Areas where plant-eating animals actively ingest soil are commonly referred to as "salt licks." These areas are most frequently used during the summer months, when available plant foods are high in potassium, a mineral that inhibits sodium retention. Studies show that when animals are prevented from ingesting soil at salt licks, they quickly develop sodium deficiencies. Yet, compared with surrounding areas, salt licks generally do not have higher sodium concentrations.Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the information above?
Answer(s): D
If soil at salt licks has higher sodium concentrations during the summer months, this would explain why animals ingest the soil during this time: they are trying to obtain the sodium they need. The lack of higher sodium concentrations in the general area compared to the salt lick may not be relevant during the summer, as the sodium is concentrated in the soil at the salt lick, not in the surrounding areas.
Supermarket spokesperson: To enable consumers to make the best choices as they deal with conflicting nutrition claims, we introduced small signs beneath food items on our supermarket shelves. The signs clearly summarize nutritional information by briefly listing pertinent benefits such as "sugar free" or "low fat."Consumer advocate: Since your signs list just the nutritional benefits of foods and never their nutritional shortcomings, I surmise that your initiative is actually designed only to sell merchandise.The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that the supermarket spokesperson and the consumer advocate disagree over whether
Answer(s): A
The consumer advocate's criticism implies that a genuine educational effort would include both the benefits and the shortcomings of food items, so the disagreement centers on whether a true educational initiative would include negative aspects of nutrition. The spokesperson's initiative, focusing only on positive claims, is being questioned on the grounds that it may not be a genuine educational effort but a marketing strategy.
Essayist: Environmentalists emphasize saving cheetahs, whales, pandas, and other large animals that the public finds appealing but that play a much less significant role in ecosystems than do earthworms, plankton, and some types of bacteria, and for this they have often been criticized. Nevertheless, the environmentalists' focus is justified. By preserving larger animals one usually also preserves a huge number of organisms that inhabit the same ecosystems.Which one of the following most accurately describes the function in the essayist's argument of the proposition that the animals environmentalists emphasize saving play a much less significant role in ecosystems than do certain other species?
The essayist acknowledges the criticism that large animals play a less significant ecological role than smaller species, but argues that this fact alone is not enough to invalidate the environmentalists' focus on saving these larger animals. The argument suggests that even though the claim about the relative ecological importance of large animals is true, it does not provide sufficient grounds to reject the conclusion that preserving these animals is still justified, as it also helps preserve other species in the same ecosystem.
Individual members of a social insect colony often act in ways that threaten their own survival but promote the survival of other members of their colony. But this is not a counterexample to the theory that genes promote only behavior that increases the genes' chances of survival, because in social insect species, siblings usually have many of the same genes.Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
Answer(s): C
The argument hinges on the idea that the genes shared between siblings in a colony can explain why an individual insect might sacrifice its own survival to benefit the colony. For this to work, it's necessary that the individuals benefiting from the insect's behavior are sometimes its siblings. This assumption allows the theory of gene survival to apply, as the genes of the individual and its siblings would be similarly promoted by such cooperative behavior.
A 1920 study of 10,000 schoolchildren found that most occasionally cheated when they believed they would not be caught but very rarely cheated when they believed they could be caught. This finding, however, does not contradict the view that honesty is a virtue in the Aristotelian sense that is, a deeply embedded trait that disposes a person to act honestly regardless of the attending circumstances. That is because __________.Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?
The argument suggests that children's occasional cheating when they believed they wouldn't be caught does not necessarily conflict with the Aristotelian view of honesty because their decision to cheat might stem from a lack of full understanding or appreciation of the consequences. This aligns with the idea that children may not yet have internalized the virtue of honesty fully, even if they act honestly in some situations when they understand the consequences.
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.