken the argument because it would suggest that the source of the blood (relative or blood bank) no longer matters in terms of the risk of hepatitis infection,as screening mitigates the risk in both cases.
Astronomer: If we want to rule out the possibility of life elsewhere in the solar system, we should investigate all of the planets and moons for the mixture of water, carbon, and other requirements for life that we are familiar with on Earth. If there is no other planet or moon with the proper mixture, then only Earth supports life in the solar system.Which one of the following is an assumption required by the astronomer's argument?
The argument relies on the assumption that life elsewhere in the solar system, if it exists, would have the same biological requirements as life on Earth. The astronomer is proposing to search for water, carbon, and other Earth-based life requirements in order to determine if life exists elsewhere. If life elsewhere had fundamentally different requirements, this approach would not necessarily tell us if life exists elsewhere, thus weakening the argument.
American crocodile species are most closely related to the Nile crocodiles of Africa. Genetic evidence indicates that the progenitors of American crocodile species split away from Nile crocodiles 7 million years ago. Because Africa and South America began drifting apart 130 million years ago, it is likely that the progenitors of American crocodiles swam across the Atlantic from Africa to the Americas.Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
Answer(s): B
If tropical ocean currents were flowing westward from Africa to South America 7 million years ago, this would make it more plausible for the progenitors of American crocodiles to have been carried across the Atlantic.Ocean currents could have facilitated their movement across the sea, strengthening the argument that they could have reached the Americas from Africa.
Federal transportation official: Currently, the federal government appoints most of the members of the Centerville Port Authority board. City council members are demanding that the federal government let the city council appoint a majority of the board members. However, this cannot make any significant difference in the operations of the port since board members are legally required to act in the best interests of the port.The reasoning in the official's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
The official's argument assumes that because board members are legally required to act in the best interests of the port, it doesn't matter who appoints them. However, the flaw is that different people may have different interpretations of what constitutes the "best interests" of the port. For instance, a board appointed by the city council may have different priorities compared to one appointed by the federal government, even if all members are supposed to act in the best interests of the port.
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.