This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
RELEASED TEST III EXPLAINED
A Guide to the December, 1991 LSAT
K A PLA N
The a ns wer to t he te st que st i on.
1995 Stanley H. Kaplan Educational Center Ltd All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by photostat, microfilm, xerography or any other means, or incorporated into any information retrieval system, electronic or mechanical, without the written permission of Stanley H. Kaplan Educational Center Ltd.
SECTION I: LOGIC GAMES
© K A PL A N
LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I GAME 1— Three Couples At Dinner (Q. and the other in lowercase. tilefish. or veal cutlet). must. L. K. N. One easy way to remember this is to write a “≠” between the members of each couple. If you wish. and are asked to match each to one particular entree (pork chops. by writing tone group in capital letters. and M and N. you can also distinguish between men and women. swordfish.” but you’re always better off being more specific: J≠L≠N. and you should have something like this to begin with: PRSTV JK LM NO The Rules: Start with the two most concrete rules. Lewis and Marie. Rules 3 and 5. Add in the list of the entrees off to the side. and Nat and Olive). 1-7) The Action: We can tell from the first three sentences that the first game is a matching game. 2) You could write “men never order the same. and O across the top of the page with double lines between K and L. or cannot order the same entree as whom? The Initial Setup: To sketch the information. we're given 6 people (3 couples—John and Kate. in order to visually break the 6 people into their respective couples. roast beef. 3) An “S” under Marie will remind us that she opted for the swordfish. Notice that with 5 entrees and 6 people. M. The Key Issues are basic: 1) Who orders what entree? 2) Who can. 1) This rule adds a nice touch—it allows the man and woman in each couple to share. 2 © K A PL A N . 5) “R” under Olive means that it’s roast beef for her. there has to be some duplication of entrees. simply write J.
LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I 4) No fish for John or Nat. or veal cutlet. Nat must order either pork chops or veal cutlet. Indicate that somewhere in your sketch. Since Olive. Therefore. We can also deduce that Lewis won’t order swordfish since he won’t duplicate Marie’s choice. roast beef. The Final Visualization: Here’s what we have before moving on to the questions: J≠K L≠M N≠O MEN NOT SAME S R PRSTV J≠L≠N P/R/V No S P or V The Big Picture: • If rules are given to you in the negative. anything that can go into the sketch immediately will help to lay the groundwork for the rest of the Final Visualization. pork chops. But there are only five entrees to begin with. orders roast beef (Rule 5). 4. The fact that John and Nat don’t order swordfish or tilefish is not nearly as useful as deducing that they MUST order one of the remaining entrees. we also have lots of information on the men. Once you get the setup to this point. • Always think actively. Flagging potential major rules and thinking through possibilities are just two techniques that can really save time and aid in conquering the lion’s share of the questions. Olive. © K A PL A N 3 . you can bet that more than a couple of answers will spring from John and Nat running out of entrees to order thanks to Rules 1 and 2. Notice that while we have definite choices for two out of the three women. roast beef. which means that swordfish and tilefish are out for them. especially Nat. turn them around to the positive. Nat’s better half. turn your attention to the rules that will most likely govern the rest of the game. Key Deductions: and we have “NO R B” under Nat to indicate that he wants something different than his date. and Nat’s choices were limited to begin with (Rule 4). But once they’re incorporated (Rules 3. • Work with the most concrete rules first. Our work with combining Rules 2 and 4 will prove quite useful. We should also include Rule 1 in our considerations. or the veal. Nat can’t. and 5 are now built into the visualization above). which means that these two guys are restricted to either pork chops. which in this case are Rules 1 and 2.
seeing two men with the same entree or the members of a couple with the same entree). Don’t figure out the answer and then waste time trying out each answer choice. but would be false if Kate ordered fish. (C) violates Rule 2. (D) We deduced that Lewis will not order swordfish since Marie. there’s nothing that prevents him from ordering any of the other entrees. but need not be (Lewis could order tilefish) and (E) merely could be true as well. very often the questions will force you into making them. but that’s eminently feasible. It’s also a good test to see if you understand what does and DOESN’T restrict an entity. signify that (D) can’t be true. while (D) could be true. • When you’ve done good deductive work. and choice (A) therefore must be a true statement. • Don’t be surprised if a relatively simple question starts off a game. It’s then your job to carry them with you for the rest of the game. (E) John orders the veal. and if it’s there. his date. orders it. 4 © K A PL A N . so Nat and Lewis cannot (Rule 2). (B) Not much to do but check out each choice. 4. That leaves (B). because that's all Nat can eat. 3. (A) Here’s our Big Deduction: Nat has to order either pork chops or veal cutlet. and Rule 1 by itself makes (E) impossible. it’s simpler to go back and test those that are left. (A) is knocked out by a combination of Rules 3 and 4. • Scanning the choices will often make the blatantly wrong choices stand out (for example. When you don’t initially see the deductions possible in a particular game. Once these are eliminated. Kate ordering pork chops and Lewis ordering roast beef kills choices (A) through (D). Kate would have to order either pork chops or veal cutlet. However. trust it. The testmakers are more than likely rewarding you for wading through the setup. Rules 1 and 5. so the other four must be included in the list. Scan the choices for your answer. mark it and move on.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I The Questions: 1. taken together. (B) and (C) are impossible. 2. Just for the record. • A non-if “must be true” question (one with no new information) is a big red flag that there was a Big Deduction possible. This makes pork chops Nat’s only choice.
so John is left with a choice of pork chops and veal cutlet. Oops. John’s complete and accurate list is simply roast beef. (B) and (E) could be true. Still not an answer choice (though it does rule out choice (A)). Don’t worry. especially ones as lengthy as this one. Lewis’ choices are now limited to tilefish. try it out. (D) never. the rule change actually makes the question easier than most by narrowing the possibilities. That’s why it’s vital that you use your previous work. so we must continue. (B). 6. Rule 2 is still in effect. John now must order the roast beef (now his only choice). and (E) are impossible. now. • Sometimes it’s best to skip questions with rule changes. Keep plugging and you’ll find the answer. That’s a choice—(C). (D) Deal with rule changes first. so he orders veal cutlet. • Some questions in every game will require more than just the initial deductive step. and the same rule mandates that John settle for the roast beef. Even if you can’t get an answer quickly (like in some of the early questions on this game) doesn’t mean that the point is lost. (A). 7. as in this case. Olive has roast beef. so (D) can be true. the rule change allows us to quickly match up two more people to the food they order. © K A PL A N 5 . because sometimes. which means that Kate is limited to the same. (C) Nat doesn’t order pork chops (no one does). However. They both can opt for the pork chops. whatever that may be. Use your pencil and work with the answer choices. so does Nat. You can always eliminate the wrong choices. you should always take a quick look at the question before delaying it. not one of our choices. • Don’t just stare at a lengthy question. now so does Lewis. (A) Rule 2 forces Nat to order the veal cutlet. Questions do not exist in a vacuum.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I 5. • It’s very common for several questions to test the same concepts. choice (A). they all exist in the context of the entire game. That’s why a question this far along in the game can often be answered very quickly—we’re simply going over old ground. Since Marie has swordfish. (C). Here.
so put that directly into the sketch. the most concrete rule first: The Kahns live in the fourth house from the west. 1) “No R” over houses 1 and 7 should help us keep this in mind. . this rule tells us that the Piatts can only live in houses 5. This simply means that the Kahns live in house 4. But the Piatts can’t live in 7. Jot that down. You may wish to jot down a “W” to the left and an “E” to the right of the sketch. 6. Place an “M” with arrows pointing to houses 3 and 5 into your sketch. 8-13) The Action: A fairly straightforward sequencing game. with a very minor wrinkle: the use of the terms “west” and “east” to refer to the different sides of the sequence. must. List the roster of families off to the side. and we’re ready to move on. the only possible houses for the Muirs are 3 and 5. M. P. seven dashes or the numbers 1 to 7 from left to right on your page will suffice. 6 © K A PL A N . and you’re ready to fill the Rules into this basic setup: KLMNOPR W 1234567 E The Rules: 2) Once again. L” chunk will have to fall somewhere within houses 5. 6. because the Lowes must live to the east (right) of them. just for good measure. Don’t let the awkward wording throw you. N. to remind you which side is which. must.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I GAME 2—Seven Families in Houses (Q. or cannot occupy which house? 2) Which family can. and R) in seven houses lined up west (left) to east (right) on one side of a street. 4) Since the Kahns live in house 4. or cannot occupy a house adjacent to what other family? The Initial Setup: Keep this setup simple. The Key Issues are: 1) Which families can. and 7. . who live in house 4. or 7. O. We’re asked to order seven families (K. So the “P . 3) Since the Muirs live next to the Kahns. L.
Let's say M occupies the 5th house. can't be on either end. you should underline or circle it for future reference. leaving O and N for the other spots.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I Key Deductions: There’s no major deduction here. When rewriting a rule is not feasible. and naturally doesn't help us as much. but there are only a limited number of ways the sequence could play out. and arises if we instead place M 3rd. Since the P. remember to refer back to this work in the process of handling the questions. and must still maintain that K. so long as R isn't first or last.L ordering. . O. . P and L still need to be to the right of K. but it's still good to consider the possibilities in advance. Only when that is not possible. O. should you rewrite the rule in your own words. But aside from the language. it’s usually worth it to try out the possibilities. so that family would be in either 2 or 3 in this situation. and N are left to fill in the 1. L pair must be east of K.. This ordering isn't as determined as the other. The Final Visualization: Here’s what we’re armed with to tackle the questions: KLMNOPR W no R M K 1234567 P…L no R E The Big Picture: • When one entity is restricted to two options.P. The second scenario is a little more flexible. and R—would fill the remaining spots. it may be wise to get those possibilities solidly down on paper.2 and 3 houses. The other 3— N. which we've done. R. A rule of thumb for dealing with such options: If you can use the rules to narrow down the concrete possibilities to two. © K A PL A N 7 . • Always strive to build a rule directly into your master sketch. • In such a straightforward game. And when you’ve taken the time to do this. the testmakers probably felt that they had the right to include a slight variation on the sequence—this west to east business. It’s therefore worth quickly exploring the possibilities: M lives in either 3 or 5. this really doesn’t change anything. you remember. in either order.. Don’t let a little wrinkle ruin an otherwise simple game for you: Take command. we get this: 1 O/N 2 3 4 K 5 M 6 P 7 L R.
(D) and (E) Either O or N can live in house 1. making (C) our answer. If you use your pencil to try out the various choices. • Keep track of “free agents” in the various games. This was the less helpful scenario. with N and O floating between 1 and 2. (A) R can live next to both K and P: K in 4. it will often benefit you to come back to your scratchwork in later questions.L in 3 through 7. again with N and O floating at the beginning.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I The Questions: 8. such “free agents” are usually involved in “could be true” questions. (C) The Lowes live in house 7 in our first possibility above. and given all we know. • This is simply another form of acceptability question. 4.R. and P is either in 5 or 6. K is in 4. whereas the more restricted entities play a larger role in “must be true” questions. but doing so is an excellent way to get familiar with the situations that will be played out in questions to come. (B) is possible too: M.P. Recognize the various types of non-if questions that are simply testing your understanding of the rules. respectively. so they’ll be the ones with the most flexibility. For this reason. and move on. which conjures up the second scenario we discussed earlier. so let’s check out the choices. and with R in 2 and M in 3. Therefore. mark your answer. (C) The info in the stem puts M in house 3. and L in 7. (A). and (E) directly violate Rules 2. (B). but that’s not a choice. so both of these are possible. (A) This one’s also pretty much a gimme. R in 5. (D). it shouldn’t have taken more than a few seconds to figure out. The rest of the families in (B) through (E) can live next to the Kahns. there’s no way that the Kahns can live next to the Piatts. 9. only N and O aren’t mentioned in the rules.K. • It may seem time consuming to try out each choice. We can easily infer from Rule 4 that the Piatts live between the Kahns and the Lowes. • Don’t waste time trying out the choices after you’ve already found the answer. 10. 8 © K A PL A N . 3. Trust in your work. A glance at our sketch would quickly confirm the same result. In this one. P in 6. (C) M is in house 3. It’s therefore not possible for the Rutans to live between the Muirs and the Piatts. and 1. which leaves only (C).
O. and R is in house 2. and Rule 1 forces R into house 2 and O into house 1. (A). N. The two remaining entities. or right. • It pays to focus on your bread and butter. 12. (A) N in 3 points us to our first scenario: 1 2 3 N 4 K 5 M 6 P 7 L We’re left with R and O for houses 1 and 2. This determines which scenario we’re dealing with. be on the lookout for question stems that virtually ask the same thing. 13. (A) Here we can deduce that the second scenario above is operative: The only way for the Owens to live to the east. and 7 (as long as P is before L). P and L fitting somewhere in 5. (B) is false. Use your pencil. © K A PL A N 9 . • When given new pieces of information. N and R. Your job in every game is to find the critical entity or entities. but need not be. and leads to the correct answer. and concentrate on how they’re affected by each new piece of information. (B). as long as you take the time to recognize them early on. will therefore take houses 1 and 2. whereas the pair in (C) are definitely separated by the Rutans. specifically in houses 1 and 2. and see where it leads. respectively (R can’t take 1 from Rule 1). (D) The testmakers liked question 12 so much. P. • A question like this illustrates the value of playing out the various scenarios up front. 6. K is in 4. • The testmakers tend to zero in on a few concepts that they consider important and proceed to base the majority of the questions of these few concepts. here it is again (nearly). immediately work them. Any time. N and R must live next to one another. K. and (E) contain pairs that are possible neighbors. The entire setup of families to houses is complete: O. So we should consult the same sketch as the one for number 12: M is in 3. respectively. L. M. and L are relatively free to float between spaces 5. Scan down the list for adjacent families. The choice that corresponds to this is (A): K must be east of M. get the new information down. R. with O. The Owens clearly do not live next to the Newmans. when everything quickly falls in to place. N is in house 1. of the Muirs. and 7. you buy extra time for the more difficult questions.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I 11. is for M to live in 3. Choice (A) it is. 6. which in this game is the placement of M. P. • Let previous work come to your aid whenever possible. All the better for you. and (C) through (E) are possible only.saving technique will help you rack up more points.
floor 1 must be family cars and floor 3 must be sports cars. one possible way to visualize this is to draw a 3 by 3 table. 14-19) The Action: This fairly complex game involves matching cars with 3 different characteristics (family or sports car. 5) The cars on floor 3 are used. there will not be both new and used cars on a single floor. so take your time and be sure that you fully understand it. then all of the family cars will be on lower floors than any of the sports cars. Important to note that each floor contains all or one of each of the three different characteristics. So if there are both kinds. Understanding this rule is far more important than exactly how you choose to represent it on the page. the floor they’re displayed on. IF (that’s a big if) there are both family and sports cars.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I GAME 3—Car Display (Q. and then with a fourth characteristic. 10 © K A PL A N . and production models or research models). 4) The cars on floor 1 are new. This way we can picture each floor and it's relevant traits: F/S 3 2 1 The Rules: N/U P/R Where to start? As usual. We can label the vertical side of the box 3. from top to bottom. A “U” in the appropriate floor 3 grid box means that all the cars exhibited there are used. new or used. and each box across horizontally would represent one of the three characteristics: style.e. with the concrete rules. i. 2. 1) This rule is fairly lengthy. There’s only one major Key Issue that every question will involve: 1) What characteristics are exhibited by the cars on each floor? The Initial Setup: Since we're dealing with 3 floors each containing 3 characteristics. An “N” in the appropriate grid box will remind us that ALL of the cars on floor 1 are new. age and type. and 1.
• It’s very possible that you would have been best served leaving this game until last— many test-takers who took control of the section did just that. Be careful. If a car is new.” Also. then F” and “if S.. “If U. Always recall the contrapositive. then N+F If S. Two of the three characteristics are taken care of for that floor. Don’t forget the contrapositive. If a car is a research model. If a car is a sports car. and focus on. then New. and thanks to Rule 2.. Again.. Key Deductions: The results of our work with Rules 2 and 3 certainly qualify as “Key Deductions. then it must be new. Always ask yourself. then Production. then P” and “if R. The Final Visualization: Here’s what we have just before facing off with the questions: If F+S. then Family.” However. then P S F F/S 3 2 1 N/U U N P/R P If R. If a car is a family car or a production model. then P The Big Picture: • Concrete information is much more powerful than the abstract. Never neglect the contrapositive. • Remember the contrapositive. instead of what you don’t know. then If U. then it must be a family car.” Therefore. “If R. what you do know.” To make it easier we can combine those to get “if Research. be careful when considering what this means. If a car is a research model. then we know nothing (or at least nothing new). What does this tell us? If a car is used. © K A PL A N 11 .nothing. then it must also be a production model. then it must be a production model. the floor 3 cars must be production models. 3) None of the cars in the exhibition are both research models and sports cars. we know that “if Used. then P” will aid in sorting it out. there's even more to piece together.” and Rule 3 yielded “if Research. then N” should help us remember this.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I 2) There are NO cars that are both used and research models. then New and Family. Rule 2 yielded “if Research. don’t neglect your grid. a new car can either be a research model or a production model. Rule 5 resulted in a big “U” under floor 3.
and it is indeed possible that exactly one floor has research models (as long as that floor is floor 1 since it would have to contain new research model family cars). A quick scan through the choices in search of one of our earlier deductions turns up choice (D)—production models on floor 3. • Concrete key deductions will nearly always be tested. keep it in the back (or front) of your mind. then family cars must be on exactly 1 floor. (A). (A) If sports cars are on exactly 2 floors. and Rule 1 applies: Sports cars must be on floors 2 and 3. (D) No new information here. We’re left with choice (D). (C) and (E). since we know that at least one floor has used cars. Choice (E). Hearken back to the rules armed with this new information. which eliminates choices (C) and (E). Notice that this takes care of eight out of the nine possible boxes in our table. family cars on 3. 15.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I The Questions: 14. 12 © K A PL A N . this one a “must be true” with no new information. (E) Since we deduced that floor 3 contains production models. the 2 floors with research models must be floors 1 and 2. If you deduce something. 16. Choice (D) is therefore out. and the answer (and the point) will be yours. and therefore must be true). Floors 2 and 3 contain sports cars which are production models (Rule 3). Rule 2 kills choices (B). Here’s where the on-the-ball test-taker realizes that it’s a good bet that the answer to the question will almost certainly deal with the one box that’s still unresolved. In such cases. It will almost always lead to at least one ten-second question—usually a “must be true” non-if question like this. (B). research models on floor 1. and family cars must be on floor 1. which deals with the family/sports issue on floor 3 (everything else is determined. 17. so move right on to the choices. • When you’re given no new information. Choices (A) through (D) correspond perfectly to the situation. A quick glance at your scratchwork tells you that these research cars must be new family cars (Rules 2 and 3). and the answer is not readily apparent. so naturally they all must be true. while (E) is totally impossible. Rule 3 axes choice (A). which contradicts choice (B). and therefore does the trick. Only choice (A). try treating the question like an acceptability question—compare each rule against each answer choice. is possible. Also notice that the question is a “can be false” question. and (C) are possible only. eliminating the bad choices is just as effective a way of getting to the right answer. • Actively work with any new information given in a question. could be false. (D) Another non-if.
this can help inform you as to the best approach to the question. © K A PL A N 13 . and LG answer choices are objectively correct. • Confidence is key in Logic Games. a production model car could be a sports car. often. so choices (A) through (C) are out. have the confidence to mark it down and move on. This is another example of how to take control of the test. This tips us off that the answer will most likely be derived by combining the new “rule” in the question stem with one of the rules in the intro. 18. • Get in the habit of working with the contrapositive. (D) Rule 3: All research cars are family cars. (A) If all production models are used. do a quick intelligent scan of the choices. 19. but rather deals in generality instead.consuming choices that are included specifically to slow you down. the contrapositive should be one of the first places you visit.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I • Be active in your pursuit of answers—use all the clues the testmakers give you. in (E). is the only question that’s not concerned with what’s on what floor. This one. This will help you avoid working through time. When you find an answer that you’re comfortable with. You should only use the other choices to confirm your choice if you’re very unsure of your answer. then a car that is not used (new). go back and carefully reconsider each of your original deductions in light of this new information. which means that floor 1’s cars must also be family cars (Rule 3). Realizing that you don’t have to laboriously work through every choice in every question will help you get in the habit of moving quickly through the section. Therefore: All new cars are family cars. So floor 1’s new cars must be of the research variety. even if it’s choice (A). Stem: All new cars are research cars. must not be production (research). Whenever you’re given new information that’s easily translated into if-then form. for example. it just makes sense to focus in on the one indeterminate aspect of the situation. (B) through (E) all could be true. • Always take information as far as you can. Similarly. • Whenever you’re given new information in a question stem that doesn’t directly lead to a new deduction. We were able to determine so much in this question that upon seeing the “can be false” question stem. Family cars need not be anything in particular. which happens to be choice (D). but also could be false. including their choice of question stem. When you’re able to uncover new deductions based on the hypothetical. • Pay attention to the nature of the answer choices. We get this in choice (A).
numbered 1 to 4. some find it helpful to use capital letters for the pilots and lowercase letters for the copilots. it’s quite possible that exactly one pilot flies a plane without a copilot. As for listing the entities. they’re all up in the air. we're asked to distribute six entities—three pilots and three copilots—among four planes—planes 1. 4) This rule is basically a loophole closer to ensure that no one from the audience or anywhere else rushes out and pilots a plane. While the numbering of the planes may suggest sequencing.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I GAME 4—Pilots and Copilots (Q. therefore. Selecting who flies isn’t an issue. Our job is simply to distribute the pilots and copilots into the planes. Do what’s easiest for you. or cannot fly in the same plane as which other pilots and copilots? The Initial Setup: Keep this setup simple. your overview should have dispelled that misconception right away: There's no mention that these planes are "in a row. four circles or columns. 14 © K A PL A N . is a grouping concern: 1) Who’s in what plane? And by extension: Which pilots and copilots can. some don’t. nor does it imply that only one pilot may fly in a particular plane." and none of the rules say anything about people being "in adjacent planes. However. The main Key Issue. 20-24) The Action: In this grouping game. Then list the pilots and copilots off to the side: P C ABC DEF 1 2 3 4 The Rules: 1) and 2) You most likely already used these rules to get a handle on the entities." they're not numbered "from left to right. 2. The only question here is which plane each person is in." or anything like that.” This means that everyone flies. This rule says nothing about copilots. 3) Translation: Every plane that’s flying needs one pilot—at least one. must. 3. So far. and 4. just as it’s possible for more than one pilot to fly in one plane. some test takers overlooked a key element of these rules—that the pilots and copilots “are all aboard planes that are flying in the show. can represent the planes.
The Final Visualization: Here’s what we’re armed with to reel in these five questions: A D At Least 1 Pilot 1 2 3 4 Either B or C with D The Big Picture: • Don’t forget that critical reading is incredibly important for Logic Games as well as for the other sections of the test. • Use the hints provided for you in the question stems.e. • Attempt to weed out the game’s major concern. Not every game has one specific major concern. the numbers: No plane flies without a qualified pilot aboard. but there are a few issues that are worth working out before hitting the questions. since a plane can’t fly without a pilot (Rule 3). in plane 2 or 3. To build this into our master sketch. don’t clearly spell out—information that proves to be vital to the game. 23’s stem “If plane 1 is used” clearly implies the possibility of cases in which it is not used. Sometimes. 6) Dave only flies in plane 2 or plane 3— “D” with arrows to 2 and 3 takes care of this. The phrase in Q. at least one is going to remain empty and on the ground. Key Deductions: Not much in the way of deductions. True. But we have only three qualified pilots. the testmakers only imply—i. we know that one of the pilots must join Dave (a copilot) in either plane 2 or plane 3. so you should find it helpful to incorporate new information from the question stems into the context of how it relates to taking care of Dave. write “A” with arrows pointing to planes 1 and 4. Since everyone is flying in the show. which means that a maximum of three of the four planes are flying. focusing on this aspect will help you in almost every question. but in the ones that do. we know that one of these planes must be used.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I 5) Anna will only fly in plane 1 or plane 4. but very often in a game whose action is slightly unusual or complex. As many planes fly as are needed to get the 7 people aloft. First. It can’t be Anna. one of the first few question stems will help to clarify the situation. Interrogate the stimulus: “Do all pilots fly?” Yes. Also. “Do all planes fly?” No— in fact that’s impossible. since she’s in plane 1 or 4.. “Do all copilots fly?” Yes. our major concern is “who will accompany Dave?” At least Bob or Cindy—if not both—must do so. © K A PL A N 15 . In this case. so Dave must fly with either B or C. this question comes towards the end of the game.
If Bob joins Anna. and here it is right off the bat. he can’t fly with Dave. 16 © K A PL A N . Bob could fly in plane 2. • Don’t be surprised when the testmakers use one or two basic concepts as the key to the majority of the questions (like running out of pilots to place with Dave). (D). and (E) all could be true. even though the correct choice is in if-then form. we knew we’d have to focus on the Dave situation. Well. (B) Anna is in plane 4 and Dave is in plane 2. but none of them must be true. you should never continue checking the choices after you’ve found the answer. and (E) are merely possible. • If you’ve considered the new information and still nothing comes to mind. Trust your work. and save yourself some precious time. Asking yourself: “How do I take care of Dave?” leads to this answer. trying out each choice is a much better use of your time than staring at the page. The sooner you can recognize this MVC (Most Valuable Concept). • Focus on the game’s key issues and big concerns. Anna never flies with Dave. 21. (C) No. Since Bob or Cindy (or both) needs to accompany Dave. (A) No reason why Cindy couldn’t fly in plane 2 with Dave. Choices (A). (B). and (B). 22. So Cindy would have to fly with copilot Dave.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I The Questions: 20. (D) Cindy and Fran fly alone. (C) Anna can’t fly with Dave (Rules 5 and 6). Cindy in 3 forces Bob into 2 with Dave. so Bob must fly with Dave. then Bob could fly in any of the planes. Cindy would have to fly with Dave in plane 2. choice (C). (D) No. choice (D). • Unless you’re unsure of the workings of the game and you need to test you thinking. (C). if Bob flies in plane 4. (A) is dead wrong. the better. (E) If Cindy flies in plane 2 with Dave.
start looking for entities that MUST be included. 24. Similarly. © K A PL A N 17 . These questions are among the easiest on the test. (C) leaves only Anna to join Dave which isn’t possible. • When looking for maximums. The games you’ll see on your test will be based around other dominant issues. • This game may exaggerate the point. choice (C). If you were running short on time. and we’ve certainly harped on it here. but some games are based around central elements. Ed. (D) and (E) bite the dust thanks to Rule 6. This is much quicker than the other way around.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I 23. so much so that these element plays a big part in every single question. This game was all about getting a pilot to go along with Dave in 2 or 3. start with finding the entities that CANNOT be included. (C) Dave and one pilot can’t be in 4. Bob. and Fran—a perfectly acceptable crew for plane 1. with Cindy and Dave in plane 2 or 3. so any prospective plane-1 crew that included all three pilots would be impossible. as discussed above). • It is important to learn to recognize acceptability questions even when they are not structured like normal acceptability questions. (B) This is very much like a standard acceptability question. That's the maximum. when asked for a minimum. That eliminates Choice (A). That leaves us with (B)—Anna. a quick scan of the questions should have suggested starting with this one (which also helps to clarify the action of the game. Attempt to seek them out. you’ll be doing yourself a great favor. four people. but everybody else can be. Dave can’t fly in 1 but must have a pilot with him in plane 2 or 3.
SECTION II: LOGICAL REASONING 18 © K A PL A N .
’’ (E) If you have a lot of money in the bank. • Be careful of choices like (A) and (E). (E) picks up on this. (if X). Since the test results matched the investigators’ impressions. (A) If you have good health. could have produced the results. were more sociable and outgoing than the average person. if X. (then Y). then you are overexcited (then Z). if X. (then Y). Therefore. If your spending power is great. and not astrology. if Y. Therefore. (if X). (if X). If X. then your heart rate increases (then Y). If Y. then you are happy. then Z. If X. then Y. your spending power is great (then Y). the test would seem to be more valid if it were administered by impartial people. (if Z). if Z. since astrologers are far from impartial in this discussion. And the form is what we’re asked to recognize here. then Z. in which the content is quite similar to that of the stimulus. If you are optimistic. then Y. then Z. try to symbolize the argument whenever possible. (B) is useless background information. (if X). (then Z). Therefore. So the complete argument in symbols would read ``If X. (then Q?) (B) If you drink too much. to say that non-Geminis are less sociable than Geminis supports the investigators’ case. © K A PL A N 19 . • On parallel reasoning questions. then you can earn a lot. (C) In this parallel reasoning question. then you will feel sick. (then Y). offering a plausible explanation which suggests that the method itself. (then Z). then you can buy an expensive house. so this is also an au contraire choice. then you can have a comfortable life. then you are happy (then Z). then Y.) Therefore. (if Y). The key here is that the subjects were all volunteers. Would shy. If Y. (A) is an au contraire choice. (then Y). the stimulus is fairly easily to symbolize: If you have a lot of money in the bank. Content has nothing to do with the form of the reasoning. introverted people offer to appear on a TV program? Probably not. if X. We want to cast doubt on the conclusion that the subjects. then you are exhausted. (then Z). because they were Geminis. (then Z. then you are fit. The conclusion combines the first two sentences: If you have a large amount of money in the bank. if X. (if X). their claims cannot be used as plausible evidence. (D) If you exercise. (if X). In any case. (E) The stimulus concludes that a person’s birth sign influences their personality. then you are confident about the future. then Z.’’ Choice (C) has the same form as the stimulus argument: If you swim. Therefore. then you will have no money left. (if X). If Y. Therefore. then Z. 2.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II 1.
and you’ll be convinced. The author assumes that calisthenics are necessary to insure physical fitness. Here. If the investigators’ first impressions of people are confirmed by their later observations of the people. Choice (D) neatly paraphrases this assumption. (C) and (E) are beyond the scope of the argument. whose schools rarely offer daily calisthenics programs. The assumption: calisthenics are a key part of the European children’s physical fitness. be alert for clues that the survey sample is or is not representative of the population about whom the conclusion is drawn. and is the correct choice. and less easily-winded than North American children. we’re told point blank that there is a flaw in the investigators’ method. rather than casting doubt upon it. so he or she needn’t assume anything about either. try the Denial Test. right? This certainly doesn’t indicate a flaw in their method. but it’s still a necessary assumption. • You can check this one nicely with the Denial Test. (B) This need not be so in order for the conclusion to remain valid. faster. • Make the question stem work for you. (D) The conclusion: North American children can be made physically fit only if they have daily calisthenics at school. Whether it’s likely that there are more Geminis on the street than in the general population has little to do with the possible influence of astrology on personality and in no way criticizes the investigators’ research methods. (D) is more useless background info. then all this proves is that the investigators are good observers and good judges of character. The evidence: European children. that it’s the calisthenics which are chiefly responsible for European children’s physical fitness. (A) confuses necessity with sufficiency. 3. • The assumption here. then there must be some other factor which causes European kids to be so fit. 20 © K A PL A N . all we have to do is find it. If we were to assume that school calisthenics are not a vital factor to the fitness of European children. are stronger.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II (C) also seems to be supporting the work of the investigators. The author never mentions health (C) or nutrition (E). • On questions that involve surveys. whether they are sufficient to do so is a different question. who engage in calisthenics each day at school. And that would make the conclusion (American kids can become fit only if they participate in school calisthenics) fall apart. is so reasonable that you might have missed it.
LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II
• In general, watch out for extreme, unqualified statements in an argument’s conclusion, e.g. the author’s recommendation is the only possible solution. These will often help you identify key assumptions. 4. (B) If buildings have to be unobtrusive in order to be inviting and functional, and modern architects produce buildings that are not functional because their strong personalities take over their work, then we can conclude that these specific architects are producing buildings that are not unobtrusive. (A) and (D), much like (A) in the previous question, confuse necessity with sufficiency. It may be necessary for a building to be unobtrusive (A) and take second place to the environment (D) in order for it to be inviting and functional, but that doesn’t mean either is sufficient for that to happen. (C) Simply because an architect has a strong personality, it doesn’t mean that he or she must let that personality take over. We know that in some cases this has been true, but perhaps some architects can control their strong personalities, and still be able to produce unobtrusive buildings. (E) It’s never stated that an architect can’t put his or her personality into a building without having it be obtrusive; we’re told only that architects who let their strong personalities take over their work haven’t produced buildings that are functional for public use. • In questions that ask you to draw a conclusion, be careful not to assume anything that’s not explicitly stated in the argument. Here, we can’t assume that all architects with strong personalities let those personalities take over their work—as in choice (C)—or that architects cannot express their personality in their work without the personality “taking over”—as in choice (E). • This was a good question for using the strategy of elimination. Even if you weren’t sure about the correct choice (B), choices (A) and (D) contain the common error of confusing necessary and sufficient, while choices (C) and (E) depend on assumptions that just aren’t in the passage. 5. (E) The director argues for the funding of the megatelescope on the grounds that the whole world benefits from new technology and new inventions, and that funding for these ventures is not beneficial to only the scientists themselves. The director uses Maxwell, Newton and Einstein as examples of scientists who were not limited by a lack of funding, and were, therefore, able to make discoveries that benefited the whole world. Clearly, the director is drawing an analogy between the megatelescope research and the research of those three great scientists. That’s a pretty heady comparison to make; the author needs to present evidence showing that the megatelescope research may
© K A PL A N
LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II
approach the same level as that done by these great scientists. (E) is therefore the strongest criticism of the argument. (A) The director is using Newton and the others as examples of earlier scientists who made great discoveries; there is absolutely no appeal to the authority of these long-dead people on the subject of the megatelescope. And since they’re the only experts mentioned, (A) isn’t a possible criticism of the argument. (B) is irrelevant. It really doesn’t matter who opposes the development or funding of the megatelescope, because the opponents of this argument aren’t being attacked by the director; only their point of view is questioned. (C) is a distortion. Charging that someone’s point of view is dangerous is distinctly not the same as launching a personal attack on that person. (D) makes an irrelevant distinction. The word ``benefit’’ in either the economic or the intellectual sense would have the same effect on the argument, since the astronomers, along with the rest of the world, could reap either or both kinds of benefits from the funding. • This question is an excellent example of how the LSAT relates to the reasoning skills required in law school and in the legal profession. Many legal questions hinge on whether a particular case is analogous to a past case. In court, you can’t just say that this case is analogous to another; you have to provide some evidence. And that’s just what this stimulus fails to do. 6. (C) The author argues that a fare hike of forty percent must be implemented even though it will cause economic hardship for users of transportation. The evidence for this conclusion is that if the fare doesn’t increase, service will be cut, and a large loss of ridership will occur. The author doesn’t given any reason why the fare hike should occur; she only outlines the negative consequences that will result if it doesn’t occur. (C), which states that the author arrives at a conclusion indirectly by rejecting an alternative, explains her strategy quite clearly. (A) directly contradicts the stimulus; the author freely admits that some riders will experience hardship because of the hike. (B) The argument does explore the other side of the issue, and its consequences, but there’s no indication that a supporter of an alternate position would face a contradiction. (D) The author doesn’t argue by defending her proposal against objections leveled at the alternative. Rather, she herself raises objections against the alternative and argues that they are stronger than those that can be raised against her proposal, which is to raise fares.
© K A PL A N
LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II
(E) is out in left field. There’s no mention of past actions with regard to fare increases, and the author certainly doesn’t prove anything by using evidence from the past. • For method of argument questions, eliminate immediately choices such as (A) and (E) above that are blatantly inconsistent with the passage. • When the answer choices are in an abstract form, you may find it easier to try to fit each choice to the argument, eliminating those choices that just don’t work. 7. (A) Everyone who participates in local politics has an influence on the community’s values. Since some of those people are selfish opportunists, we can conclude that some selfish opportunists have an influence on the community’s values. (B), (C), (D), and (E) could be true. None of these must be true. • This question offers a great example of how the testmakers test formal logic. Most of the time in formal logic situations, you’re called upon to put two and two together, so use your Logic Games skills of combining rules and making deductions. • When the question asks you to draw a conclusion, be aware of the difference between what must be true (follows without question from the evidence), what could be true (is not contradicted by the evidence), and what cannot be true (is directly contradicted by the evidence). • Note the precise use of language on the LSAT: The first sentence leaves open the possibility of someone participating in local politics who is neither interested in public service nor a selfish opportunist. That’s why (E) doesn’t have to be true. 8. (B) The discrepancy: lighteners, which are without cholesterol, raise the blood cholesterol levels of consumers higher than does the milk, which contains 2 milligrams of cholesterol. The key here is that lighteners contain more saturated fat than milk. So we’re looking for a choice that will explain the relationship between saturated fat and cholesterol, with regard to blood cholesterol levels. (B) does just that. (A) is useless background information. The nutritionists’ recommendation doesn’t explain why a product which doesn’t contain cholesterol, like a lightener, would produce more blood cholesterol than a product like milk, which does contain cholesterol.
© K A PL A N
as opposed to milk. you should have been able to arrive at the correct answer by process of elimination. but it doesn’t address the difference between the two different products that form the basis of the paradox—the non-dairy lightener with high fat. (E) This choice explains the relationship between the fat and cholesterol levels of most dairy products. changes due to lightener or milk.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II (C) adds an irrelevant distinction. the manufacturers’ claims would be considerably strengthened. • Even if you were overwhelmed by the confusion of terms and measurements like cholesterol and blood cholesterol and grams and milligrams. (E) Dismissing the possibility of psychosomatic effects. if (D) is true. and milk with cholesterol. We’re talking about changes in the typical consumers’ levels. 24 © K A PL A N . So. • Milk (no pun intended) the two-question stimuli for all it’s worth: Here’s a situation in which the two questions for a single stimulus really feed off each other. (A) neither weakens nor strengthens the argument. (D) If the consumer is using a very small amount of lightener. then it follows that the amount of cholesterol in the large quantity of milk will add up and have a greater effect on the consumer’s blood cholesterol than the amount of saturated fat in the smaller quantity of lightener. (D) is irrelevant. That is. 9. the beliefs of the consumer really don’t enter into this discussion. Coffee lighteners that are not based on coconut oil are irrelevant to the claims of manufacturers of lighteners that are based on coconut oil. (B) The desserts that accompany coffee have nothing to do with the effect of lightener. (C) is a useless distinction. so it’s the only one that can possibly resolve the discrepancy. • The first step in a paradox question is to define the paradox—you can’t possibly find a good explanation if you’re not sure what you’re trying to explain. on consumers’ cholesterol levels. because it brings up a lightener that doesn’t contain coconut oil. So what if this type of lightener has less fat and cholesterol than milk? It still doesn’t help to resolve the discrepancy involving coconut oil lighteners. as opposed to a very large amount of milk. (B) is the only one that deals directly with the relative effects of cholesterol and fat on blood cholesterol. Light cream has absolutely no bearing on the issue. The effect of health practices on some people’s cholesterol levels is beyond the scope of the argument. and the dairy product (milk with cholesterol). which is the relative effects of lighteners with no cholesterol. the work you did on Question 8 should put you in a better position to answer Question 9.
a lengthy question stem that adds new information need not make for a killer question. sufficiency has appeared in some form or another in a handful of stimuli and answer choices. the concept of necessity vs. Since each question has only one right answer. The first sentence can be put into if-then form: If people have serious financial problems. then they do not have serious financial problems. (B) The author doesn’t offer specific evidence of unfavorable consequences that have occurred—he offers his view about what would happen if the principle in the first sentence were adopted. not for. (D) This one’s a method of argument question. or proposal. 10. Notice that when we negate the conditions. Whether the principle can be uniformly applied. In this case. True. (A) is a clear contradiction of what the author is trying to do. if the proposal were put in practice. foolish results. it’s unusual in Logical Reasoning. he is stating a general principle. of course. (B) and (C) also confuse necessary and sufficient conditions. And this. serious problems—notice the scope shift) are the only things that can make people unhappy. (D) is the closest paraphrase of this. adopting it. serious financial problems are sufficient to make people unhappy.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II • While it may look intimidating. • Use the test to your advantage: Some sections harp on the same concepts over and over again. both (B) and (C) must be wrong. (A) and (D) We can’t infer that serious financial problems (or in (A)’s case. but it is not sufficient. but that doesn’t mean that this condition is necessary for unhappiness. The thrust of the argument is not that the expected consequences won’t result. • You could have eliminated (B) and (C) if you recognized that they are contrapositives of each other. © K A PL A N 25 . To this point. and therefore logically equivalent. It’s like a Logic Games question stem that adds new information in the hypothetical. then they can’t be happy. but rather that unexpected ones will. is not in question. so the operative question is: what’s the author doing? He’s presenting a belief. or applied at all. 11. and then telling us why. (C) distorts the author’s main point. it would have illogical. (E) This is really a thinly veiled formal logic stimulus. but never provides actual results of real applications of the principle. the paradigm shifts: Not having serious financial problems is necessary to being happy (according to the passage). is logically equivalent to its contrapositive: if people are happy. but he’s presenting an argument against. but manageable nonetheless. (E) The author is upset about what would happen if the principle were applied.
it’s the cost of producing the power that we’re concerned with here. (E) So what? Unless we know what the cost of a traditional plant is compared to that of a photovoltaic plant. therefore X (it is a bee). We need some link between the costs of the two methods that will allow the conclusion to stand. whereas traditional power plants have increased in cost. we can’t say that the argument is properly drawn. The conclusion: photovoltaic plants produce electricity less expensively than do traditional plants. therefore X (spring is here). Y (I sneezed). (B) makes an irrelevant distinction. 26 © K A PL A N . 12. 13. The main issue is the relative cost of the two methods. then Y (I cannot stop sneezing).LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II • In method of argument questions. and the assumption in (E) does the trick. Note how it exhibits the same flaw as the original: In the stimulus. Read each choice meticulously. If numerical/statistical situations aren’t your cup of tea. which produce electricity from sunlight. but the elements of (A) boil down to: If X (it is spring). then Y (it can only sting once). In (A). and is another insect that just happened to sting only once. it’s possible that it’s not spring. It takes some rearranging. which is only half right. • Be wary when an author gives separate evidence about two groups and then offers up a conclusion that attempts to compare the groups. (D) The evidence: photovoltaic power plants. and don’t be fooled by choices like (A). and that the person in question just happened to sneeze during some other season. (C) The author needn’t assume that none of the advances can be applied to traditional plants in order to conclude that photovoltaic plants produce electricity less expensively than do traditional plants. • Recognize your strengths and weaknesses. The amount of electric power is not addressed in the stimulus. (A) Here’s another parallel reasoning stimulus that lends itself to symbolic representation: If X (that insect is a bee). This faulty structure is matched by choice (A). (A) simply restates some of the evidence. But the fact that one method is cheaper than it used to be while another is more costly than it used to be is not enough to conclude that the first is therefore cheaper than the second today. Y (it only stung once). don’t fight with the question—move on to friendlier ground and come back to this one at the end if time permits. it isn’t relied upon by the stimulus. and since this doesn’t tie directly into that. are now one-tenth as costly as they were twenty years ago. it’s very possible that the insect is not a bee. the correct choice must be fully correct.
We might be able to say: If X (one survives in the wild). To counter this. then Y (it will be moved with extreme care). (C) If X (the painting is old and brittle). and therefore. not ER patients especially. Although it argues for observation over thirty-six hours. 14. don’t fix it. therefore Not X (it is not old and brittle). then Quincy seems right in arguing “if it ain’t broke.” (C) involves a scope shift: We’re concerned with medical practice in general. it would mean that physicians in training would have to deal with more crisis situations than did physicians in the past. therefore Not X (there must not have been any thunderstorms). (A) is an au contraire choice. we’re looking for a parallel logical structure. it’s sometimes necessary to rearrange the terms of the argument in order to identify the correct choice. We’re not concerned with the differences in workload among the different specialties. not a parallel verbal structure. (E) doesn’t give us enough information to effectively counter Quincy’s argument. We’re not asked to find a logically valid argument. (D) makes a useless distinction. • In parallel reasoning questions. we need a choice that shows that current medical practice is somehow different than in the past.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II (B) If X (the sky is clear). therefore almost Y (the pressure is bound to be high soon). and therefore could support the need for residents to be on rounds for that long a period. Almost X (it’s clearing up). then Y (the atmospheric pressure is high). © K A PL A N 27 . Not Y (that painting is not moved with extreme care). Both (C) and (D) are logically correct. But then we get into Mark’s fear of spiders (Z?). (D) If X (there was one more thunderstorm). Choice (B) fits this qualification nicely. then Y (the roof would be ruined). (E) Really doesn’t fit the structure we’ve set up. If (B) were true. Remember. then Y (one has physical stamina like Mark’s). that the mental and emotional strain of the long work hours may make them more likely to make faulty decisions. we’re not told that the observation needs to be continuous. If the responsibilities of the resident staff have not changed over the past decades. Not Y (the roof is fine). and therefore requires a change in training methods. and therefore neither is parallel to the faulty argument in the stimulus. (B) Quincy’s argument is that physician training does not need to change because it has worked in the past. • Remember your goal.
Choice (D) correctly identifies this assumption. (C) weakens the argument by giving a reasonable alternative explanation: Dumping nuclear waste in less populated areas poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems than dumping in areas of denser population. • In arguments involving the interpretation of experimental results. (D) Experiments like this one are logically valid only if the two groups are exactly alike to begin with and if one of them is exposed to one variable. (C) is an au contraire choice. the variable is being shown violent TV programs right before play. 16. she is assuming that the two groups had no differences other than the exposure to violent TV programs. however. The author is not talking about the effect of all television programs on all of society. (A) is a scope shift. • In this question. those who are responsible for dumping are not as fearless about its effects as they claim. you could have eliminated (A) and (E) just from reading Quincy’s side. In fact. the conclusion often depends on the assumption that there were no unaccountedfor factors that could have caused the results observed.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II • In dialogue questions. • This assumption was so obvious you might even have missed it. In a pinch. that the television programs were the sole cause of the violence. In order to make her argument. In this case. (B) What if they’re not? Ultimate responsibility isn’t the issue. 28 © K A PL A N . the argument’s thrust is to show the responsibility of TV. This assumes that there is no plausible alternate explanation for the disposal pattern.” Don’t take for granted anything about the author or the argument that isn’t in the text. watching violence on television). The focus of this passage is the effects of violent television programs on children. Since the author has concluded that the experiment was valid. you needed to read Pamela’s argument for background. are directly related. not parents. thinking “the author wouldn’t have missed that. The author never mentions any violent treatment toward the children. the author must believe that violence and passive observation of violence (in this case. (E) is beyond the scope. 15. (C) Because waste gets disposed of in less populated areas. be sure to remember whose argument you are trying to support or weaken. and that nothing else could have been the cause. in other words.
• Be sure to keep track of the argument that you’re attempting to manipulate. we’re not interested in the relationship between babies’ health and how much attention they receive. Choice (C) tells us that the United States has developed technology that can save babies that would have died otherwise. • To weaken an argument. (C) The United States has. overall. But this does not mean that the babies born in the United States are healthier now than they were in the past. This would explain why the decrease in mortality rates has no connection with the average health of the infants. What we do need is information that would explain why a decline in the infant mortality rate doesn’t signal an increase in health. (D) is an irrelevant comparison. So the author is assuming the existence of an alternate explanation for the decline in the infant mortality rate. (D) We’ve already been told that the overall infant mortality rate has been declining. we don’t need more information about infant death. So while we may have just as many sick or premature babies being born. (E) supports the author’s argument. © K A PL A N 29 . but just won’t admit. We’re concerned with why health hasn’t improved along with the infant mortality rate. we’re actually trying to weaken the first argument. pose some threat to people. So to support the author. in fact. it doesn’t address the contrast between the overall infant mortality rate and infant health. Like (A). we have fewer babies dying as a result of sickness or premature birth thanks to the advanced technology. the author’s argument is that another argument (connecting decreasing infant mortality with increasing infant health) is flawed. (B) doesn’t help us support the author’s claim. we need a choice that offers this alternate explanation. it’s not necessary to disprove it completely. (A) is useless background information. but doesn’t do anything to explain or support the claim that overall infant health hasn’t improved. 17. To support the argument. seen a decline in its infant mortality rate in the past few years. It seems to be a statement of what the policy makers really believe.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II (A) and (B) are au contraire choices. Pointing out chemical dangers won’t show that nuclear waste is safe. We simply need to make it less likely for the conclusion to follow directly from the evidence. The acknowledgment that there could be an accident indicates that nuclear waste does. they’re unrelated. this provides background. (E) is a “left-field” choice. In this question.
and not even the author’s evidence.. (E) is a subtle misreading. The author’s point isn’t so much that financial problems are not a big factor in the breakup of marriages. Anything else can be eliminated. which is based on the survey.’’ but all we know is that these articles relied on the same survey that Raghnall’s did. we don’t know that they necessarily drew the same conclusion that Raghnall did. 19. (B) We pretty much answered this in our analysis of 18: The author offers a different interpretation of the survey’s results—basically. the author undermines Raghnall’s conclusion by offering an alternative explanation for some of the data on which his conclusion was based. In other words. (C) The author’s whole point is that Raghnall’s conclusion is based on inadequate evidence. blaming money when money isn’t the problem.. (C) is off-base because all the author claims is that the survey doesn’t establish that financial problems are the major problem in marriages. that couples may blame finances for their marriage problems when finances aren’t the real problem. that couples often express their frustrations about other aspects of their marriage in financial terms. but their real problem was. but Raghnall’s. such as: Couple X blamed money for their problems. He uses this alternative explanation to make the point that Raghnall has jumped to conclusions—that she has failed to consider other possible explanations for the survey’s results.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II 18. He gives us an alternative explanation. (D) simply restates the evidence. Thus. • When an argument involves a critique of somebody else. The author’s evidence is the alternative explanation he provides for the survey’s results. the author believes that Raghnall’s conclusion is inadequately justified. “Financial problems’’ or `”money’’ can hardly be called an emotion. 30 © K A PL A N . (D) shifts the scope a bit: The author never criticizes the survey. (A) distorts the argument. Marriage counselors have never even been mentioned. (A) The author never supplies us with a specific counterexample. (B) is outside the scope. and Raghnall hasn’t referred to anything else as a cause of divorce. but rather that Raghnall cannot reasonably conclude that they are without additional evidence. but he never gives us any specific examples. a sure sign it’s not the main point. The author does allude to “a number of other articles. be sure to keep the author’s evidence and conclusion separate in your mind from the evidence and conclusion being critiqued. he criticizes Raghnall’s conclusion. namely. • The answer to a main point question will usually be a paraphrase of the author’s conclusion.
(B) and (D) both undermine another one of the argument’s basic assumptions: that commercial honey production won’t decline for some other reason. He merely claims that they often fail to do so. try not to skip double-question stimuli—when handled well. we can see that all five choices begin with the words “undermines a conclusion” and that 4 choices begin “undermines a conclusion drawn from statistical evidence by. The author never demonstrates or shows that couples cannot accurately describe their marital problems. 20. maybe they’ll all die off once they get here. (A) weakens the argument by undermining the major assumption that what’s true of Brazil will be true of the U. it’s like getting two points for the price of one. • For all EXCEPT questions. or if.” Save time by focusing your attention on the latter part of each choice. a lot of the people now responsible for honey production would rather cease and desist than use Africanized bees. If. but choice (C) is correct because it’s totally irrelevant to the issue of honey production. In any case. it’s more costly and difficult to use Africanized bees. • Scanning the answer choices. there’s so much going on. © K A PL A N 31 . they’ll produce more honey than American honeybees. the author can no longer conclude for sure that it won’t decline. as (B) says. then it’s quite possible that commercial honey production will decline if these bees are introduced. as (D) says.S. There are a number of assumptions at work in this argument. chances are you’ll know the correct choice when you see it. then the author can no longer assume that in America. (E) If Africanized bees are better suited to Brazil. the native bees in Brazil are different from the ones here. then the comparison the author cites is irrelevant—maybe domestic U. If you have a solid grasp of the argument.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II (E) goes too far. For this reason. Who knows. bees produce more honey than both Brazilian and Africanized bees do.S. that you probably shouldn’t worry too much about prephrasing an answer. we know that the argument will be pretty vulnerable to weakeners. you can save time by using your analysis from the first question to help you get the second. as (A) claims. If. (C) Since we’re asked to pick the one choice out of five that does NOT weaken the argument. many of which lead to the weakeners in the wrong choices. • In cases where two questions are drawn from the same stimulus. elimination is often the best strategy.
Therefore. He never says that it eliminates this risk. the author must be assuming that Western diets lead to a higher blood cholesterol level than non-Western diets. If Y. then Z. then there is an undeniable need for citizens to better understand international affairs. (C) The author tells us that high blood cholesterol lowers the risk of weakened artery walls. low blood cholesterol weakens artery walls. We can’t infer. If there’s a need for this better understanding of international affairs. And as for (C).LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II 21. because we don’t know how this relates to blood cholesterol. that would have just gotten you into trouble. since blood pressure isn’t mentioned in the argument—but is dangled as a red herring in wrong choice (E). (B) According to a recent report. increasing the likelihood that the arteries will rupture. for the country to remain competitive. 22. then all of our new teachers must be prepared to teach their subject matter with an international orientation. In fact. confuse necessary and sufficient conditions. (B) and (C). • Don’t be intimidated by scientific language or technical terms. then Z. and thereby bring about a cerebral hemorrhage. 32 © K A PL A N . For this conclusion to be valid. This allows us to infer that the first statement leads to the third: If the country is to remain internationally competitive. nor does his argument depend on this information. the author could assume that cerebral hemorrhages are less dangerous than strokes caused by blood clots. The stimulus establishes the ability of new teachers to teach with an international focus as necessary for the country to remain competitive. if you did know that blood pressure is often related to cholesterol levels. (A) A healthier diet isn’t the issue here—we need information that fills in the connection between the blood cholesterol evidence and the conclusion of the Japanese researchers in the last sentence. (D) is an irrelevant comparison. (E) involves a scope shift: Low blood pressure is an irrelevant issue. that it’s sufficient for this. like many choices before them on this test. The author concludes that this new report supports the long-held belief of Japanese researchers that Western diets are better at protecting against cerebral hemorrhage than are non-Western diets. You didn’t have to know anything about medicine to answer this question. as (B) suggests. but not sufficient. and it wouldn’t damage his claim that Western diets are less likely to lead to cerebral hemorrhages. if X. then Y. Specifically: If the country is to remain internationally competitive. and this isn’t it. then all of our new teachers must be prepared to teach their subjects with an international orientation. better understanding of international affairs by our citizens is also necessary. (A) This is simply a matter of a very common chain of argument: IF X. In fact.
more valid. and conveniently enough. we’re explicitly told that proponents of DNA fingerprinting base their claim on an assumption of independent occurrence between genetic characteristics. © K A PL A N 33 . The issue is whether or not DNA fingerprinting can be accurately used to match two different samples of genetic material. (A) is an au contraire choice. the argument that it’s unreliable because different people could obtain different readings of the same pattern. (E) is irrelevant.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II (D) completely denies the author’s first if-then statement. Here. and. then that makes the analysis much more specific. 23. (C) We’re asked to weaken the proponents’ argument. Any other use is a separate issue. which we get in (C): If genetic characteristics can occur in sets. • The presence of a relatively simple question this late in the section is a good reminder to keep moving and make sure you get a chance to attempt every question. If the genetic material that all people have in common with each other and with animals is excluded from the procedure. which is an important premise in the argument. • Use the information you’re given. We have no evidence that they said anything about training teachers to teach with an international focus—that requirement was inserted by the author. So all we have to do to weaken the proponent’s claim is to weaken that assumption. Your best bet is to look for a choice that undermines that assumption. we’re given their assumption. (B) If anything. (D) contains a scope shift: The point here is whether the procedure is valid when done accurately. that breaks down the proponents’ assumption that these characteristics occur independently. this choice strengthens the proponents claim by dismissing a possible argument against the procedure. (E) All we’re told about public reports is that they stressed the need for citizens to better understand international affairs. inferably.
(A) The argument compares schools to cultures. (E) A similar story: this choice interprets independence as sufficient for progress. So the same must be true for an individual school: If a school is to progress. (D) goes too far. all we’ve been told is that it’s necessary. he admits they can provide valuable advice. The idea of school system officials deciding what changes to make is directly counter to this. when in fact. or degrees of initiative. Certainly.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II 24. he merely claims that the only way a culture can progress is if it is independent of outside imposition. schools would have to progress the same way cultures progress. (C) We’re told that progress for an individual school. The author never says outsiders must be totally shut out if progress is to be achieved. Choice (A) carries out this analogy between schools and cultures. (B) The author doesn’t mention degrees of independence. there are other factors that could come into play. in fact. Choices that are clearly inconsistent with the main idea can be eliminated immediately. Cultures cannot progress if outsiders impose their views. • The answer to a “complete the passage” question must be consistent with the author’s main idea and tone. requires independence from outside imposition. or culture. • “Complete the passage” (also known as “fill-in-the-blank”) questions are simply another way in which the LSAT asks you to draw an inference based on the information provided. 34 © K A PL A N . it must be free of outside imposition.
(D) The author does give a reason for his opinion: the dissolution of the Eastern bloc. which is that there will be insufficient support for an adequate defense budget. the author certainly doesn’t argue that this “manipulation’’ can continue indefinitely. (B) just plain denies what the author says. which does not amount to finding a weakness in his reasoning. However. (C) is a fancy way of accusing the author of using circular reasoning. When an author documents a changing situation. (E) The key here is the author’s vague use of the term “adequate.LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II 25. a common flaw is the assumption that certain terms or descriptions can be applied equally to both periods. make sure the terms he uses are appropriately applied in all cases. the evidence (the dissolution of the Eastern bloc) is quite different from the conclusion.” If our main enemy is gone. We want a criticism of his reasoning. not merely an unsupported denial of his facts. isn’t it reasonable to expect that we could spend less money and still defend ourselves as “adequately” as before? (A) distorts the passage—since the whole point is that the public may no longer be persuaded. It may not be a very good reason. but it’s a reason all the same. • When an argument compares past and present conditions. © K A PL A N 35 . who’s to say that a reduced defense budget wouldn’t be adequate? If the primary motivation for spending so much money on defense in the first place is no longer relevant.
SECTION III: READING COMPREHENSION 36 © K A PL A N .
” Paragraph 3 describes the “most convincing . specifically whether or not it’s possible for asteroids to have satellites. others remain unconvinced and are looking for specific further evidence (“well-behaved” secondary events). one definitely caused by a body accompanying an asteroid. after the Herculina event. Rather.. because when asteroids pass in front of stars. 1-7) Topic and Scope: Asteroids. it means figuring out what the author’s doing in the text—in this instance. theoreticians knew all along that such a thing was possible. which led astronomers to believe that a satellite orbiting the asteroid had also passed in front of the star. Paragraph 4 notes that. observations have led many astronomers to believe that asteroids can have satellites.” Topic. Paragraph 5 concludes by saying that even astronomers who remain skeptical would be convinced by a “photoelectric record” of a “well-behaved” secondary occultation of a star. reports of secondary occultations became “respectable. and purpose. the occultation was preceded by another occultation.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III PASSAGE 1 — Asteroids (Q. report” of an asteroid that might have a satellite. © K A PL A N 37 . scope. saying that while most astronomers used to think it was impossible for asteroids to have satellites. providing evidence that suggests that theoreticians have been correct all along about asteroid-satellite systems. and purpose are all revealed by line 15. Purpose and Main Idea: The author examines the state of the evidence for asteroid satellites. even if you suffer from “science anxiety.” but warns that such reports have grown so numerous that they can’t possibly all be accurate. The Big Picture: • A firm grasp of the passage doesn’t mean absorbing all of its details (you can look them up if you need to). topic. While observations of “secondary occultations” have led some astronomers to accept the existence of such satellites. • Although the author’s specific main idea isn’t entirely clear until you’ve read through the whole passage. “something besides the known asteroid sometimes blocks out the star as well. Paragraph Structure: Paragraph 1 introduces the topic. That makes this passage an ideal place to start work on this RC section. Paragraph 2 supports the theoreticians. after all. are the three things that you need to grasp as quickly as possible in order to get the passage under control.. scope. When the asteroid Herculina passed in front of a star.
the secondary body’s presence was “strongly indicated. contradict the text. The Herculina event supported the theoreticians’ views about asteroid-satellite systems. like (A). The author never discusses the amount of time needed to complete an orbit. (D) is a “half-right. not just about the Herculina observations. (E) The occultation of Herculina itself is irrelevant. (E) This passage is about the existence of asteroid-satellite systems: astronomers used to doubt their existence. The first sentence of the passage tells us that astronomers “long believed” that stable asteroid-satellite systems weren't possible. (B) Au contraire. (E)’s idea that astronomers agree on what would be conclusive proof echoes the final paragraph. (B) is outside the scope. (C) is also outside the scope. (E) correctly notes that theoreticians were on to the existence of asteroidsatellite systems before astronomers were. But the passage is about asteroid-satellite systems in general. what’s important is the fact that a second body also eclipsed the star. It says there that astronomers watching the Herculina event were surprised by an unexpected drop in brightness that occurred before the drop they were expecting. the evidence for the existence of a satellite was provided by the secondary occultation. (A) focuses on a detail—the Heruclina event. furthermore. beware of choices that focus on details. • In global questions. The passage says nothing about a planet near Herculina. skepticism about the existence of such systems has decreased. • When working on an explicit text question. or are only half-right.” not "directly observed. half-wrong” choice. Never answer on a hunch or vague recall of the text.” (A) First. Moreover.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III The Questions: 1. this choice is focused on a detail. 38 © K A PL A N . Besides. always go back to the passage and reread the relevant portion of text. (C) Au contraire aussi.” Second. and are looking for definitive proof. but now recognize that they are theoretically possible. Skeptical astronomers aren’t waiting for new theoretical models. but for physical evidence in the form of photoelectric records. 2. That’s (D): evidence of Herculina having a satellite was provided by “the occultation that occurred shortly before the predicted occultation by Herculina. (D) Heruclina is discussed in Paragraph 3.
might have occasioned the rare reported observations of secondary events before the Heruclina event.” (E) There’s nothing in the passage about admiration for the scientific process.” This implies that before the Herculina event secondary occultations weren’t considered respectable. (A) Au contraire. Many astronomers already believe that asteroid satellites exist. 4. nor has there been “incontrovertible proof” of anything. The skeptics are merely looking for one particular kind of evidence. it wasn’t even respectable to report secondary events. (B) The author never implies that satellite collisions were mistaken for occultations.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III 3. As (A) puts it. Paragraph 5 indicates that even astronomers who are still doubters would be convinced by the right kind of evidence.” (D) is too negative. The first sentence of paragraph 4 says that after the Herculina event secondary occultations became “‘respectable’—and more commonly reported. • When questions ask about “attitude. simple theory supports their existence. (C) (C) gets to the heart of the matter. astronomers who were skeptical of the existence of asteroid-satellites have become more open-minded. “hardheaded skeptism” in (D). and so weren’t commonly reported. (C) There’s no “chaotic mix of theory” relating to asteroid satellites. “bemusement” in (C). (A) The attitude of astronomers since the Herculina event is discussed in paragraphs 4 and 5. The words “contempt” in (B).e many astronomers came to accept the possible existence of asteroid-satellite systems. Paragraph 4 says the Herculina event made secondary sightings “respectable”—i. paragraph 1 indicates that a single. Paragraph 1 indicates that a good theoretical model of asteroid-satellite systems did exist prior to the Herculina event. Further. the passage doesn’t say that any data is “spurious. © K A PL A N 39 .” look at the tone of the choices. (B) describes the attitude of many astronomers prior to the Herculina event. although many are still awaiting proof. There’s no speculation on what. The issue of what constitutes a “well-behaved” event only arises later (in Paragraph 5). (D) Prior to the Herculina event. and “admiration” in (E) all lead to a quick rejection of their choices. they aren’t rejecting “all data not recorded automatically by state-of-the-art instruments. other than an actual satellite.
which describes what would be the case if asteroid-satellite systems resembled planet-satellite systems. (E) is easy to eliminate. he’s primarily interested in how experimental results enlighten the disucssion. (B)’s distinction between “spurious” and “theoretically believable” observations isn’t made in the passage. so we can’t calculate the increase of either. Prior to the Herculina event. there’s no attempt to limit speculation about occultation. instead. make sure you understand the author’s purpose in using them—in this case. (B) deals only with information in paragraph 5. 5. Moreover.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III (E) Au contraire aussi. (E) is beyond the scope. We don’t know how many reports of primary occultations have included secondary occultations. it wasn’t respectable to report the observation of a secondary event. “only one in every hundred primary occultations would be accompanied by a secondary event. to give you the highest reasonable limit for the number of secondary occultations one would expect to occur. • Take note of the time-frame of the question. • When you come across numbers in the question stem. because it never even mentions asteroid satellites. (B) distorts the last parenthetical clause of paragraph 4. not what is in fact the case on actual reports of secondary occultations. The passage never mentions any report containing more than one secondary occultation. (A) Much of the passage describes how reporting “secondary occultations” has become respectable. or how many reports of secondary occultations there are or were.” So (D) must be correct: Since the Herculina event. 6. Moreover. reports of secondary events have been occurring at a rate greater than this maximum plausible rate of one in every one hundred cases. (C) (C) is right on the money: the author’s primary purpose is to trace the development of ideas among astronomers concerning the existence of asteroid-satellite systems. here you’re only interested in the state of affairs before the Heruclina event. (A) and (C) simply can’t be concluded based on the passage’s information. (D) The author isn’t trying to bring a “theoretician’s perspective” to the discussion. Why? Because even if every asteroid has the highest plausible number of satellites. (D) Paragraph 4 says that reports of secondary occultations grew so common after the Herculina event that they’re now too numerous for all to be correct. 40 © K A PL A N .
(C) Based on paragraph 5. a photoelectric record of a “well-behaved” secondary event is exactly what skeptical astronomers say “would change their minds. (D) is just a more refined abstraction—it doesn’t constitute the kind of physical proof needed to resolve the question. © K A PL A N 41 .. you can expect the answer to have something to do with the photoelectric record. (B) The author never implies that there’s anything wrong with the original theoretical model. (E) distorts the passage’s final sentence. (C) would provide the hard physical evidence we need.g. and the clear implication is that nobody took them very seriously. • The airplane vs.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III • Quickly eliminate choices that contain terminology that doesn’t find an immediate echo in the passage—e. which suggests that airplanes passing in front of the instruments might be responsible for some observations of secondary events. 7.” (A) The existence of such early reports is only hinted at. ground-based comparison in (E) should have struck you as a totally new idea—don’t hesitate to reject such “out-of-the-blue” choices. “the limits of reasonable speculation” in (E).
who performed experiments and why. this passage is another candidate to be worked on early in the section. The question at the beginning introduces the paragraph’s focus. Yet. Paragraph 3 gives three reasons why the role of technicians was unacknowledged: (1) the belief that scientific breakthroughs occur as a result of flashes of insight on the part of brilliant individuals rather than through group efforts. In theory. 17th-century scientists believed that experiments should be performed by the scientists themselves. The long third paragraph is neatly divided by keywords. Purpose and Main Idea: The author seeks to show how the social prejudices and scientific views of 17th-century English scientists led them to leave much of their lab work to technicians. and the three answers given are clearly marked by the words “one reason. and purpose all appear in the first sentence. scope. many of them were aided in their experiments by paid technicians whose contributions went unacknowledged.” “moreover. scientists often did not act in accordance with their beliefs. (2) the fact that 17th-century English scientists were members of the upper class who held the manual labor done by their technicians in disdain. specifically. • Keywords can help you negotiate a passage easily. and prevented them from giving technicians the proper credit for their work. as paragraph 2 makes clear.” and “finally. As the example of Robert Boyle shows.” 42 © K A PL A N . Paragraph Structure: Paragraph 1 states that a distinction must be made between the way scientific experimentation was described by 17th-century English scientists and the way it was actually performed. and (3) the tendency to disregard as unreliable the input of the wage-slave technicians. The Big Picture: • Since topic.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III PASSAGE 2 — 17th-Century Scientific Discovery (Q. without relying on others for assistance. 8-15) Topic and Scope: Scientific experimentation in 17th-century England.
(D) focuses on the wrong issue. (A) would contradict seventeenth-century rhetoric by having Boyle admit that he relied on others. the passage never implies that scientific experiments would have been absolutely impossible without the aid of technicians. You’ve got to find the choice that encompasses the topic. • The main difficulty here is in sorting out the question. (C) Membership in the Royal Society alone wouldn’t determine whether or not Boyle performed experiments according to the rhetoric of the day.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III The Questions: 8. scope. and purpose of the text. (E) Seventeenth-century rhetoric about scientific experimentation emphasized the idea that scientists should do their own experiments. Moreover. and how that work was denigrated and distrusted for the reasons discussed in paragraph 3. The author explains how much of 17th-century experimental work was performed by technicians. what does it want you to do with the rhetoric? (It wants you to find a situation in Boyle’s lab that fits the rhetoric. (E) focuses on a detail. that rhetoric would have more accurately described the work conducted in Boyle’s lab if Boyle himself had actually done his own experiments. (A) ignores the major concern of the passage: why technicians’ contributions were overlooked. belonged to a lower social caste. acknowledging technicians is an issue raised by the author. (C) (C) covers the gist of the passage. contempt for manual labor was characteristic of seventeenthcentury scientists. Take it one step at a time: First.) © K A PL A N 43 . The passage never discusses the relationship between 20th-century scientists and their technicians. Hence. 9. (B) distorts the passage. The rhetoric in question was about scientists performing all their own experiments. (D) is outside the scope. what is the rhetoric the question speaks about? Second. not about acknowledging technicians. Lab workers. • In global questions. as salaried employees. (B) According to the passage. it’s not enough to look for a choice that sounds like it came from the author.
Nowhere does the passage state or imply that servants were inadequately educated (B). 44 © K A PL A N . as wage earners. it’s enough to locate the word in the passage and see how it appears in context. we’re told that the Royal Society of London endorsed the notion that doing menial work in the cause of science was a good thing. they were thought to be controlled by their employers. • Don’t worry about the precise definition of the “franchise”. In other words. (A) Servants weren’t excluded because their interests were already represented. or insufficient contributors to society (E). their political independence was thought to be compromised. paragraph 3 is where the author gets around to discussing the social reasons technicians were looked down on. but because it was believed that they would blindly support the political positions of the employers who paid their wages. as (C) says. the Society advocated abandoning the traditional upper class ethic against performing manual labor—at least as far as science was concerned. as far as the Royal Society of London was concerned. based on the information in the passage. (C) The “franchise” and it’s relation to servants is discussed in the middle of paragraph 3. the willigness of scientists to do their own manual labor was part of an attempt to discover God’s truth in nature (A).LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III 10. where it’s said that servants were excluded from the franchise because. as well as a demonstration of piety (E). (B) and (C) touch on issues which the Royal Society didn’t address. (A) and (E) are au contraire choices. In fact. As (D) puts it. and (E) are outside the scope. it’s quite likely that the upper class Royal Society would have endorsed these views. Pararagraph 1 explicitly says that. a polarizing force (D). 11. (B). given the paragraph divisions of the passage. The Society never asked scientists to abandon the individualistic view of scientific breakthroughs (B) or the view that wage-dependent servants shouldn’t vote (C). it should have been easy to find. • Even if you didn’t remember where the concept of “franchise” appeared. (D). (D) In the middle of Paragraph 1. • If you didn’t reread the relevant portion of text. you might easily have fallen for one of the trap choices.
reject (A) as soon as you see “question posed in the previous paragraph” and (E) as soon as you see “recent discoveries. There’s nothing in the passage about either seventeenth or twentieth century views of the connection between political values and scientific method. It then answers this question by discussing three factors that contributed to the failure to acknowledge the role of technicians. • In inference questions. an issue introduced in Paragraph 2. (B) None of the factors discussed in paragraph 3 is rejected.. (D) Paragraph 3 begins by asking why the role of technicians wasn’t acknowledged by 17thcentury scientists. beware of choices—like (B) here—that are outside the author’s scope. for all we know). the passage says nothing about twentieth-century beliefs concerning these things. • Reject choices as soon as they deviate from what you know about the passage—e. while the beliefs that research undertaken for pay couldnt be objective (C) and that scientific discovery could reveal divine truth (D) were indeed both held in the seventeenth century. (B) is outside the scope. (E) states a position that certainly wasn’t endorsed in the seventeenth century (and may not be widely endorsed in the twentieth century. (A) The question isn’t posed in the previous paragraph. (C) The explanations discussed aren’t incompatible—the factors in paragraph 3 are shown as working together. but is based on the author’s interpretation of seventeenth-century English society. (C) and (D) are out because.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III 12. rather than from the cooperative efforts of many people.” © K A PL A N 45 . nor is only one of several alternative answers adopted. (E) Paragraph 3’s explanation doesn’t rest on recent research.g. 13. (A) The second sentence of paragraph 3 indicates that both the seventeenth and twentieth centuries share the view that scientific discoveries result from the sudden insights of a small number of brilliant individuals.
whether in political judgments or in scientific research. which is that seventeenth-century scientists relied on technicians to do much more than simply the most menial tasks. (E) The author doesn’t tie the wage relationship to the nature of scientific discovery.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III 14. • Eliminate odd-man out choices quickly. not a subject of seventeenth-century rhetoric. the “rhetoric” discussed in the passage concerned only the importance of manual labor in research. Seventeenth-century scientific rhetoric emphasized the importance of doing manual labor in the cause of science. and analyze their own experiments. (E) Though scientists like Boyle did believe in the search for divine truth in nature. As (A) says. In this case. the author makes the point that workers dependent upon the wages of their employers simply weren’t considered reliable. (C) Seventeenth-century scientists failed to acknowledge the contributions of their technicians. (C) goes against the gist of the passage. you get the answer virtually handed to you in lines 53-55. (D) is also outside the scope. What was the rhetoric? That scientists should conduct. 46 © K A PL A N . Here. 15. so throw out (E) right away. • Always read around the line cited to get the context. but to the attitude of scientists towards technicians. the author puts the scientists’ failure to acknowledge the contributions of technicians in the context of general worker-employer relations. (D) As we’ve already seen. (A) In introducing the political significance of the wage relationship. (B) is outside the scope. the rhetoric of seventeenth-century English science concerned the idea of doing hands-on research. The scientific rhetoric of the time never addressed that issue. observe. (A) The myth about how discoveries were thought to occur is a general trend discussed by the author. the rhetoric in question clearly has to do with the manner in which scientific research takes place. The author doesn’t discuss political or economic changes in seventeenth-century England. The author offers no general thesis about the relationship between scientific discovery and economic conditions. (B) Au contraire.
LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III PASSAGE 3 — Monopoly Power (Q. Paragraph Structure: Paragraph 1 explains that the possession of monopoly power is not in itself illegal. which is. the difference between the possession of monopoly power. what’s not (possession) and why (consumer welfare). the abuse of monopoly power. 16-20) Topic and Scope: Monopoly power. Paragraph 4 describes the types of exclusionary practices which constitute abuse. for instance. and the abuse of monopoly power. Paragraph 3 explains why the mere possession of monopoly power isn’t illegal: Tighter laws might pose disincentives to the growth of monopolies and impair consumers’ welfare. there really isn’t a specific main idea. Paragraph 5 reiterates a point made earlier—that. Such passages always have questions that hinge on a clear understanding of the difference between the entities being compared. a company must abuse monopoly power by using it to exclude competition. specifically. © K A PL A N 47 . Since this is a descriptive passage. • You don’t have to assimilate all of the details to do well on this passage. which isn’t illegal. The important thing is to understand the basics of monopoly power—what’s illegal (abuse). to violate antitrust laws. antitrust laws focus on the abuse rather than the possession of monopoly power. Purpose and Main Idea: The author’s purpose is to describe what sort of exercises of monopoly power are considered violations of federal antitrust laws. The Big Picture: • Be on the lookout for passages that contrast two or more entities: the possession vs. Paragraph 2 explains how monopoly power comes about: Companies with a large market share can raise prices above competitive levels without losing customers. in the interests of consumer welfare.
and all leverage strategies are considered abuses by the author. the author brings up a number of cases where companies that possess monopoly power use it legally.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III The Questions: 16. you can eliminate the two “nos. (C) Au contraire aussi. 17. (D) The passage as a whole revolves around the distinction between possession of monopoly power and its abuse.” so it needn’t involve more than one market. • Once you see that “leveraging” is basically defined as an abuse of monopoly power. (B) “Tying arrangements” are presented as an example of leverage strategy. even if it was charging competitive prices. (D) A company using leverage would still violate antitrust laws. The use of monopoly power in itself doesn’t constitute abuse. (B) The author never suggests that monopoly power is easier to demonstrate than abuse. which says abuse of monopoly power must involve more than one market. (A) The author doesn’t make a legal distinction between market share and market control. (C) In the first paragraph. (E) At the beginning of paragraph 4.” a strategy which is clearly characterized as abuse in paragraphs 1 and 4. (E) Paragraph 5 says that antitrust laws focus on abuse of monopoly power rather than possession of it in order to protect consumers’ welfare. which says that monopoly power “doesn’t necessarily” hurt consumer welfare. abuse of monopoly power is defined as the exclusion of competition “in the monopolized market or related markets. (A) Au contraire. (D) Paragraph 3 says that charging supracompetitive prices doesn’t by itself constitute an abuse of monopoly power. and the qualified “yes. • Watch out for categorical choices like (C). whereas possession doesn’t necessarily hurt consumers. We’re told that the manipulation of related markets constitutes abuse. leverage is described as “the use of power in one market to reduce competition in another.” (A) and (B). So we can infer (E): that the abuse of monopoly power is prohibited because it impairs consumer welfare. In the third paragraph.” (D). even though these secondary markets aren’t monopolized. 18. Compare this choice with correct choice (E). The author is clarifying how far 48 © K A PL A N .
© K A PL A N 49 . and some aren’t. when close substitutes for a product are available. if indeed such profits exist. one of the most useful questionanswering techniques. • This question is a natural for pre-phrasing. once you see that it’s a mistake to tie competition to consumers’ welfare. (E) Since the existence of monopolies is considered better for consumer welfare under certain circumstances. we’re told that monopolist companies can be allowed to grow at the expense of competition in the interests of consumers’ welfare. competition benefits from a company that charges supracompetitive prices. At the end of paragraph 3. We’re told how far companies can exercise monopoly power without breaking the law. after all. (A) Au contraire. your grasp of paragraph structure should have clued you in that the answer would focus on illustrating when the use of monopoly power isn’t illegal. on the other hand. Here. (B) distorts the passage. 19. the author is distinguishing what is covered by the antitrust laws from what isn’t. (C) focuses on a detail. According to paragraph 2. As (D) puts it. a quite different thing from describing positive uses of monopoly power. it’s easy to reject the wrong choices. (A) is outside the scope. Paragraphs 4 and 5. (C) The author says that consumer welfare is the principle aim of the antitrust laws. focus on uses of monopoly power that are prohibited by antitrust laws. There’s no mention of supracompetitive profits in the passage.The point of the passage. (E) doesn’t really emerge until paragraph 5. which leads right to (D).LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III companies can legally exercise monopoly power. it’s by no means the central idea of paragraph 3. (B) Essentially the lawmakers’ attitude toward monopoly is that some methods of reducing competition are legitimate. (D) Au contraire aussi. Paragraphs 2 and 3 center around the extent to which companies can exercise monopoly power without violating antitrust laws. In this case. is to distinguish between legal and illegal forms of monopoly. lawmakers presumably wouldn’t agree that competition is necessary to supply high-quality products at low prices. • Use what you learn in dealing with one answer choice to help you evaluate the others. not the main purpose of the paragraph.
Restraints on monopoly haven’t been left to the market. (C) is outside the scope. and explaining that monopoly power can sometimes be in the consumers’ best interests. We want a choice that’s relevant to this idea. which aren’t mentioned anywhere in the passage. It focuses on two particular industries that haven’t been mentioned anywhere. (A) The author’s point in the final paragraph is that the legal distinction between possession of monopoly power and its abuse is based on a desire to promote consumer welfare. (A) fits the bill by picking up the consumer-welfarebased distinction between abuse and possession of monopoly power. but rather have been enforced by antitrust laws. (B) goes against the gist of the last paragraph. (D) dredges up the idea of “supracompetitive” profits.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III 20. 50 © K A PL A N . The author believes that antitrust laws have been effective in securing the consumers’ best interests. • Finding the sentence that logically completes a paragraph is not difficult if you keep the paragraph’s purpose in mind. (E) also goes against the gist of the paragraph.
there’s no radical change in motor habits or thought processes. • Notice how neatly this passage is arranged. Paragraph 4 begins the author’s criticsm of Amden’s theory: “Amsden’s view raises several questions. The questions will certainly test to see that you’ve grasped the differences. zigzags. specifically. and that the very fact of the border changed the way Navajo weavers designed rugs. The first three paragraphs describe Amsden’s views. or diamonds. the different styles of Navaho rug weaving and how they developed. Paragraph 2 explains that Amsden believes that there’s some Anglo influence in the diamond style. Purpose and Main Idea: The author describes a theory—Amsden’s theory about Navajo weaving styles and how they evolved—and then calls that theory into question. Paragraph 6 questions the idea that there really is a stylistic gap between banded and bordered styles. a border surrounding central figures. Paragraph 3 gives the meat of Amsden’s argument: he believes that the bordered rug represents a radical break with previous styles. while the fourth style is quite different. The Big Picture: • When more than one view is presented.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III PASSAGE 4 — Navaho Blankets (Q. Paragraph Structure: Paragraph 1 introduces Amsden’s view of Navajo weaving styles: three of them are banded with stripes. while the last three—beginning at line 28—supply the author’s critique of Amsden. but a result of the artist’s quest for invention. but the most Anglo influence appears in the bordered style. Paragraph 5 raises the second question: what’s the relationship between banded and bordered styles? The author contends that the break in style isn’t a break in psychology. © K A PL A N 51 . you need to be clear about the distinctions between or among the different points of view.21-28) Topic and Scope: Navajo weaving.” First question: what is involved in altering artistic styles? The author concludes that in the case of weaving. Finally.
(B) Amsden depicts the strips of color as signs of general Navaho abhorrence for borders. • Be suspicious of any choice that has a highly charged word like “disintegrate” (D). the strips of color bursting through the border reflect resistance to Anglo culture. • Avoid choices that are either too broad or too narrow in scope.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III The Questions: 21. but doesn’t reject Amsden’s categorization of the styles. It doesn’t even mention Navajo weaving. or the author. For Amsden. as Amsden believed. not necessarily an “echo” of the diamond style. (A) is outside the scope. The author never suggests that the Navajo rejected all Anglo cultural influence. 52 © K A PL A N . bottom. but as a result of Navajo experimentation with design and the artistic quest for invention. bottom. 23. the Navajo resisted the bordered style. (C) (C) captures the author’s view as it is expressed in paragraphs 5 and 6. The author questions Amsden’s account of how the styles developed. 22. (D) is outside the scope as well. (D) According to Amsden. not the banded style. (C) focuses on a detail. the author suggests that the diamond style pre-dated the arrival of the Anglos. (E) The desire for designs with a top. (A) In mentioning the Chief White Antelope blanket at the end of the passage. The author thinks that the bordered style gradually evolved from the banded style not necessarily as a result of Anglo influence. Amsden. and border. and border is presented as an Anglo desire. (E) This choice captures the passage’s focus on Amsden’s views of Navajo weaving styles and the author’s critique of those views. (A) The author mentions the strips of color breaking through the enclosed border as evidence of Navajo distaste for the Anglo preference that graphic designs have a top. (C) Au contraire. unless the tone of the passage clearly warrants such a word. albeit in abstract language. (B) distorts the author’s criticism. It plays on an idea that the author puts forth in paragraph 5. (A) paraphrases this sentiment.
(D) is also outside the scope. 25. the author suggests that motor habits and thought processes have little application to Navajo weaving. and later moved on to isolated figures (when the bordered style was adopted). it’s difficult to prephrase. (D) The author accepts Amsden’s classification that Navajo weavings used horizontal bands of abstract designs early on. that’s uniquely characteristic of the bordered style. (A) Paragraph 3 says that the old patterns alternated decorations like stripes. • In an open-ended question like this one. (E) Saying that vertical arrangements of diamond parts “anticipated the border” isn’t the same as saying that “rows” of horizontal and vertical diamonds were “transformed into solid lines” to create the border.. zigzags. There’s no evidence of what the author thinks is “generally” the case when two cultures occupy the same region. but differs from Amsden in arguing that the change was gradual. The figures came later. (A) In Paragraph 4. The bordered style used isolated figures (paragraph 1). “horizontal bands” and “color” were used in early styles. So. while pre-1890 weavings used continuous patterns (paragraph 3). Nothing in this passage suggests that non-Anglo cultures influenced Navajo weaving.e. Move on quickly to evaluating the other choices. not a radical break. © K A PL A N 53 . you’re looking for the choice that’s not characteristic of pre-1890 weavings—i. (B) Neither the author nor Amsden attributes the zigzag style to Anglo influences. (E) Also au contraire. or diamonds in a regular order—that’s a “repetition of forms. (C) and (E) According to paragraph 1. (D) What happened in 1890? The bordered style appeared.” (B) Early Navajo rugs were continuous.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III (B) is outside the scope. you’re looking for the choice that isn’t true. with overall patterns rather than isolated figures. • In “all/EXCEPT” questions. 24. (C) Au contraire. The only course to take is to go through the choices one-by-one. • Don’t spend an inordinate amount of time with any choice that confuses you—as (B) may have done here. Only the border style is said routinely to contain isolated figures.
(D) The Chief White Antelope blanket questions the idea of Anglo influence. (E) This blanket seems to illustrate innovation within the diamond style. There is no suggestion that Amsden has confused the features of the zigzag and diamond styles. (D) The author doesn’t criticize Amsden for basing his theories on a limited number of weaving specimens. the answer is to be found by reading the lines around the detail. 27. and 6. the artists’ quest for invention. As (C) says. (E) is also outside the scope. the existence of intermediate forms—that suggest that the bordered style may have arisen without Anglo evidence. 54 © K A PL A N . The author’s basic point here is that Amsden has overlooked some things—the nature of weaving. he views the two styles as radically different. and uses the Chief White Buffalo blanket as an example to illustrate this point. The author says that the vertically arranged diamonds in the Chief White Antelope blanket anticipate the border.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III 26. The author’s objections occur in paragraphs 4. don’t endorse choices that stray too far from the passage’s content. Moreover. 5.” not a central design. The Chief White Antelope blanket argues against the influence of Anglo culture on the bordered style. (C) The author’s main point of issue with Amsden concerns the claim about Anglo influence. the author makes the point that some stylistic changes that led the way to the border style can't be attributed to Anglo influence. The author never discusses Amsden’s feeling about Anglo culture. too. • In questions that ask for the “why” of a detail. (A) is clearly incorrect because Amsden sees little or no correspondence between Anglo and Navajo art. (C) Au contraire. Be sure to get a sense of the detail’s context before shopping among the answer choices. • In inference questions. (B) is outside the scope. this blanket has a “flowing design. the author thinks that Amsden fails to consider certain aspects of Navajo weaving in making his claim. Rather. (A) Au contraire. (B) In the final paragraph.
but to question a view regarding the development of these styles. • In questions that ask for the author’s main concern or primary purpose. start with a verb scan to eliminate wrong choices. (C) is outside the scope. (A) Although the passage does compare different weaving styles—the banded and the bordered—the central concern is not to compare the styles. (B) Paragraphs 1 through 3 describe Amsden’s view about how the bordered Navajo weaving style developed. this choice accurately sums up the passage’s primary concern. Thus. that’s done only in order to question Amsden’s explanation of how the bordered style evolved. neutral verbs like “comparing.” and “analyzing” won’t do. The passage never proposes new methods of investigation. Paragraphs 4 through 6 question that view.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III 28. So. © K A PL A N 55 . The interaction between two cultures is an idea of Amsden’s. it’s important to realize that the author isn’t neutral.” “discussing. While the author does discuss the influence of Anglo style on Navajo weaving. (E) The author’s focus is on the evolution of a style. In this case. (D) This choice focuses on a detail. he or she is disagreeing with a view.
SECTION IV: LOGICAL REASONING 56 © K A PL A N .
The author concludes that the computer will not eventually replace the teacher. by the very nature of the analogy.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV 1. therefore confusing the purpose of the analogy. the main scope of the argument. (A) asserts that computers are as good as teachers in drilling students on rules and facts. any choices that don’t include the concept of translation. The author freely admits that computers would be capable of replacing teachers if that’s all there is to it. “what would the author like me to take away from this passage?” In a question like this. © K A PL A N 57 . not to argue that the two things are or should be similar in every respect. byt the argument is not even remotely concerned whether some languages are more or less musical. which isn’t included to convince us that poetry should be like music. (A) No. It also strays from the scope. the point of the argument must be that translation from one language to another can only be achieved if the translator does not simply try to copy the original exactly. the author is implying that poetry tranlation is possible. then computers might well eventually replace human teachers as drill masters and coaches. than others. obviously assuming that computers can’t teach these general concepts along with the facts and rules. 2. a student's understanding also consists of having a grasp of the general concepts underlying them. (C) also tries to combine poetry with musical qualities like rhythm and sound patterns. so long as the translation is guided by the nature of the language it’s translated into. but argues that computers fall short because learning requires a grasp of underlying concepts as well. and hence more or less poetic. • Understand that the purpose of an analogy is to show or imply one element of similarity between two different things. and to try to suit the original composition to the new instrument. music and poetry. but is also guided by the innate possibilities and limitations of the new language. and (D) goes one step further and says that they’re better. (E) is plainly outside the scope of the argument. translation. (C) undermines the argument by attacking this assumption. • Read critically and always keep in mind what the author considers important. if a student’s understanding of a subject consisted only of knowing facts and rules. but rather to suggest that similar factors that influence musical translation may also influence poetry translation. (C) According to the author. (D) The only way for a violin to play recognizably the same music as the piano is for the violinist to keep the nature and possibilities of his instrument in mind. Ask yourself. Since the two different instruments are intended to be analogous to the two different languages. However. should be quickly discarded. (B) attempts to confuse the issue by combining the two elements of the analogy. which never debates the relative difficulty of translating philosophical insights or subjective impressions.
(A) begins with a premise relating the cost of house-building to the price of houses. if the sales tax (Y) is higher than the predicted level. chances are that the correct choice will follow this “it will be because” format. Therefore. 58 © K A PL A N . into its conclusion. then city council didn’t maintain spending at the same level. The contrapositive of the first sentence is “If the sales tax is not 2%.” The higher tax mentioned in the second sentence could be the result of other factors. whereas the stimulus was concerned with quantitative terms. (C) most closely parallels this. since it introduces the totally new idea of improved services. (B) also complicates things by introducing the idea of reduced profits due to shoplifting. This element of causation throws a kink into the logic. then it will be because city council spending (X) increased. (E) also drags a new consideration. newspaper circulation. then look for the choice that does the same. (E). • One of the most common ways to weaken an argument on the LSAT is to call the author’s central assumption into question. which is a completely new idea.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV (B) Au-contraire. (E) is concerned with qualitative terms. this actually supports the argument by stating that the teacher's essential task is to make students understand the general concepts behind specific facts and rules— exactly what the author claims computers are not able to do. then the prices charged for goods (Y) will remain at the level it was at last year. 3. complete with the logical flaw: If workers’ wages (X) aren’t increased. (C) Here’s the reasoning: If city council spending (X) remains the same. because the author implies that drills and coaching are the computer’s strong point. Therefore. (D)’s conclusion bears no resemblance to the stimulus conclusion. but goes on to try to deduce something about builders attempting to sell a greater number of houses. if anything. • Assess the merit of the argument—if the original seems to botch a cause-and-effect relationship. (D) Much like in (B). then the sales tax (Y) can be expected to be at a certain level. it need not be caused by an increase in expenditures. supports the argument. then it will be because the workers’ wages (X) also increased. if the prices (Y) rise beyond the predicted level. a third term not found in the original. • It’s often quite valuable to do a quick scan and comparison of the argument’s and choices’ conclusions in Parallel Reasoning questions. (A) and (C) are the only viable candidates to consider. a third term in the argument. If the original’s conclusion is that if something happens “it will be because” something else has happened.
(A) subtly strengthens the argument. so we can’t infer that it will produce new ones. wrong choices can be eliminated because they switch the cause-and-effect relationship. Very often. without corporate support. (C) is way off. but instead could be privately financed. the argument falls apart. (D) Good deeds are beneficial to the immune system of the person who does them. • Beware of choices with extreme or radical language that doesn’t fit the tone of the stimulus. • Focus on the path of causality when one thing is said to cause another. not the other way around. 4. (C) The author concludes that if production costs for operas were lowered. ticket buyers would be able to see a wider variety of operas. White blood cells are needed to fight infection. We are therefore safe in inferring that magnanimous behavior is beneficial to one’s own interests. Magnanimity causes the stimulation of beneficial chemicals related to the immune system—wrong choice (C) gets it totally backwards. (D) The author’s whole point is to produce the operas without corporate sponsorship. then operas would no longer need corporate sponsorship. by opening up the possibility that people would be willing to pay to see little known operas as opposed to famous ones. (A) The stimulus says nothing about what constitutes a good deed. (B) The argument isn’t affected in the least if corporate sponsors still wish to support opera. (C) destroys this wishful thinking. or what sort of motives are required for a deed to be truly “good. (E)’s a distortion—the stimulus said only that magnanimity will stimulate the activity of white blood cells. or extreme sounding choices are some of the most common wrong answers. we can hardly say that lack of magnanimity actually causes most serious illnesses. © K A PL A N 59 . Distortions.” (B) While it’s claimed that magnanimous behavior helps the immune system. many of the wrong choices will include additional or fewer terms. the whole issue centers on what will happen without corporate sponsorship. and pay careful attention to the number of terms represented in the original. do so. and magnanimous behavior causes the brain to produce chemicals that stimulate and aid the activity of these white blood cells. as a result. Magnanimity produces the chemicals.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV • If you can symbolize the argument algebraically. opera companies could still afford to produce only the most famous operas. instead of just the most famous ones. while (B) misunderstands the relationship as well. 5. so this piece of info has no bearing on the argument. If.
and once again. only a choice that breaks down or shores up this assumption can affect the argument in this way. (D) The author does not offer a final judgment about clocks. it closed others” gives it away. since we’re looking for a generally-stated proposition based on the clocks example. the fact that they increase synchronization and productivity. many choices in this question type are simply irrelevant. • Don’t underestimate the power of asking yourself “so what?” when evaluating choices in strengthen/weaken questions. • Always keep the scope of the argument in mind. The actual functioning of the clock. not a recommendation of what to do. 6. and the specific effects it has (like adding synchronization). (A) fits the bill by expanding the author’s observation about the double effect of clocks and applying it to new machines in general. and besides. Since we’re looking for a proposition (a generality) illustrated by this example. even those that also have a restricting effect. cannot be generalized and applied to other machines.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV (E) We can infer that the author has already thought of this. (C) The clock example doesn’t match this at all. an assumption) doesn’t strengthen or weaken an argument. Many (if not most) of the wrong choices will simply go beyond (or way beyond) what the author is saying.” think more in terms of generalities than specifics. • When you see the words “proposition” or “principle.e. (A) The sentence “at the same time that the clock opened up some avenues. 60 © K A PL A N . (E) mistakenly takes a specific attribute of clocks. any choice containing only a clocks-related soundbite must be wrong. as it illustrates that new technologies can improve our lives. and attributes it to most machines. and therefore have no effect on the author’s logic. which may. have entirely different functions and effects. it introduces the notion of something having both a liberating and a restricting effect. • A simple restatement of something that the author is taking for granted as true (i. after all. we’re looking for a general concept that can be illustrated by the clock example. which is why her plan involves cutting production costs in order to produce operas without corporate support. (B) is never suggested.
If.. There’s “incontestable proof” that safety seats will reduce the number of serious injuries sustained by children in car accidents. It’s beyond the scope. • Pay attention to. Statements about the argument that are true or simply restate information must be eliminated. The answer to a flaw question must contain a flaw. If the argument proceeds “X will lead to Y.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV 7. and have been proven to be effective in preventing.. so the fact that some music teachers may frown on this notion is irrelevant.e.e. safety seats must be used properly in order for them to afford protection. (A) and (C) are wrong for the same reason: Both supposed explanations ignore the fact that the unexpected finding centers around children who are actually in the seats receiving injuries. at least some practice is necessary. 8. How many or how few people have this kind of time on their hands is outside the scope. (C) is the contrapositive of the conclusion. three hours a day is not necessary). True. what you’re asked for. as (E) says. According to the first sentence. (E) First. This is a case of confusing necessity with sufficiency. but just because three hours a day will ensure expertise doesn’t mean that someone couldn’t acquire expert status with only one hour of practice a day. and if parents are failing to use them properly. (A) We’re told that a person who practices three hours a day will eventually become an expert—it therefore doesn’t matter if someone who practices three hours a day is not yet considered an expert. (D) The argument doesn’t specify that the practice hours must be consecutive. and therefore makes the same error that the conclusion makes.” the author has no obligation to also prove that lots of people can do X. then it’s easily conceivable for children riding in safety seats to still suffer serious injuries. (E) also brings up an irrelevant consideration—the argument focuses the practice requirements that will lead to expertise. © K A PL A N 61 . but nothing rules out the possibility of becoming an expert by practicing less than three hours a day (i. (B) The author of the argument has erroneously combined the premises in the first two sentences and taken them to mean that a person must practice three hours a day to become an expert. that of assuming that one must practice three hours a day to become an expert. and never lose sight of. it’s sufficient for expertise). define the unexpected finding. according to the second sentence. three hours a day of practice will make someone an expert eventually (i. yet a large number of children who are riding in safety seats continue to receive the serious injuries that the seats were specifically designed to prevent. • Don’t fault an author for not addressing a point that he has no logical obligation to address.
• In Inference questions.confident. Things that you don’t know will appear as wrong answer choices for sure. (C) and (E) are also beyond the scope. (D) This one also explains nothing—it ignores the fact that children are sustaining the very injuries that the seats were designed to prevent. There’s no way for us to infer the reason behind the stated correlation (C). and very much in line with the gist of the argument.” and “surprising result” are three common phrases that signify Paradox. (A) is the contrapositive of this.” learn to recognize the various ways this question type is presented. in other words. (A) Since both the willingness to make fun of oneself and the willingness to allow others to do so are evidence of a self-confident person. why self-confident people put themselves down. that is. as some may not. or what they would prefer. either by themselves or by others. if you tell funny stories or jokes about yourself. “Unexpected finding. (D) We have no idea who “most people” are. pay attention not only to what you know. • The answer to a Paradox question cannot contradict the stimulus or bring up irrelevant information (like parents who don’t even buy the seats). which may at first seem like a stronger statement than the argument can definitely support. we can infer that people who aren't selfconfident aren't likely to enjoy being made fun of. 62 © K A PL A N . but also to what you don’t know.” “discrepancy. However. Even if you don’t see eye to eye with this logic. (A) is still the best of the bunch. 9. And the reason why anyone tells jokes about other people in their presence (what choice (E) discusses) is never discussed. • Not all Paradox questions make use of the word “paradox. (B) Beyond the scope—the passage talks about other people making fun of self-confident people. the phrase “the surest mark” is meant to indicate that telling funny stories or jokes about oneself is tantamount to being self.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV (B) More children making automobile trips doesn't bring us any closer to understanding the mysterious failure of the seats to perform the function for which they were designed. but says nothing about the reverse scenario. and for which they have been proven effective. (A) implies that no one who lacks self-confidence will enjoy being made fun of. then you are self-confident.
This increased heat in turn results in increased evaporation of sea water. In order to succeed on the LSAT. that sentence is basically a tangential point that has little to do with the logic of the argument. but your best bet is to follow the cause-and-effect relationships and make deductions as if they represented Logic Games rules. it would likely be more indirect. The decreased evaporation of sea water results in less rain. along the lines of the processes described. which leads to increased rainfall. (B) Some may feel that this weakens the author’s concession in the last sentence. (E) The author concludes that environmentalists are wrong to worry about increased carbon levels due to the burning of fossil fuels. (E) This one’s fairly complex. which means that there’s a lot of reading between the lines to be done. there may or may not be a decrease in atmospheric carbon. not the other way around. (D) Straight from the passage: A decrease in atmospheric carbon leads to a decrease in atmosphere heat. you must dictate to the test. this probably doesn’t even affect the author’s concession. then the atmosphere holds more heat. she merely argues that nature takes care of the carbon level by itself. However. if. four out of the five choices must be inferable from the stimulus. especially when the stimulus is based on a long and confusing process like this one. Put 'em together. Only one of the choices can’t be deuced from the “rules” of this stimulus. allowing wide short-term fluctuations in the carbon level. One option is to skip this question type (and assumed EXCEPT questions as well) and come back to it at the end. (C) The author doesn’t debate the necessity of carbon. We cannot infer the opposite: If there's a decrease in atmospheric heat. which means less carbon being washed into the seas. because that statement never said or implied that the threat to humans of increased carbon levels would come from breathing it in. as choice (E) states. • An inferred EXCEPT question is by nature complex. However. which deals with nature’s regulation of the carbon level. and that the environmentalists should chill. the adjustment process works very slowly. (B) If the amount of carbon in the atmosphere increases. 11. • Don’t be afraid to temporarily skip intimidating questions. which results in decreased evaporation of sea water. but even if it did. then it’s conceivable that dangerous or even lethal levels of carbon can build up. (A). there's a decrease in atmospheric heat. (C) More of the same process: Increased heat leads to increased evaporation of sea water. and we get (B): increased carbon in the atmosphere means increased evaporation of sea water. © K A PL A N 63 .LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV 10. thus severely weakening the author's argument: the environmentalists would be right to worry. and it turns out to be (E): We know that if there's a decrease in atmospheric carbon. because nature will continually adjust the carbon level. (A).
watching less TV is a necessary condition. (A) and (B). then the impact of TV watching on the situation may be at best insignificant and at worst irrelevant. (E) Based on the statistical evidence provided. is not so. in concluding that less TV watching will help improve U. it stands regardless of whether children will be motivated to adopt this condition. as discsussed in class. The author doesn't consider the possibility that there are other reasons for this difference in mathematical ability. the author must assume that math instruction in America and South Korea is of the same caliber. childrens’ math abilities. is based on a necessary condition that underlies U. There’s usually a wrong choice that keys off of such irrelevant info.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV (D) This is an irrelevant comparison that has no bearing on the logic of the argument. as (E) does) other explanations: lack of interest and discipline on the part of American children compared with the South Koreans. the concept of the “synergy” between these types of Logical Reasoning questions. or as in this case. the testmakers can write a number of different questions that in some way play off of this other explanation: logical flaw. if true. and the author need not assume this for the conclusion to stand. simply put. how much less is not addressed. Surely how much television children watch isn't the only difference between lifestyles of South Korean and American children. In other words. Review. the author assumes that other possible factors that could account for the difference in math abilities don’t in fact play a role. • Recognize filler material (like the author’s concession that a sustained increase in the carbon level would threaten human life) that plays no real part in the overall logic of the argument. therefore. but is not sufficient for math success. The argument ends there. This one hour time frame appears out of nowhere. • If there’s an alternative explanation for the facts of a situation. (E) zeros in on this assumption: it certainly would seem that mathematical instruction would also be an important factor in determining competence in math. (D) The conclusion is stated in terms of watching “less” TV. which could in fact explain the scenario and weaken the author’s contention. Remember. Notice in this case that many of the choices contained alternative explanations for the discrepancy noted.S. they must watch less television.S. if necessary. • Assumptions often spring from something that the author has failed to consider. children’s math success. and therefore has assumed to be unimportant. the author concludes that if American children are to become as capable as their South Korean peers. but only correct choice (E) negated the possibility of the alternative it provided. 12. 64 © K A PL A N . (C) The author’s conclusion. so the author need not assume that watching less than one hour of TV a day will guarantee an increase in math ability. according to the author. In making this claim. assumption. both weaken the argument by providing (and not discounting. a very common assumption on the logical reasoning section is the assumption that another viable explanation. therefore. If these things are true. strengthen/weaken.
it’s certainly possible that the store doesn’t have exclusive access or the publisher’s discount. but it’s not a guarantee. (B) can literally always be true. which in this case represents bookstores that don’t sell books at below-market prices. all the store needs is exclusive access to a large specialized market.” an example of which appears in choice (D) here. then either it has exclusive access to a large specialized market. a high volume relies on either exclusive access or a large specialized market (a necessary condition). but neither of these things necessarily guarantees (i. if it does not have exclusive access.” You don’t have to know this term. then Y” and form the contrapositive by reversing and negating the terms: “If NOT Y. and by extension. it's quite possible that a bookstore with exclusive access to a large specialized market that also caters to mass tastes will be able to sell books at a discount. Since this store doesn’t cater to mass tastes. As stated above.e. the discounts. As for (B). • The technical term for a very common LR mistake that’s particularly related to formal logic stimuli is “denying the antecedent.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV 13. after all. (E) No. is outside the scope. it’s necessary to receive discounts to sell at below-market prices. • We’ve seen it plenty on this test alone. (E) Since this store doesn’t cater to mass tastes. then NOT X. goodbye. is not logically valid. then it certainly must be true that a bookstore that is profitably selling books at below market prices is getting discounts from publishers. we know that we can take the statement “If X. © K A PL A N 65 . (A) and (B) both confuse necessity with sufficiency: For (A). then NOT Y. (C) is certainly true. and the concept comes up in different forms all the time on the LSAT—make sure you have a good grasp of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. is sufficient) a high sales volume. (C) The inference comes right out of the first sentence: If the only way a bookstore can profitably sell books at below market prices is to get the books at a discount from publishers. but you should be familiar with the common error it signifies. but forgetting to reverse them. (A) could be true. nothing forces bookstores to sell at below-market prices. then it is impossible for that store to generate the volume to get the discounts that would allow the store to profitably sell its books at below-market prices. (D) Because this store doesn’t cater to mass tastes.” Denying the antecedent involves negating the terms. NOT X. 14. (D) The bookstore in this choice (one that doesn’t sell books at below-market prices) is entirely outside of the scope of the argument. and the ensuing statement “If NOT X. so nothing can be inferred about it. or it can kiss the volume.. Using classic algebraic form.
but does she have to? Does the argument depend on it?” The faster you see that statements of fact can be both true and the wrong answer to the question (in both LR and RC). new information is for that question only. (E) Species have been coming and going long before humans ever came along. it's just not important to her argument. More often than not. the better. it will be there. 66 © K A PL A N . (B) The author isn't ignoring this fact. and cross those off. She doesn't identify a group of scientists that have this theory. So don’t be fooled by choices that appear to be true. If you can identify what’s missing in the argument. These species aren't mentioned because they have no effect on her argument. The existence of undiscovered species has no bearing on the argument that extinction is natural. In other words. failing to consider something that has nothing to do with your argument is not a reasoning error.” The more appropriate test is “yeah. (C) Once again. she has failed to present any proof that the more recently extinct species would have definitely become extinct without our help. • Pre-phrasing an answer can be particularly useful in identifying flaws. the author doesn’t mention this. all she argues is that damage to the environment didn't cause extinctions which wouldn't have otherwise occurred naturally. estimate that it's the case. be careful with stimuli with two questions. she just says that scientists. actively search the choices for your idea. not because she erroneously overlooks them. If the second stem introduces new information (like 14 does). 15.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV • While you should always read the question stem first. From Games. you know how to handle a CANNOT be true question—simply determine whether each choice could or must be true. and those who wish to blame recent extinctions on human technology and its consequent effects on the environment ignore the fact that extinction is a natural process that would be going on even if we were not around. (A) is mired in a scope shift—the author doesn't argue that technology has not harmed the environment in any way. be sure that you don’t take that information back with you to the first question. in general. (D) is a distortion of the author's second statement. However. Just like in Logic Games. • Once again. thinking “Yeah. the author argues that the more recent extinctions are just part of the same process that has been going on since before the environment was harmed by technology. the author does fail to mention this. • Draw upon your Logic Games skills for Logical Reasoning whenever possible. the author is not responsible for including in her argument every bit of information that falls under the scope of her general topic.
(D) We’re only interested in the bias of the media and the fact that the public would have a hard time seeing it. and for the conclusion to still remain valid. (E) We're given no clues as to how the public would respond to a scenario like this. believing that it might be prejudiced. the choice concerns an individual with decision making power. paying attention to the scope of the argument should have helped you to narrow it down to correct choice (A).” then the author is likely assuming that decisions to undertake risky projects are only made by a single individual. (D) You should be able to pre-phrase a pretty close answer. Whether or not reporters hold the same view as their public is immaterial. If no risky projects are decided upon in bureaucracies. The reasons for the bias therefore cannot be a conclusion the author’s moving towards.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV 16. There’s also a scope shift here: The “views” discussed in (D) don’t necessarily fall under the category of “biases. (B) The public may believe that the media is biased. if it even exists. © K A PL A N 67 . and the bureaucratic decision making involves “many people. just that the public may have trouble discerning media bias. and the media may indeed be biased. (B) What “type” of people work in bureaucracies is beyond the scope. (C) contains a few scope shifts: First.taking risks may be similar but is not necessarily the same thing as undertaking risky projects. In other words. but it doesn’t rely on the notion that all projects in a bureaucracy involve risk—some may not without affecting the logic of the argument. (A) Try the Denial Test: What if not all projects in a bureaucracy involve risk? Does the argument suffer? No. From there. but they use information dispersed by the media as fuel for that doubt.” which is after all what the stimulus talks about. but there's no evidence in the stimulus that there is a specific political agenda at work. which only the first three choices deal with. If you’re unsure. whereas the stimulus indirectly refers to a situation where a single individual has all of the power. the topic is biases in mass media. 17. then it seems probable that the public would find it difficult to detect a wide-spread media bias. the conclusion is about the fate of risky projects. • A conclusion will almost always cover the main topic and must certainly fall within the scope of the argument. it would be difficult to find an objective standard against which to judge a media report. and certainly not a crucial factor in making this argument. try the Denial Test again: It’s possible for an individual with decision-making power to not take risks.(A) is a rephrasing of that thinking. Second. (A) If the public distrusts the media. Here. (C) The author hasn’t even established that biases actually exist.
This advance notice should help you to prephrase an answer before moving on to the choices. The argument’s validity doesn’t rely on a delineation of the specific mechanics involved. the physicalists.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV (E) says that people take fewer risks when they're members of a group. the argument isn’t concerned with whether explaining mental functions in neurobiological terms is useful. only that it will be accomplished in the near future. if an author argues that something should be done. and we understand the scope and character of many psychological capacities. • Transform the prose into simple thoughts and general terms whenever possible. (D) Outside the scope. the author concludes. that the word “neurobiological” is used as if it had the same meaning as “mental”. We have X and Y.” We’re concerned only that that knowledge is needed for the result. whether it’s useful or it should be done is usually irrelevant. two of these things have already been attained—we have knowledge of the basic functions of neurons. is the very opposite of the truth. What happened to “a knowledge of how neurons interact?” The flaw is that three things are required to achieve a certain result. All that’s going on here can be broken down into this: Something can be accomplished if we have X. you’ll expect to find a gaping hole in the argument. If the two words had been treated as meaning the same thing from the beginning. Should” scope shift: If the point of an argument is that something can be done. 68 © K A PL A N . and that it currently exists. demonstrating whether it’s easy or difficult or even possible to do is usually not the author’s responsibility. (C)'s complaint. (E) Three things are required in order to achieve the physicalists' goal: 1) a knowledge of the basic functions of neurons. we can expect to achieve the goal of explaining mental functions in neurobiological terms in the near future. and 3) a delineation of the psychological faculties to be explained. 18. • The point of previewing the question stem is so that in a case like this. The point is that ultimately all mental functions will be explainable in neurobiological terms. But we need a statement that implies that they take no risks when they're part of a bureaucracy. the argument would have been pointless. so it can be done. 2) a knowledge of how neurons interact. At present. and Z. (B) The author should not be expected to describe “exactly what is currently known about the basic functions of neurons. Conversely. Therefore. Y. So while (E) may have initially appeared tempting. and the author concludes that the result can be achieved even though we only have two. not contradicts. it's not strong or specific enough to allow the argument's conclusion to follow from the premises. The flaw? What happened to Z? • Remember the “Can vs. (A) The conclusion agrees with.
and go back to the government posts they left behind. and the argument would still be unaffected. and both of these qualities are important. Using your common sense and critical thinking skills to see other sides of the story will win you many points. interpretations. This state of affairs does nothing to damage the author's proposal. can be weakened. Focus on the phrase “homelessness is a serious social problem. It’s no wonder that so many arguments on the LR sections are flawed. (C) Try the Denial Test: The denial of (C) would be the government taking no action and the gap in salaries not increasing. (E) is the opposite of what is assumed. Understanding this allows should help you eliminate choices that mistakenly ascribe special significance to this statement.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV 19. 20.” it’s simply information that serves to set up the argument. (B) We learn in the first sentence that these administrators are both experienced and extremely capable. • Many authors see the world as purely black and white. Don’t worry yourself with the obvious flaw in his argument. need to be strengthened. (A) The individuals in question are already experienced. (E) would have them moving in large numbers to the lower-paying (public) government jobs. in determining how well government agencies function. this intro statement is consistent with an acceptance or denial of the conclusion. but actually does little more. implications. © K A PL A N 69 . And since the argument itself is based on other pieces of evidence. the argument falls apart. Competence can be the most important factor. it’s not an alternative perspective to the one the politician adopts. or have gaping holes in them (assumptions). this is possible only if these administrators will willingly change jobs again. (C) The politician and his opponents—those who want more funding for low-income housing—agree that homelessness is a serious social problem. and solutions. and the author feels that it is already worth the extra money required for the government to “recapture” them. The argument has said all along that the administrators are chasing the big money. (D) The author argues that the government can win back the lost administrators by raising government salaries to a level that is comparable with private sector salaries. which is about how to recapture administrators who have already left. We aren’t asked that. (A) The statement is merely offered to frame the argument. If not. he sets out to refute a proposed solution. However. so any new experience is not necessary to the worth of this plan. (B) The politician doesn’t set out to solve the problem. and often present arguments in very simplistic terms that ignore alternative possibilities. as opposed to experience. They disagree about how to solve it. which shows that this (B) is not a necessary assumption on the part of the author. when in fact it’s little more than filler material.
if Leona responded with choice (C). 70 © K A PL A N . he's certainly not trying to discredit this position. • As always.000 figure. When Leona says that 5. Knowing that we should concentrate on the phrase “homelessness is a serious social problem” saves us from having to do another reading of the stimulus. (E) It isn't necessary for the politician's conclusion.000 people who would have died from eating too many eggs would not die for this reason. make sure the answer you choose accomplishes both. and if you’re asked to do two things. she never said that they wouldn't die for some other reason. • In a dialogue question. The issue isn't what individual consumers must do to comply with this dietary change—it’s what will be the result of the dietary change. Arguments that Thomas could make are of no interest to us here. In this case. because then his 50. • Always read with the questions “Why are they telling me this?” and “How crucial is this information to the argument?” in mind. Leona simply argues that 5. an adequate response from Leona would focus on the fact that the numbers cited by her represent the number of people who without the diet may have died. Who's to say that some of those people wouldn't die for some other reason? Therefore. (B) The reason that Thomas finds it incredible that such a small dietary change could have such a drastic effect on population is because he’s overlooked the fact that overconsumption of eggs isn't the only cause of death. however. which is the issue. (E) makes no sense as a response to Thomas. (C) is irrelevant. and with the diet wouldn't die.000 lives might be saved. she means that people who would otherwise have died from an overconsumption of eggs would be spared. not by half. from eating too many eggs. • Again we see why reading the question stem first is vital and why we at Kaplan continue to stress it. keep in mind the person with which the question is concerned. as it addresses what would happen if egg consumption were cut by more than half. which neither clarifies Leona's claim nor addresses Thomas's point. Anyway. His argument that the problem of homelessness can't be solved by providing more housing works just as well if homelessness is a minor problem or no problem at all. 21. which he thought was too high to begin with. recognizing that the phrase in question just ain’t that important helps us to kill most of the wrong choices and to see that it’s compatible with any judgment passed on the conclusion. she would only confuse poor Thomas even more. decode the stem when it’s more complex than usual.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV (D) The politician admits that homelessness is a serious problem. Neither person is claiming the overall population would grow by 5. (A) and (D) discuss population growth (a major scope shift). would have to be even higher.000 people per year.
then they can’t possibly help patients before that. (E) Here’s the necessary/sufficient thing again: Only after a new drug has been introduced can it help patients.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV 22.M. Since the conclusion in the stem is based on the fact that cars bearing the special decals have a lower theft rate than other cars. (C) All we're told is that the research community carries out a long process of discovery and testing. the issue here is the cars that weren't stolen. we can expect that the correct question will ask if there might not be another reason that these cars aren't being stolen. it's the FDA that is responsible for this—perhaps the agency requires the long testing period. as is the issue of what the FDA should.M. (A) The question stem introduces a conclusion that could lead from this stimulus. That is not to say that it necessarily will help patients. which would signify that the stem’s conclusion that the program has reduced thefts is unwarranted. The conclusion only claims that the program was successful in the neighborhoods where it was actually applied. and 5 A. so what happens during the daytime can have nothing to do with the program. (A) does this by asking if the car owners that are likely to join the program owners take any other special precautions to prevent theft. are keeping the number of thefts down. in terms of car types (E). • A word like “only” can alter the entire meaning of a stimulus. We're only told that the FDA regulates the actual introduction of these agents. are both irrelevant. We’re asked for the choice that asks the question whose answer is most important in evaluating that conclusion—that is. answers can spring entirely from an “only” statement. If the new therapies can help patients only after they have been transferred from the lab to the marketplace. whose answer is most likely to tell us whether or not the conclusion is justified. If the answer to this question is yes. For all we know. As evidenced here.. it tells you that a necessary condition is being introduced. The inference turns out to be pretty straightforward. besides the allegedly successful program (there’s that “alternative explanation” concept popping up again). or shouldn't. and the reasons why they weren't stolen. then perhaps the other measures. When you see this word. not the program. © K A PL A N 71 . though. do. 23. Moreover. (D) Maintaining the quality of therapeutic agents is a new subject altogether. that automobile theft has been reduced by the program. (E) How many neighborhoods the program is operating in (A) and whether neighborhoods in which the program took effect were a representative cross-section of all neighborhoods. (A) We don't know that the FDA necessarily regulates all therapeutic agents after they've been put on the market. (B). (B) The key notion in this one is that only after that transfer occurs can the new therapies help patients. (C) The program only takes effect between 1 A.
Although he intended no harm. it fails the stimulus' test for a morally good action. which puts Marilees’ action in the morally bad ballpark. the testmakers buried the answer in choice (E). • Once again. The only way to find the situation that matches the spirit of this principle is to work through the choices. but if it didn’t it may have been a very good candidate to skip temporarily and come back to it time permitted.LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV (D) While this certainly might be of some concern to the owners. so the judgment that Marilees performed a morally bad action doesn’t conform to the principle in the stimulus. (E)'s judgment therefore conforms to the principle in the stimulus. you need to determine whether the answer to the question posed in each choice will significantly damage or shore up the argument. then that question is useful in evaluating the argument. This question has “possibly time consuming” written all over it. and unfortunately. An action is morally bad if it harms another person. or transform the stem into a workable framework. it was most likely the man’s own fault for talking and chewing at the same time). we have an action that fails the “morally good” test on the grounds that it doesn’t benefit anyone (quite the opposite. • Take control of the test. or the harmful result must be foreseeable. Since his action was performed with the intention of securing his own promotion. an action is only morally bad if it actually causes harm— which the action in this case did not. you need to translate. but doesn’t help us to evaluate its effectiveness as well as (A) does. if the answer is yes. Neither of these are met here (what are the chances that someone will choke on a sandwich. it doesn’t say much about the effectiveness of the program. it would indicate that the program is indeed functioning. he should have realized that his failure to watch his niece carefully was likely to lead to harm. Jonathan's act of neglecting his three-year-old niece caused harm to her. It just happens to come at the end of the section. This is basically an offshoot of a strengthen/weaken question. 72 © K A PL A N . the answer of whih could blow the conclusion out of the water. True. and either 1) such harm was intended or 2) a reasonable person should have known that harm was likely to occur. 24. It doesn’t matter which way it goes. (B) Jeffrey's action indirectly—and that’s the key word—helped Sara. since an evaluation could go either way. (A) According to the stimulus. But it still needs to pass another test—the harm must be inflicted intentionally. If the answer to a question greatly strengthens or weakens the argument. no less). (C) Once again. so it meets the first criterion for a morally bad act. not with the intention of benefiting Sara. (E) Break the principle down to its essentials: An action is morally good only if it 1) benefits another person and 2) was intended to benefit that other person. (D) The homeless man was obviously harmed.
N.A Printed in the USA . LL3107 Rev.I.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.