KAPLAN LSAT PREP

LSAT
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

1

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I

GAME 1—Three Couples At Dinner (Q. 1-7)
The Action: We can tell from the first three sentences that the first game is a matching game; we're given 6 people (3 couples—John and Kate, Lewis and Marie, and Nat and Olive), and are asked to match each to one particular entree (pork chops, roast beef, swordfish, tilefish, or veal cutlet). Notice that with 5 entrees and 6 people, there has to be some duplication of entrees. The Key Issues are basic: 1) Who orders what entree? 2) Who can, must, or cannot order the same entree as whom? The Initial Setup: To sketch the information, simply write J, K, L, M, N, and O across the top of the page with double lines between K and L, and M and N, in order to visually break the 6 people into their respective couples. If you wish, you can also distinguish between men and women, by writing tone group in capital letters, and the other in lowercase. Add in the list of the entrees off to the side, and you should have something like this to begin with:

PRSTV

JK

LM

NO

The Rules: Start with the two most concrete rules, Rules 3 and 5. 3) An “S” under Marie will remind us that she opted for the swordfish. 5) “R” under Olive means that it’s roast beef for her. 1) This rule adds a nice touch—it allows the man and woman in each couple to share. One easy way to remember this is to write a “≠” between the members of each couple. 2) You could write “men never order the same,” but you’re always better off being more specific: J≠L≠N.

2

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I

4) No fish for John or Nat, which means that swordfish and tilefish are out for them. But there are only five entrees to begin with, which means that these two guys are restricted to either pork chops, roast beef, or the veal. Indicate that somewhere in your sketch. Key Deductions: and we have “NO R B” under Nat to indicate that he wants something different than his date, Olive. Our work with combining Rules 2 and 4 will prove quite useful. We should also include Rule 1 in our considerations. Since Olive, Nat’s better half, orders roast beef (Rule 5), Nat can’t, and Nat’s choices were limited to begin with (Rule 4). Therefore, Nat must order either pork chops or veal cutlet. We can also deduce that Lewis won’t order swordfish since he won’t duplicate Marie’s choice. Notice that while we have definite choices for two out of the three women, we also have lots of information on the men, especially Nat. Once you get the setup to this point, 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. 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, turn them around to the positive. 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; pork chops, roast beef, or veal cutlet.

• 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. • Work with the most concrete rules first; anything that can go into the sketch immediately will help to lay the groundwork for the rest of the Final Visualization. But once they’re incorporated (Rules 3, 4, and 5 are now built into the visualization above), turn your attention to the rules that will most likely govern the rest of the game, which in this case are Rules 1 and 2.

© K A PL A N

3

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I

The Questions: 1. (D) We deduced that Lewis will not order swordfish since Marie, his date, orders it. However, there’s nothing that prevents him from ordering any of the other entrees, so the other four must be included in the list.

• Don’t be surprised if a relatively simple question starts off a game. The testmakers
are more than likely rewarding you for wading through the setup. It’s also a good test to see if you understand what does and DOESN’T restrict an entity. 2. (B) Not much to do but check out each choice. (A) is knocked out by a combination of Rules 3 and 4. (C) violates Rule 2. Rules 1 and 5, taken together, signify that (D) can’t be true, and Rule 1 by itself makes (E) impossible. That leaves (B); Kate would have to order either pork chops or veal cutlet, because that's all Nat can eat, but that’s eminently feasible.

• Scanning the choices will often make the blatantly wrong choices stand out (for
example, seeing two men with the same entree or the members of a couple with the same entree). Once these are eliminated, it’s simpler to go back and test those that are left. 3. (A) Here’s our Big Deduction: Nat has to order either pork chops or veal cutlet, and choice (A) therefore must be a true statement. (B) and (C) are impossible, while (D) could be true, but need not be (Lewis could order tilefish) and (E) merely could be true as well, but would be false if Kate ordered fish.

• A non-if “must be true” question (one with no new information) is a big red flag that
there was a Big Deduction possible. When you don’t initially see the deductions possible in a particular game, very often the questions will force you into making them. It’s then your job to carry them with you for the rest of the game. 4. (E) John orders the veal, so Nat and Lewis cannot (Rule 2). This makes pork chops Nat’s only choice. Just for the record, Kate ordering pork chops and Lewis ordering roast beef kills choices (A) through (D).

• When you’ve done good deductive work, trust it. Don’t figure out the answer and
then waste time trying out each answer choice. Scan the choices for your answer, and if it’s there, mark it and move on.

4

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I

5. (C) Nat doesn’t order pork chops (no one does), so he orders veal cutlet. Oops, not one of our choices, so we must continue. John now must order the roast beef (now his only choice). Still not an answer choice (though it does rule out choice (A)). Lewis’ choices are now limited to tilefish, whatever that may be. That’s a choice—(C). (B) and (E) could be true, (D) never.

• Some questions in every game will require more than just the initial deductive step.
Don’t worry. Keep plugging and you’ll find the answer. 6. (A) Rule 2 forces Nat to order the veal cutlet, and the same rule mandates that John settle for the roast beef. John’s complete and accurate list is simply roast beef, choice (A).

It’s very common for several questions to test the same concepts. That’s why it’s vital that you use your previous work. Questions do not exist in a vacuum, 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.

7. (D) Deal with rule changes first. Since Marie has swordfish, now so does Lewis. Olive has roast beef; now, so does Nat. Rule 2 is still in effect, so John is left with a choice of pork chops and veal cutlet, which means that Kate is limited to the same. They both can opt for the pork chops, so (D) can be true. (A), (B), (C), and (E) are impossible.

• Don’t just stare at a lengthy question; try it out. Use your pencil and work with the
answer choices. 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. You can always eliminate the wrong choices. • Sometimes it’s best to skip questions with rule changes, especially ones as lengthy as this one. However, you should always take a quick look at the question before delaying it, because sometimes, as in this case, the rule change actually makes the question easier than most by narrowing the possibilities. Here, the rule change allows us to quickly match up two more people to the food they order.

© K A PL A N

5

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I

GAME 2—Seven Families in Houses (Q. 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. We’re asked to order seven families (K, L, M, N, O, P, and R) in seven houses lined up west (left) to east (right) on one side of a street. The Key Issues are: 1) Which families can, must, or cannot occupy which house? 2) Which family can, must, or cannot occupy a house adjacent to what other family? The Initial Setup: Keep this setup simple; seven dashes or the numbers 1 to 7 from left to right on your page will suffice. You may wish to jot down a “W” to the left and an “E” to the right of the sketch, just for good measure, to remind you which side is which. List the roster of families off to the side, and you’re ready to fill the Rules into this basic setup:

KLMNOPR

W

1234567

E

The Rules: 2) Once again, the most concrete rule first: The Kahns live in the fourth house from the west. Don’t let the awkward wording throw you. This simply means that the Kahns live in house 4, so put that directly into the sketch. 1) “No R” over houses 1 and 7 should help us keep this in mind. 3) Since the Muirs live next to the Kahns, who live in house 4, the only possible houses for the Muirs are 3 and 5. Place an “M” with arrows pointing to houses 3 and 5 into your sketch. 4) Since the Kahns live in house 4, this rule tells us that the Piatts can only live in houses 5, 6, or 7. But the Piatts can’t live in 7, because the Lowes must live to the east (right) of them. So the “P . . . L” chunk will have to fall somewhere within houses 5, 6, and 7. Jot that down, and we’re ready to move on.

6

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I

Key Deductions: There’s no major deduction here, but there are only a limited number of ways the sequence could play out. It’s therefore worth quickly exploring the possibilities: M lives in either 3 or 5. Let's say M occupies the 5th house. Since the P. . . L pair must be east of K, we get this: 1 O/N 2 3 4 K 5 M 6 P 7 L

R, O, and N are left to fill in the 1,2 and 3 houses. R, you remember, can't be on either end, so that family would be in either 2 or 3 in this situation, leaving O and N for the other spots, in either order. The second scenario is a little more flexible, and arises if we instead place M 3rd. P and L still need to be to the right of K, and must still maintain that K..P..L ordering. The other 3— N, O, and R—would fill the remaining spots, so long as R isn't first or last. This ordering isn't as determined as the other, and naturally doesn't help us as much, but it's still good to consider the possibilities in advance, which we've done. 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, it’s usually worth it to try out the
possibilities. A rule of thumb for dealing with such options: If you can use the rules to narrow down the concrete possibilities to two, it may be wise to get those possibilities solidly down on paper. And when you’ve taken the time to do this, remember to refer back to this work in the process of handling the questions.

• Always strive to build a rule directly into your master sketch. Only when that is not
possible, should you rewrite the rule in your own words. When rewriting a rule is not feasible, you should underline or circle it for future reference. • In such a straightforward game, the testmakers probably felt that they had the right to include a slight variation on the sequence—this west to east business. But aside from the language, this really doesn’t change anything. Don’t let a little wrinkle ruin an otherwise simple game for you: Take command.

© K A PL A N

7

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I

The Questions: 8. (C) The Lowes live in house 7 in our first possibility above, but that’s not a choice. (A), (B), (D), and (E) directly violate Rules 2, 3, 4, and 1, respectively, which leaves only (C). A glance at our sketch would quickly confirm the same result. • This is simply another form of acceptability question, and given all we know, it shouldn’t have taken more than a few seconds to figure out. Recognize the various types of non-if questions that are simply testing your understanding of the rules. • Keep track of “free agents” in the various games. In this one, only N and O aren’t mentioned in the rules, so they’ll be the ones with the most flexibility. For this reason, such “free agents” are usually involved in “could be true” questions, whereas the more restricted entities play a larger role in “must be true” questions. 9. (A) This one’s also pretty much a gimme. We can easily infer from Rule 4 that the Piatts live between the Kahns and the Lowes. Therefore, there’s no way that the Kahns can live next to the Piatts. The rest of the families in (B) through (E) can live next to the Kahns.

• Don’t waste time trying out the choices after you’ve already found the answer. Trust
in your work, mark your answer, and move on. 10. (C) The info in the stem puts M in house 3, which conjures up the second scenario we discussed earlier. This was the less helpful scenario, so let’s check out the choices. (A) R can live next to both K and P: K in 4, R in 5, P in 6, and L in 7, with N and O floating between 1 and 2. (B) is possible too: M,K,P,R,L in 3 through 7, again with N and O floating at the beginning. (C) M is in house 3, K is in 4, and P is either in 5 or 6. It’s therefore not possible for the Rutans to live between the Muirs and the Piatts, making (C) our answer. (D) and (E) Either O or N can live in house 1, and with R in 2 and M in 3, so both of these are possible.

• It may seem time consuming to try out each choice, but doing so is an excellent way
to get familiar with the situations that will be played out in questions to come. If you use your pencil to try out the various choices, it will often benefit you to come back to your scratchwork in later questions.

8

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I

11. (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, and Rule 1 forces R into house 2 and O into house 1. The entire setup of families to houses is complete: O, R, N, K, M, P, L. The Owens clearly do not live next to the Newmans. Choice (A) it is.

• 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. All the better for you, as long as you take the time to recognize them early on. • A question like this illustrates the value of playing out the various scenarios up front; when everything quickly falls in to place, you buy extra time for the more difficult questions. 12. (A) Here we can deduce that the second scenario above is operative: The only way for the Owens to live to the east, or right, of the Muirs, is for M to live in 3, with O, P and L fitting somewhere in 5, 6, and 7. The two remaining entities, N and R, will therefore take houses 1 and 2, respectively (R can’t take 1 from Rule 1). The choice that corresponds to this is (A): K must be east of M. (B) is false, and (C) through (E) are possible only.

• When given new pieces of information, immediately work them. Use your pencil, get
the new information down, and see where it leads. • It pays to focus on your bread and butter, which in this game is the placement of M. This determines which scenario we’re dealing with, and leads to the correct answer. Your job in every game is to find the critical entity or entities, and concentrate on how they’re affected by each new piece of information. 13. (D) The testmakers liked question 12 so much, here it is again (nearly). So we should consult the same sketch as the one for number 12: M is in 3, K is in 4, O, P, and L are relatively free to float between spaces 5, 6, and 7 (as long as P is before L), N is in house 1, and R is in house 2. Scan down the list for adjacent families; N and R must live next to one another, specifically in houses 1 and 2, respectively. (A), (B), and (E) contain pairs that are possible neighbors, but need not be, whereas the pair in (C) are definitely separated by the Rutans.

• Let previous work come to your aid whenever possible; be on the lookout for
question stems that virtually ask the same thing. Any time- saving technique will help you rack up more points.

© K A PL A N

9

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I

GAME 3—Car Display (Q. 14-19)
The Action: This fairly complex game involves matching cars with 3 different characteristics (family or sports car, new or used, and production models or research models), and then with a fourth characteristic, the floor they’re displayed on. Important to note that each floor contains all or one of each of the three different characteristics, i.e. there will not be both new and used cars on a single floor. 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, one possible way to visualize this is to draw a 3 by 3 table. We can label the vertical side of the box 3, 2, and 1, from top to bottom, and each box across horizontally would represent one of the three characteristics: style, age and type. 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, with the concrete rules. 4) The cars on floor 1 are new. An “N” in the appropriate grid box will remind us that ALL of the cars on floor 1 are new. 5) The cars on floor 3 are used. A “U” in the appropriate floor 3 grid box means that all the cars exhibited there are used. 1) This rule is fairly lengthy, so take your time and be sure that you fully understand it. IF (that’s a big if) there are both family and sports cars, then all of the family cars will be on lower floors than any of the sports cars. So if there are both kinds, floor 1 must be family cars and floor 3 must be sports cars. Understanding this rule is far more important than exactly how you choose to represent it on the page.

10

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I

2) There are NO cars that are both used and research models. What does this tell us? If a car is used, then it must also be a production model. If a car is a research model, then it must be new. If a car is new....nothing. Be careful, a new car can either be a research model or a production model. “If U, then P” and “if R, then N” should help us remember this. 3) None of the cars in the exhibition are both research models and sports cars. Again, be careful when considering what this means. If a car is a research model, then it must be a family car. If a car is a sports car, then it must be a production model. If a car is a family car or a production model, then we know nothing (or at least nothing new). “If R, then F” and “if S, then P” will aid in sorting it out. Key Deductions: The results of our work with Rules 2 and 3 certainly qualify as “Key Deductions.” However, there's even more to piece together. Rule 2 yielded “if Research, then New,” and Rule 3 yielded “if Research, then Family.” To make it easier we can combine those to get “if Research, then New and Family.” Also, don’t neglect your grid. Rule 5 resulted in a big “U” under floor 3, and thanks to Rule 2, we know that “if Used, then Production.” Therefore, the floor 3 cars must be production models. Two of the three characteristics are taken care of for that floor. The Final Visualization: Here’s what we have just before facing off with the questions:

If F+S, then If U, then P

S F

F/S 3 2 1

N/U U N

P/R P

If R, then N+F If S, then P

The Big Picture:

• Concrete information is much more powerful than the abstract. Always ask yourself,
and focus on, what you do know, instead of what you don’t know.

• Remember the contrapositive. Don’t forget the contrapositive. Always recall the
contrapositive. Never neglect the contrapositive. • 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.

© K A PL A N

11

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I

The Questions: 14. (A) If sports cars are on exactly 2 floors, then family cars must be on exactly 1 floor, and Rule 1 applies: Sports cars must be on floors 2 and 3, which eliminates choices (C) and (E), and family cars must be on floor 1, which contradicts choice (B). Floors 2 and 3 contain sports cars which are production models (Rule 3). Choice (D) is therefore out. Only choice (A), research models on floor 1, is possible.

• Actively work with any new information given in a question. Hearken back to the
rules armed with this new information, and the answer (and the point) will be yours. 15. (D) No new information here, so move right on to the choices. Rule 2 kills choices (B), (C) and (E), since we know that at least one floor has used cars. Rule 3 axes choice (A). We’re left with choice (D), 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).

• When you’re given no new information, and the answer is not readily apparent, try
treating the question like an acceptability question—compare each rule against each answer choice. In such cases, eliminating the bad choices is just as effective a way of getting to the right answer. 16. (D) Another non-if, this one a “must be true” with no new information. A quick scan through the choices in search of one of our earlier deductions turns up choice (D)—production models on floor 3. (A), (B), and (C) are possible only, while (E) is totally impossible.

• Concrete key deductions will nearly always be tested. If you deduce something,
keep it in the back (or front) of your mind. It will almost always lead to at least one ten-second question—usually a “must be true” non-if question like this. 17. (E) Since we deduced that floor 3 contains production models, the 2 floors with research models must be floors 1 and 2. A quick glance at your scratchwork tells you that these research cars must be new family cars (Rules 2 and 3). Notice that this takes care of eight out of the nine possible boxes in our table. Also notice that the question is a “can be false” question. 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, which deals with the family/sports issue on floor 3 (everything else is determined, and therefore must be true). Choice (E), family cars on 3, could be false, and therefore does the trick. Choices (A) through (D) correspond perfectly to the situation, so naturally they all must be true.

12

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I

• Be active in your pursuit of answers—use all the clues the testmakers give you,
including their choice of question stem. We were able to determine so much in this question that upon seeing the “can be false” question stem, it just makes sense to focus in on the one indeterminate aspect of the situation. This is another example of how to take control of the test. 18. (D) Rule 3: All research cars are family cars. Stem: All new cars are research cars. Therefore: All new cars are family cars, which happens to be choice (D). Family cars need not be anything in particular, so choices (A) through (C) are out. Similarly, in (E), a production model car could be a sports car.

• Whenever you’re given new information in a question stem that doesn’t directly lead
to a new deduction, go back and carefully reconsider each of your original deductions in light of this new information. • Pay attention to the nature of the answer choices; often, this can help inform you as to the best approach to the question. This one, for example, is the only question that’s not concerned with what’s on what floor, but rather deals in generality instead. 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. 19. (A) If all production models are used, then a car that is not used (new), must not be production (research). So floor 1’s new cars must be of the research variety, which means that floor 1’s cars must also be family cars (Rule 3). We get this in choice (A). (B) through (E) all could be true, but also could be false.

• Get in the habit of working with the contrapositive. Whenever you’re given new
information that’s easily translated into if-then form, the contrapositive should be one of the first places you visit.

• Always take information as far as you can. When you’re able to uncover new
deductions based on the hypothetical, do a quick intelligent scan of the choices. This will help you avoid working through time- consuming choices that are included specifically to slow you down. • Confidence is key in Logic Games, and LG answer choices are objectively correct. When you find an answer that you’re comfortable with, even if it’s choice (A), have the confidence to mark it down and move on. You should only use the other choices to confirm your choice if you’re very unsure of your answer. 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.

© K A PL A N

13

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I

GAME 4—Pilots and Copilots (Q. 20-24)
The Action: In this grouping game, we're asked to distribute six entities—three pilots and three copilots—among four planes—planes 1, 2, 3, and 4. While the numbering of the planes may suggest sequencing, your overview should have dispelled that misconception right away: There's no mention that these planes are "in a row;" they're not numbered "from left to right;" and none of the rules say anything about people being "in adjacent planes," or anything like that. Our job is simply to distribute the pilots and copilots into the planes. The main Key Issue, therefore, is a grouping concern: 1) Who’s in what plane? And by extension: Which pilots and copilots can, must, or cannot fly in the same plane as which other pilots and copilots? The Initial Setup: Keep this setup simple; four circles or columns, numbered 1 to 4, can represent the planes. 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. However, 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.” This means that everyone flies. Selecting who flies isn’t an issue; they’re all up in the air. The only question here is which plane each person is in. As for listing the entities, some find it helpful to use capital letters for the pilots and lowercase letters for the copilots, some don’t. Do what’s easiest for you. 3) Translation: Every plane that’s flying needs one pilot—at least one. This rule says nothing about copilots, nor does it imply that only one pilot may fly in a particular plane. So far, it’s quite possible that exactly one pilot flies a plane without a copilot, just as it’s possible for more than one pilot to fly in one plane. 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.

14

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I

5) Anna will only fly in plane 1 or plane 4. Since everyone is flying in the show, we know that one of these planes must be used. To build this into our master sketch, write “A” with arrows pointing to planes 1 and 4. 6) Dave only flies in plane 2 or plane 3— “D” with arrows to 2 and 3 takes care of this. Key Deductions: Not much in the way of deductions, but there are a few issues that are worth working out before hitting the questions. First, the numbers: No plane flies without a qualified pilot aboard. But we have only three qualified pilots, which means that a maximum of three of the four planes are flying; at least one is going to remain empty and on the ground. Also, since a plane can’t fly without a pilot (Rule 3), we know that one of the pilots must join Dave (a copilot) in either plane 2 or plane 3. It can’t be Anna, since she’s in plane 1 or 4, so Dave must fly with either B or C, in plane 2 or 3. 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. Sometimes, the testmakers only imply—i.e., don’t clearly spell out—information that proves to be vital to the game. Interrogate the stimulus: “Do all pilots fly?” Yes. “Do all copilots fly?” Yes. “Do all planes fly?” No— in fact that’s impossible. As many planes fly as are needed to get the 7 people aloft. • Attempt to weed out the game’s major concern. Not every game has one specific major concern, but in the ones that do, focusing on this aspect will help you in almost every question. In this case, our major concern is “who will accompany Dave?” At least Bob or Cindy—if not both—must do so, 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. • Use the hints provided for you in the question stems. The phrase in Q. 23’s stem “If plane 1 is used” clearly implies the possibility of cases in which it is not used. True, this question comes towards the end of the game, but very often in a game whose action is slightly unusual or complex, one of the first few question stems will help to clarify the situation.
© K A PL A N 15

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I

The Questions: 20. (B) Anna is in plane 4 and Dave is in plane 2. Well, we knew we’d have to focus on the Dave situation, and here it is right off the bat. Since Bob or Cindy (or both) needs to accompany Dave, Cindy in 3 forces Bob into 2 with Dave. (A) No reason why Cindy couldn’t fly in plane 2 with Dave. (C) No, Bob could fly in plane 2. (D) No; if Bob flies in plane 4, Cindy would have to fly with Dave in plane 2. (E) If Cindy flies in plane 2 with Dave, then Bob could fly in any of the planes. • Focus on the game’s key issues and big concerns. Asking yourself: “How do I take care of Dave?” leads to this answer, even though the correct choice is in if-then form. • If you’ve considered the new information and still nothing comes to mind, trying out each choice is a much better use of your time than staring at the page. 21. (C) Anna can’t fly with Dave (Rules 5 and 6). If Bob joins Anna, he can’t fly with Dave. So Cindy would have to fly with copilot Dave, choice (C). Choices (A), (B), (D), and (E) all could be true, but none of them must be true.

• 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). The sooner you can recognize this MVC (Most Valuable Concept), the better. 22. (D) Cindy and Fran fly alone, Anna never flies with Dave, so Bob must fly with Dave, choice (D). (A) is dead wrong, and (B), (C), and (E) are merely possible.

• Unless you’re unsure of the workings of the game and you need to test you thinking,
you should never continue checking the choices after you’ve found the answer. Trust your work, and save yourself some precious time.

16

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section I

23. (B) This is very much like a standard acceptability question. (D) and (E) bite the dust thanks to Rule 6. Dave can’t fly in 1 but must have a pilot with him in plane 2 or 3, so any prospective plane-1 crew that included all three pilots would be impossible. That eliminates Choice (A). (C) leaves only Anna to join Dave which isn’t possible. That leaves us with (B)—Anna, Bob, Ed, and Fran—a perfectly acceptable crew for plane 1, with Cindy and Dave in plane 2 or 3.

• It is important to learn to recognize acceptability questions even when they are not
structured like normal acceptability questions. These questions are among the easiest on the test. If you were running short on time, a quick scan of the questions should have suggested starting with this one (which also helps to clarify the action of the game, as discussed above). 24. (C) Dave and one pilot can’t be in 4, but everybody else can be. That's the maximum, four people, choice (C).

• When looking for maximums, start with finding the entities that CANNOT be
included. Similarly, when asked for a minimum, start looking for entities that MUST be included. This is much quicker than the other way around. • This game may exaggerate the point, and we’ve certainly harped on it here, but some games are based around central elements, 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. The games you’ll see on your test will be based around other dominant issues. Attempt to seek them out; you’ll be doing yourself a great favor.

© K A PL A N

17

SECTION II: LOGICAL REASONING

18

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II

1. (C) In this parallel reasoning question, the stimulus is fairly easily to symbolize: If you have a lot of money in the bank, (if X), your spending power is great (then Y). If your spending power is great, (if Y), then you are happy (then Z). The conclusion combines the first two sentences: If you have a large amount of money in the bank, (if X), then you are happy, (then Z). So the complete argument in symbols would read ``If X, then Y. If Y, then Z. Therefore, if X, then Z.’’ Choice (C) has the same form as the stimulus argument: If you swim, (if X), then your heart rate increases (then Y). If Y, then you are overexcited (then Z). Therefore, if X, then Z. (A) If you have good health, (if X), then you can earn a lot, (then Y). If Y, then you can buy an expensive house, (then Z). Therefore, if X, then you can have a comfortable life, (then Q?) (B) If you drink too much, (if X), then you will feel sick, (then Y). If X, then you will have no money left, (then Z). Therefore, if Z, then Y. (D) If you exercise, (if X), then you are fit, (then Y). If X, then you are exhausted, (then Z.) Therefore, if Y, then Z.’’ (E) If you have a lot of money in the bank, (if X), then you are confident about the future, (then Y). If you are optimistic, (if Z), then Y. Therefore, if X, then Z. • On parallel reasoning questions, try to symbolize the argument whenever possible. • Be careful of choices like (A) and (E), in which the content is quite similar to that of the stimulus. Content has nothing to do with the form of the reasoning. And the form is what we’re asked to recognize here. 2. (E) The stimulus concludes that a person’s birth sign influences their personality. We want to cast doubt on the conclusion that the subjects, because they were Geminis, were more sociable and outgoing than the average person. The key here is that the subjects were all volunteers. Would shy, introverted people offer to appear on a TV program? Probably not. (E) picks up on this, offering a plausible explanation which suggests that the method itself, and not astrology, could have produced the results. (A) is an au contraire choice. Since the test results matched the investigators’ impressions, the test would seem to be more valid if it were administered by impartial people. (B) is useless background information; since astrologers are far from impartial in this discussion, their claims cannot be used as plausible evidence. In any case, to say that non-Geminis are less sociable than Geminis supports the investigators’ case, so this is also an au contraire choice.

© K A PL A N

19

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II

(C) also seems to be supporting the work of the investigators, rather than casting doubt upon it. If the investigators’ first impressions of people are confirmed by their later observations of the people, then all this proves is that the investigators are good observers and good judges of character, right? This certainly doesn’t indicate a flaw in their method. (D) is more useless background info. 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. • Make the question stem work for you. Here, we’re told point blank that there is a flaw in the investigators’ method; all we have to do is find it. • On questions that involve surveys, be alert for clues that the survey sample is or is not representative of the population about whom the conclusion is drawn. 3. (D) The conclusion: North American children can be made physically fit only if they have daily calisthenics at school. The evidence: European children, who engage in calisthenics each day at school, are stronger, faster, and less easily-winded than North American children, whose schools rarely offer daily calisthenics programs. The assumption: calisthenics are a key part of the European children’s physical fitness. Choice (D) neatly paraphrases this assumption, and is the correct choice. (A) confuses necessity with sufficiency. The author assumes that calisthenics are necessary to insure physical fitness; whether they are sufficient to do so is a different question. (B) This need not be so in order for the conclusion to remain valid; try the Denial Test, and you’ll be convinced. (C) and (E) are beyond the scope of the argument. The author never mentions health (C) or nutrition (E), so he or she needn’t assume anything about either. • The assumption here, that it’s the calisthenics which are chiefly responsible for European children’s physical fitness, is so reasonable that you might have missed it; but it’s still a necessary assumption. • You can check this one nicely with the Denial Test. If we were to assume that school calisthenics are not a vital factor to the fitness of European children, then there must be some other factor which causes European kids to be so fit. And that would make the conclusion (American kids can become fit only if they participate in school calisthenics) fall apart.

20

© K A PL A N

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

21

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.

22

© 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

23

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II

(C) adds an irrelevant distinction. Light cream has absolutely no bearing on the issue, which is the relative effects of lighteners with no cholesterol, and milk with cholesterol. (D) is irrelevant, 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. (E) This choice explains the relationship between the fat and cholesterol levels of most dairy products, 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, and the dairy product (milk with cholesterol). • Even if you were overwhelmed by the confusion of terms and measurements like cholesterol and blood cholesterol and grams and milligrams, you should have been able to arrive at the correct answer by process of elimination. (B) is the only one that deals directly with the relative effects of cholesterol and fat on blood cholesterol, 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. 9. (D) If the consumer is using a very small amount of lightener, as opposed to a very large amount of milk, 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. So, if (D) is true, the manufacturers’ claims would be considerably strengthened. (A) neither weakens nor strengthens the argument. We’re talking about changes in the typical consumers’ levels, changes due to lightener or milk. The effect of health practices on some people’s cholesterol levels is beyond the scope of the argument. (B) The desserts that accompany coffee have nothing to do with the effect of lightener, as opposed to milk, on consumers’ cholesterol levels. (C) is a useless distinction. Coffee lighteners that are not based on coconut oil are irrelevant to the claims of manufacturers of lighteners that are based on coconut oil. (E) Dismissing the possibility of psychosomatic effects, the beliefs of the consumer really don’t enter into this discussion. • 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. That is, the work you did on Question 8 should put you in a better position to answer Question 9.

24

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II

• While it may look intimidating, a lengthy question stem that adds new information need not make for a killer question. It’s like a Logic Games question stem that adds new information in the hypothetical; it’s unusual in Logical Reasoning, but manageable nonetheless. 10. (E) This is really a thinly veiled formal logic stimulus. The first sentence can be put into if-then form: If people have serious financial problems, then they can’t be happy. And this, of course, is logically equivalent to its contrapositive: if people are happy, then they do not have serious financial problems. (A) and (D) We can’t infer that serious financial problems (or in (A)’s case, serious problems—notice the scope shift) are the only things that can make people unhappy. In this case, serious financial problems are sufficient to make people unhappy, but that doesn’t mean that this condition is necessary for unhappiness. (B) and (C) also confuse necessary and sufficient conditions. Notice that when we negate the conditions, the paradigm shifts: Not having serious financial problems is necessary to being happy (according to the passage), but it is not sufficient. • You could have eliminated (B) and (C) if you recognized that they are contrapositives of each other, and therefore logically equivalent. Since each question has only one right answer, both (B) and (C) must be wrong. • Use the test to your advantage: Some sections harp on the same concepts over and over again. To this point, the concept of necessity vs. sufficiency has appeared in some form or another in a handful of stimuli and answer choices. 11. (D) This one’s a method of argument question, so the operative question is: what’s the author doing? He’s presenting a belief, or proposal, and then telling us why, if the proposal were put in practice, it would have illogical, foolish results. (D) is the closest paraphrase of this. (A) is a clear contradiction of what the author is trying to do. True, he is stating a general principle, but he’s presenting an argument against, not for, adopting it. (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, but never provides actual results of real applications of the principle. (C) distorts the author’s main point. The thrust of the argument is not that the expected consequences won’t result, but rather that unexpected ones will. (E) The author is upset about what would happen if the principle were applied. Whether the principle can be uniformly applied, or applied at all, is not in question.

© K A PL A N

25

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II

• In method of argument questions, the correct choice must be fully correct. Read each choice meticulously, and don’t be fooled by choices like (A), which is only half right. 12. (D) The evidence: photovoltaic power plants, which produce electricity from sunlight, are now one-tenth as costly as they were twenty years ago, whereas traditional power plants have increased in cost. The conclusion: photovoltaic plants produce electricity less expensively than do traditional plants. 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. We need some link between the costs of the two methods that will allow the conclusion to stand, and the assumption in (E) does the trick. (A) simply restates some of the evidence. (B) makes an irrelevant distinction. The amount of electric power is not addressed in the stimulus; it’s the cost of producing the power that we’re concerned with here. (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. The main issue is the relative cost of the two methods, and since this doesn’t tie directly into that, it isn’t relied upon by the stimulus. (E) So what? Unless we know what the cost of a traditional plant is compared to that of a photovoltaic plant, we can’t say that the argument is properly drawn. • Recognize your strengths and weaknesses. If numerical/statistical situations aren’t your cup of tea, don’t fight with the question—move on to friendlier ground and come back to this one at the end if time permits. • Be wary when an author gives separate evidence about two groups and then offers up a conclusion that attempts to compare the groups. 13. (A) Here’s another parallel reasoning stimulus that lends itself to symbolic representation: If X (that insect is a bee), then Y (it can only sting once). Y (it only stung once), therefore X (it is a bee). This faulty structure is matched by choice (A). It takes some rearranging, but the elements of (A) boil down to: If X (it is spring), then Y (I cannot stop sneezing). Y (I sneezed), therefore X (spring is here). Note how it exhibits the same flaw as the original: In the stimulus, it’s very possible that the insect is not a bee, and is another insect that just happened to sting only once. In (A), it’s possible that it’s not spring, and that the person in question just happened to sneeze during some other season.

26

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II

(B) If X (the sky is clear), then Y (the atmospheric pressure is high). Almost X (it’s clearing up), therefore almost Y (the pressure is bound to be high soon). (C) If X (the painting is old and brittle), then Y (it will be moved with extreme care). Not Y (that painting is not moved with extreme care), therefore Not X (it is not old and brittle). (D) If X (there was one more thunderstorm), then Y (the roof would be ruined). Not Y (the roof is fine), therefore Not X (there must not have been any thunderstorms). (E) Really doesn’t fit the structure we’ve set up. We might be able to say: If X (one survives in the wild), then Y (one has physical stamina like Mark’s). But then we get into Mark’s fear of spiders (Z?). • In parallel reasoning questions, it’s sometimes necessary to rearrange the terms of the argument in order to identify the correct choice. Remember, we’re looking for a parallel logical structure, not a parallel verbal structure. • Remember your goal. We’re not asked to find a logically valid argument. Both (C) and (D) are logically correct, and therefore neither is parallel to the faulty argument in the stimulus. 14. (B) Quincy’s argument is that physician training does not need to change because it has worked in the past. To counter this, we need a choice that shows that current medical practice is somehow different than in the past, and therefore requires a change in training methods. Choice (B) fits this qualification nicely. If (B) were true, it would mean that physicians in training would have to deal with more crisis situations than did physicians in the past, and therefore, that the mental and emotional strain of the long work hours may make them more likely to make faulty decisions. (A) is an au contraire choice. If the responsibilities of the resident staff have not changed over the past decades, then Quincy seems right in arguing “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” (C) involves a scope shift: We’re concerned with medical practice in general, not ER patients especially. (D) makes a useless distinction. We’re not concerned with the differences in workload among the different specialties. (E) doesn’t give us enough information to effectively counter Quincy’s argument. Although it argues for observation over thirty-six hours, and therefore could support the need for residents to be on rounds for that long a period, we’re not told that the observation needs to be continuous.

© K A PL A N

27

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II

• In dialogue questions, be sure to remember whose argument you are trying to support or weaken. • In this question, you needed to read Pamela’s argument for background. In a pinch, however, you could have eliminated (A) and (E) just from reading Quincy’s side. 15. (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. In this case, the variable is being shown violent TV programs right before play. Since the author has concluded that the experiment was valid, she is assuming that the two groups had no differences other than the exposure to violent TV programs; in other words, that the television programs were the sole cause of the violence, and that nothing else could have been the cause. Choice (D) correctly identifies this assumption. (A) is a scope shift. The author is not talking about the effect of all television programs on all of society. The focus of this passage is the effects of violent television programs on children. (B) What if they’re not? Ultimate responsibility isn’t the issue. In fact, the argument’s thrust is to show the responsibility of TV, not parents. (C) is an au contraire choice. In order to make her argument, the author must believe that violence and passive observation of violence (in this case, watching violence on television), are directly related. (E) is beyond the scope. The author never mentions any violent treatment toward the children. • In arguments involving the interpretation of experimental results, the conclusion often depends on the assumption that there were no unaccountedfor factors that could have caused the results observed. • This assumption was so obvious you might even have missed it, thinking “the author wouldn’t have missed that.” Don’t take for granted anything about the author or the argument that isn’t in the text. 16. (C) Because waste gets disposed of in less populated areas, those who are responsible for dumping are not as fearless about its effects as they claim. This assumes that there is no plausible alternate explanation for the disposal pattern. (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.

28

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II

(A) and (B) are au contraire choices. The acknowledgment that there could be an accident indicates that nuclear waste does, in fact, pose some threat to people. (D) is an irrelevant comparison. Pointing out chemical dangers won’t show that nuclear waste is safe; they’re unrelated. (E) supports the author’s argument. It seems to be a statement of what the policy makers really believe, but just won’t admit. • To weaken an argument, it’s not necessary to disprove it completely. We simply need to make it less likely for the conclusion to follow directly from the evidence. 17. (C) The United States has, overall, seen a decline in its infant mortality rate in the past few years. But this does not mean that the babies born in the United States are healthier now than they were in the past. So the author is assuming the existence of an alternate explanation for the decline in the infant mortality rate. To support the argument, we need a choice that offers this alternate explanation. Choice (C) tells us that the United States has developed technology that can save babies that would have died otherwise. So while we may have just as many sick or premature babies being born, we have fewer babies dying as a result of sickness or premature birth thanks to the advanced technology. This would explain why the decrease in mortality rates has no connection with the average health of the infants. (A) is useless background information; it doesn’t address the contrast between the overall infant mortality rate and infant health. (B) doesn’t help us support the author’s claim; we don’t need more information about infant death. 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) We’ve already been told that the overall infant mortality rate has been declining. Like (A), this provides background, but doesn’t do anything to explain or support the claim that overall infant health hasn’t improved. (E) is a “left-field” choice. We’re concerned with why health hasn’t improved along with the infant mortality rate; we’re not interested in the relationship between babies’ health and how much attention they receive. • Be sure to keep track of the argument that you’re attempting to manipulate. In this question, the author’s argument is that another argument (connecting decreasing infant mortality with increasing infant health) is flawed. So to support the author, we’re actually trying to weaken the first argument.

© K A PL A N

29

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II

18. (C) The author’s whole point is that Raghnall’s conclusion is based on inadequate evidence. The author’s evidence is the alternative explanation he provides for the survey’s results; namely, that couples may blame finances for their marriage problems when finances aren’t the real problem. 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. Thus, the author believes that Raghnall’s conclusion is inadequately justified. (A) distorts the argument. The author’s point isn’t so much that financial problems are not a big factor in the breakup of marriages, but rather that Raghnall cannot reasonably conclude that they are without additional evidence. (B) is outside the scope, a sure sign it’s not the main point. Marriage counselors have never even been mentioned. (D) simply restates the evidence, and not even the author’s evidence, but Raghnall’s. (E) is a subtle misreading. The author does allude to “a number of other articles,’’ 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. • The answer to a main point question will usually be a paraphrase of the author’s conclusion. Anything else can be eliminated. • When an argument involves a critique of somebody else, be sure to keep the author’s evidence and conclusion separate in your mind from the evidence and conclusion being critiqued. 19. (B) We pretty much answered this in our analysis of 18: The author offers a different interpretation of the survey’s results—basically, that couples often express their frustrations about other aspects of their marriage in financial terms, blaming money when money isn’t the problem. In other words, the author undermines Raghnall’s conclusion by offering an alternative explanation for some of the data on which his conclusion was based. (A) The author never supplies us with a specific counterexample. He gives us an alternative explanation, but he never gives us any specific examples, such as: Couple X blamed money for their problems, but their real problem was... (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. “Financial problems’’ or `”money’’ can hardly be called an emotion, and Raghnall hasn’t referred to anything else as a cause of divorce. (D) shifts the scope a bit: The author never criticizes the survey; he criticizes Raghnall’s conclusion, which is based on the survey.

30

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II

(E) goes too far. The author never demonstrates or shows that couples cannot accurately describe their marital problems. He merely claims that they often fail to do so. • Scanning the answer choices, 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.” Save time by focusing your attention on the latter part of each choice. • In cases where two questions are drawn from the same stimulus, you can save time by using your analysis from the first question to help you get the second. For this reason, try not to skip double-question stimuli—when handled well, it’s like getting two points for the price of one. 20. (C) Since we’re asked to pick the one choice out of five that does NOT weaken the argument, we know that the argument will be pretty vulnerable to weakeners. There are a number of assumptions at work in this argument, many of which lead to the weakeners in the wrong choices, but choice (C) is correct because it’s totally irrelevant to the issue of honey production. (A) weakens the argument by undermining the major assumption that what’s true of Brazil will be true of the U.S. If, as (A) claims, the native bees in Brazil are different from the ones here, then the comparison the author cites is irrelevant—maybe domestic U.S. bees produce more honey than both Brazilian and Africanized bees do. (B) and (D) both undermine another one of the argument’s basic assumptions: that commercial honey production won’t decline for some other reason. If, as (B) says, it’s more costly and difficult to use Africanized bees, or if, as (D) says, a lot of the people now responsible for honey production would rather cease and desist than use Africanized bees, then it’s quite possible that commercial honey production will decline if these bees are introduced. In any case, the author can no longer conclude for sure that it won’t decline. (E) If Africanized bees are better suited to Brazil, then the author can no longer assume that in America, they’ll produce more honey than American honeybees. Who knows, maybe they’ll all die off once they get here. • For all EXCEPT questions, elimination is often the best strategy; there’s so much going on, that you probably shouldn’t worry too much about prephrasing an answer. If you have a solid grasp of the argument, chances are you’ll know the correct choice when you see it.

© K A PL A N

31

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II

21. (B) According to a recent report, low blood cholesterol weakens artery walls, increasing the likelihood that the arteries will rupture, and thereby bring about a cerebral hemorrhage. 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. For this conclusion to be valid, the author must be assuming that Western diets lead to a higher blood cholesterol level than non-Western diets. (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, and this isn’t it. (C) The author tells us that high blood cholesterol lowers the risk of weakened artery walls. He never says that it eliminates this risk, nor does his argument depend on this information. (D) is an irrelevant comparison. In fact, the author could assume that cerebral hemorrhages are less dangerous than strokes caused by blood clots, and it wouldn’t damage his claim that Western diets are less likely to lead to cerebral hemorrhages. (E) involves a scope shift: Low blood pressure is an irrelevant issue, because we don’t know how this relates to blood cholesterol. • Don’t be intimidated by scientific language or technical terms. You didn’t have to know anything about medicine to answer this question. In fact, if you did know that blood pressure is often related to cholesterol levels, 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). 22. (A) This is simply a matter of a very common chain of argument: IF X, then Y. If Y, then Z. Therefore, if X, then Z. Specifically: If the country is to remain internationally competitive, then there is an undeniable need for citizens to better understand international affairs. If there’s a need for this better understanding of international affairs, then all of our new teachers must be prepared to teach their subject matter with an international orientation. This allows us to infer that the first statement leads to the third: If the country is to remain internationally competitive, then all of our new teachers must be prepared to teach their subjects with an international orientation. (B) and (C), like many choices before them on this test, confuse necessary and sufficient conditions. The stimulus establishes the ability of new teachers to teach with an international focus as necessary for the country to remain competitive. We can’t infer, as (B) suggests, that it’s sufficient for this. And as for (C), better understanding of international affairs by our citizens is also necessary, but not sufficient, for the country to remain competitive.

32

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II

(D) completely denies the author’s first if-then statement, which is an important premise in the argument. (E) All we’re told about public reports is that they stressed the need for citizens to better understand international affairs. We have no evidence that they said anything about training teachers to teach with an international focus—that requirement was inserted by the author. • 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. 23. (C) We’re asked to weaken the proponents’ argument, and conveniently enough, we’re given their assumption. Your best bet is to look for a choice that undermines that assumption, which we get in (C): If genetic characteristics can occur in sets, that breaks down the proponents’ assumption that these characteristics occur independently. (A) is an au contraire choice. If the genetic material that all people have in common with each other and with animals is excluded from the procedure, then that makes the analysis much more specific, and, inferably, more valid. (B) If anything, this choice strengthens the proponents claim by dismissing a possible argument against the procedure; the argument that it’s unreliable because different people could obtain different readings of the same pattern. (D) contains a scope shift: The point here is whether the procedure is valid when done accurately. (E) is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not DNA fingerprinting can be accurately used to match two different samples of genetic material. Any other use is a separate issue. • Use the information you’re given. Here, we’re explicitly told that proponents of DNA fingerprinting base their claim on an assumption of independent occurrence between genetic characteristics. So all we have to do to weaken the proponent’s claim is to weaken that assumption.

© K A PL A N

33

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II

24. (A) The argument compares schools to cultures; schools would have to progress the same way cultures progress. Cultures cannot progress if outsiders impose their views. So the same must be true for an individual school: If a school is to progress, it must be free of outside imposition. Choice (A) carries out this analogy between schools and cultures. (B) The author doesn’t mention degrees of independence, or degrees of initiative; he merely claims that the only way a culture can progress is if it is independent of outside imposition. (C) We’re told that progress for an individual school, or culture, requires independence from outside imposition. The idea of school system officials deciding what changes to make is directly counter to this. (D) goes too far. The author never says outsiders must be totally shut out if progress is to be achieved; in fact, he admits they can provide valuable advice. (E) A similar story: this choice interprets independence as sufficient for progress, when in fact, all we’ve been told is that it’s necessary. Certainly, there are other factors that could come into play. • “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. • The answer to a “complete the passage” question must be consistent with the author’s main idea and tone. Choices that are clearly inconsistent with the main idea can be eliminated immediately.

34

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP ________________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section II

25. (E) The key here is the author’s vague use of the term “adequate.” If our main enemy is gone, 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, 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, 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. We want a criticism of his reasoning, not merely an unsupported denial of his facts. (C) is a fancy way of accusing the author of using circular reasoning. However, the evidence (the dissolution of the Eastern bloc) is quite different from the conclusion, which is that there will be insufficient support for an adequate defense budget. (D) The author does give a reason for his opinion: the dissolution of the Eastern bloc. It may not be a very good reason, but it’s a reason all the same. • When an argument compares past and present conditions, a common flaw is the assumption that certain terms or descriptions can be applied equally to both periods. When an author documents a changing situation, make sure the terms he uses are appropriately applied in all cases.

© K A PL A N

35

SECTION III: READING COMPREHENSION

36

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III

PASSAGE 1 — Asteroids (Q. 1-7)
Topic and Scope: Asteroids; specifically whether or not it’s possible for asteroids to have satellites. Purpose and Main Idea: The author examines the state of the evidence for asteroid satellites. While observations of “secondary occultations” have led some astronomers to accept the existence of such satellites, others remain unconvinced and are looking for specific further evidence (“well-behaved” secondary events). Paragraph Structure: Paragraph 1 introduces the topic, saying that while most astronomers used to think it was impossible for asteroids to have satellites, theoreticians knew all along that such a thing was possible. Paragraph 2 supports the theoreticians; observations have led many astronomers to believe that asteroids can have satellites, because when asteroids pass in front of stars, “something besides the known asteroid sometimes blocks out the star as well.” Paragraph 3 describes the “most convincing ... report” of an asteroid that might have a satellite. When the asteroid Herculina passed in front of a star, the occultation was preceded by another occultation, which led astronomers to believe that a satellite orbiting the asteroid had also passed in front of the star. Paragraph 4 notes that, after the Herculina event, reports of secondary occultations became “respectable,” but warns that such reports have grown so numerous that they can’t possibly all be accurate. 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, one definitely caused by a body accompanying an asteroid. 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). Rather, it means figuring out what the author’s doing in the text—in this instance, providing evidence that suggests that theoreticians have been correct all along about asteroid-satellite systems. • Although the author’s specific main idea isn’t entirely clear until you’ve read through the whole passage, topic, scope, and purpose are all revealed by line 15. That makes this passage an ideal place to start work on this RC section, even if you suffer from “science anxiety.” Topic, scope, and purpose, after all, are the three things that you need to grasp as quickly as possible in order to get the passage under control.

© K A PL A N

37

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III

The Questions: 1. (E) This passage is about the existence of asteroid-satellite systems: astronomers used to doubt their existence, but now recognize that they are theoretically possible, and are looking for definitive proof. (E) correctly notes that theoreticians were on to the existence of asteroidsatellite systems before astronomers were. Moreover, (E)’s idea that astronomers agree on what would be conclusive proof echoes the final paragraph. (A) focuses on a detail—the Heruclina event. But the passage is about asteroid-satellite systems in general, not just about the Herculina observations. (B) Au contraire. The first sentence of the passage tells us that astronomers “long believed” that stable asteroid-satellite systems weren't possible; furthermore, skepticism about the existence of such systems has decreased. (C) Au contraire aussi. The Herculina event supported the theoreticians’ views about asteroid-satellite systems. Besides, like (A), this choice is focused on a detail. (D) is a “half-right, half-wrong” choice. Skeptical astronomers aren’t waiting for new theoretical models, but for physical evidence in the form of photoelectric records. • In global questions, beware of choices that focus on details, contradict the text, or are only half-right. 2. (D) Heruclina is discussed in Paragraph 3. 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. That’s (D): evidence of Herculina having a satellite was provided by “the occultation that occurred shortly before the predicted occultation by Herculina.” (A) First, the secondary body’s presence was “strongly indicated,” not "directly observed.” Second, what’s important is the fact that a second body also eclipsed the star. (B) is outside the scope. The passage says nothing about a planet near Herculina. (C) is also outside the scope. The author never discusses the amount of time needed to complete an orbit. (E) The occultation of Herculina itself is irrelevant; the evidence for the existence of a satellite was provided by the secondary occultation. • When working on an explicit text question, always go back to the passage and reread the relevant portion of text. Never answer on a hunch or vague recall of the text.

38

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III

3. (A) The attitude of astronomers since the Herculina event is discussed in paragraphs 4 and 5. Paragraph 4 says the Herculina event made secondary sightings “respectable”—i.e many astronomers came to accept the possible existence of asteroid-satellite systems. Paragraph 5 indicates that even astronomers who are still doubters would be convinced by the right kind of evidence. As (A) puts it, astronomers who were skeptical of the existence of asteroid-satellites have become more open-minded, although many are still awaiting proof. (B) describes the attitude of many astronomers prior to the Herculina event. (C) There’s no “chaotic mix of theory” relating to asteroid satellites; paragraph 1 indicates that a single, simple theory supports their existence. Further, the passage doesn’t say that any data is “spurious.” (D) is too negative. Many astronomers already believe that asteroid satellites exist. The skeptics are merely looking for one particular kind of evidence; they aren’t rejecting “all data not recorded automatically by state-of-the-art instruments.” (E) There’s nothing in the passage about admiration for the scientific process, nor has there been “incontrovertible proof” of anything. • When questions ask about “attitude,” look at the tone of the choices. The words “contempt” in (B), “bemusement” in (C), “hardheaded skeptism” in (D), and “admiration” in (E) all lead to a quick rejection of their choices. 4. (C) (C) gets to the heart of the matter. The first sentence of paragraph 4 says that after the Herculina event secondary occultations became “‘respectable’—and more commonly reported.” This implies that before the Herculina event secondary occultations weren’t considered respectable, and so weren’t commonly reported. (A) Au contraire. Paragraph 1 indicates that a good theoretical model of asteroid-satellite systems did exist prior to the Herculina event. (B) The author never implies that satellite collisions were mistaken for occultations. There’s no speculation on what, other than an actual satellite, might have occasioned the rare reported observations of secondary events before the Heruclina event. (D) Prior to the Herculina event, it wasn’t even respectable to report secondary events. The issue of what constitutes a “well-behaved” event only arises later (in Paragraph 5).

© K A PL A N

39

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III

(E) Au contraire aussi. Prior to the Herculina event, it wasn’t respectable to report the observation of a secondary event. • Take note of the time-frame of the question; here you’re only interested in the state of affairs before the Heruclina event. 5. (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. Why? Because even if every asteroid has the highest plausible number of satellites, “only one in every hundred primary occultations would be accompanied by a secondary event.” So (D) must be correct: Since the Herculina event, reports of secondary events have been occurring at a rate greater than this maximum plausible rate of one in every one hundred cases. (A) and (C) simply can’t be concluded based on the passage’s information. We don’t know how many reports of primary occultations have included secondary occultations, or how many reports of secondary occultations there are or were, so we can’t calculate the increase of either. (B) distorts the last parenthetical clause of paragraph 4, which describes what would be the case if asteroid-satellite systems resembled planet-satellite systems, not what is in fact the case on actual reports of secondary occultations. (E) is beyond the scope. The passage never mentions any report containing more than one secondary occultation. • When you come across numbers in the question stem, make sure you understand the author’s purpose in using them—in this case, to give you the highest reasonable limit for the number of secondary occultations one would expect to occur. 6. (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. (A) Much of the passage describes how reporting “secondary occultations” has become respectable. (B) deals only with information in paragraph 5. Moreover, (B)’s distinction between “spurious” and “theoretically believable” observations isn’t made in the passage. (D) The author isn’t trying to bring a “theoretician’s perspective” to the discussion; instead, he’s primarily interested in how experimental results enlighten the disucssion. (E) is easy to eliminate, because it never even mentions asteroid satellites. Moreover, there’s no attempt to limit speculation about occultation.

40

© K A PL A N

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.g., “the limits of reasonable speculation” in (E). 7. (C) Based on paragraph 5, you can expect the answer to have something to do with the photoelectric record. (C) would provide the hard physical evidence we need; a photoelectric record of a “well-behaved” secondary event is exactly what skeptical astronomers say “would change their minds.” (A) The existence of such early reports is only hinted at, and the clear implication is that nobody took them very seriously. (B) The author never implies that there’s anything wrong with the original theoretical model. (D) is just a more refined abstraction—it doesn’t constitute the kind of physical proof needed to resolve the question. (E) distorts the passage’s final sentence, which suggests that airplanes passing in front of the instruments might be responsible for some observations of secondary events. • The airplane vs. 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.

© K A PL A N

41

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III

PASSAGE 2 — 17th-Century Scientific Discovery (Q. 8-15)
Topic and Scope: Scientific experimentation in 17th-century England; specifically, who performed experiments and why. 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 prevented them from giving technicians the proper credit for their work. 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. In theory, 17th-century scientists believed that experiments should be performed by the scientists themselves, without relying on others for assistance. Yet, as paragraph 2 makes clear, scientists often did not act in accordance with their beliefs. As the example of Robert Boyle shows, many of them were aided in their experiments by paid technicians whose contributions went unacknowledged. 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; (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; and (3) the tendency to disregard as unreliable the input of the wage-slave technicians. The Big Picture: • Since topic, scope, and purpose all appear in the first sentence, this passage is another candidate to be worked on early in the section. • Keywords can help you negotiate a passage easily. The long third paragraph is neatly divided by keywords. The question at the beginning introduces the paragraph’s focus, and the three answers given are clearly marked by the words “one reason,” “moreover,” and “finally.”

42

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III

The Questions: 8. (C) (C) covers the gist of the passage. The author explains how much of 17th-century experimental work was performed by technicians, and how that work was denigrated and distrusted for the reasons discussed in paragraph 3. (A) ignores the major concern of the passage: why technicians’ contributions were overlooked. Moreover, the passage never implies that scientific experiments would have been absolutely impossible without the aid of technicians. (B) distorts the passage. Lab workers, as salaried employees, belonged to a lower social caste. (D) is outside the scope. The passage never discusses the relationship between 20th-century scientists and their technicians. (E) focuses on a detail. • In global questions, it’s not enough to look for a choice that sounds like it came from the author. You’ve got to find the choice that encompasses the topic, scope, and purpose of the text. 9. (E) Seventeenth-century rhetoric about scientific experimentation emphasized the idea that scientists should do their own experiments. Hence, that rhetoric would have more accurately described the work conducted in Boyle’s lab if Boyle himself had actually done his own experiments. (A) would contradict seventeenth-century rhetoric by having Boyle admit that he relied on others. (B) According to the passage, contempt for manual labor was characteristic of seventeenthcentury scientists. (C) Membership in the Royal Society alone wouldn’t determine whether or not Boyle performed experiments according to the rhetoric of the day. (D) focuses on the wrong issue. The rhetoric in question was about scientists performing all their own experiments, not about acknowledging technicians; acknowledging technicians is an issue raised by the author. • The main difficulty here is in sorting out the question. Take it one step at a time: First, what is the rhetoric the question speaks about? Second, 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.)

© K A PL A N

43

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III

10. (C) The “franchise” and it’s relation to servants is discussed in the middle of paragraph 3, where it’s said that servants were excluded from the franchise because, as wage earners, they were thought to be controlled by their employers. In other words, as (C) says, their political independence was thought to be compromised. (A) Servants weren’t excluded because their interests were already represented, but because it was believed that they would blindly support the political positions of the employers who paid their wages. (B), (D), and (E) are outside the scope. Nowhere does the passage state or imply that servants were inadequately educated (B), a polarizing force (D), or insufficient contributors to society (E). • Don’t worry about the precise definition of the “franchise”; it’s enough to locate the word in the passage and see how it appears in context. • Even if you didn’t remember where the concept of “franchise” appeared, it should have been easy to find, given the paragraph divisions of the passage; paragraph 3 is where the author gets around to discussing the social reasons technicians were looked down on. 11. (D) In the middle of Paragraph 1, 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. As (D) puts it, the Society advocated abandoning the traditional upper class ethic against performing manual labor—at least as far as science was concerned. (A) and (E) are au contraire choices. Pararagraph 1 explicitly says that, as far as the Royal Society of London was concerned, the willigness of scientists to do their own manual labor was part of an attempt to discover God’s truth in nature (A), as well as a demonstration of piety (E). (B) and (C) touch on issues which the Royal Society didn’t address. 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). In fact, based on the information in the passage, it’s quite likely that the upper class Royal Society would have endorsed these views. • If you didn’t reread the relevant portion of text, you might easily have fallen for one of the trap choices.

44

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III

12. (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, rather than from the cooperative efforts of many people. (B) is outside the scope. There’s nothing in the passage about either seventeenth or twentieth century views of the connection between political values and scientific method. (C) and (D) are out because, 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, the passage says nothing about twentieth-century beliefs concerning these things. (E) states a position that certainly wasn’t endorsed in the seventeenth century (and may not be widely endorsed in the twentieth century, for all we know). • In inference questions, beware of choices—like (B) here—that are outside the author’s scope. 13. (D) Paragraph 3 begins by asking why the role of technicians wasn’t acknowledged by 17thcentury scientists, an issue introduced in Paragraph 2. It then answers this question by discussing three factors that contributed to the failure to acknowledge the role of technicians. (A) The question isn’t posed in the previous paragraph, nor is only one of several alternative answers adopted. (B) None of the factors discussed in paragraph 3 is rejected. (C) The explanations discussed aren’t incompatible—the factors in paragraph 3 are shown as working together. (E) Paragraph 3’s explanation doesn’t rest on recent research, but is based on the author’s interpretation of seventeenth-century English society. • Reject choices as soon as they deviate from what you know about the passage—e.g., reject (A) as soon as you see “question posed in the previous paragraph” and (E) as soon as you see “recent discoveries.”

© K A PL A N

45

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III

14. (A) In introducing the political significance of the wage relationship, the author makes the point that workers dependent upon the wages of their employers simply weren’t considered reliable, whether in political judgments or in scientific research. As (A) says, the author puts the scientists’ failure to acknowledge the contributions of technicians in the context of general worker-employer relations. (B) is outside the scope. The author offers no general thesis about the relationship between scientific discovery and economic conditions. (C) goes against the gist of the passage, which is that seventeenth-century scientists relied on technicians to do much more than simply the most menial tasks. (D) is also outside the scope. The author doesn’t discuss political or economic changes in seventeenth-century England. (E) The author doesn’t tie the wage relationship to the nature of scientific discovery, but to the attitude of scientists towards technicians. • Always read around the line cited to get the context. Here, you get the answer virtually handed to you in lines 53-55. 15. (D) As we’ve already seen, the rhetoric of seventeenth-century English science concerned the idea of doing hands-on research. What was the rhetoric? That scientists should conduct, observe, and analyze their own experiments. (A) The myth about how discoveries were thought to occur is a general trend discussed by the author, not a subject of seventeenth-century rhetoric. (B) Au contraire. Seventeenth-century scientific rhetoric emphasized the importance of doing manual labor in the cause of science. (C) Seventeenth-century scientists failed to acknowledge the contributions of their technicians. The scientific rhetoric of the time never addressed that issue. (E) Though scientists like Boyle did believe in the search for divine truth in nature, the “rhetoric” discussed in the passage concerned only the importance of manual labor in research. • Eliminate odd-man out choices quickly. In this case, the rhetoric in question clearly has to do with the manner in which scientific research takes place, so throw out (E) right away.

46

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III

PASSAGE 3 — Monopoly Power (Q. 16-20)
Topic and Scope: Monopoly power; specifically, the difference between the possession of monopoly power, which isn’t illegal, and the abuse of monopoly power, which is. 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. Since this is a descriptive passage, there really isn’t a specific main idea. Paragraph Structure: Paragraph 1 explains that the possession of monopoly power is not in itself illegal; to violate antitrust laws, a company must abuse monopoly power by using it to exclude competition. Paragraph 2 explains how monopoly power comes about: Companies with a large market share can raise prices above competitive levels without losing customers. 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. Paragraph 4 describes the types of exclusionary practices which constitute abuse. Paragraph 5 reiterates a point made earlier—that, in the interests of consumer welfare, antitrust laws focus on the abuse rather than the possession of monopoly power. The Big Picture: • Be on the lookout for passages that contrast two or more entities: the possession vs. the abuse of monopoly power, for instance. Such passages always have questions that hinge on a clear understanding of the difference between the entities being compared. • You don’t have to assimilate all of the details to do well on this passage. The important thing is to understand the basics of monopoly power—what’s illegal (abuse), what’s not (possession) and why (consumer welfare).

© K A PL A N

47

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III

The Questions: 16. (E) Paragraph 5 says that antitrust laws focus on abuse of monopoly power rather than possession of it in order to protect consumers’ welfare. So we can infer (E): that the abuse of monopoly power is prohibited because it impairs consumer welfare, whereas possession doesn’t necessarily hurt consumers. (A) The author doesn’t make a legal distinction between market share and market control. (B) The author never suggests that monopoly power is easier to demonstrate than abuse. (C) In the first paragraph, abuse of monopoly power is defined as the exclusion of competition “in the monopolized market or related markets,” so it needn’t involve more than one market. (D) Paragraph 3 says that charging supracompetitive prices doesn’t by itself constitute an abuse of monopoly power. • Watch out for categorical choices like (C), which says abuse of monopoly power must involve more than one market. Compare this choice with correct choice (E), which says that monopoly power “doesn’t necessarily” hurt consumer welfare. 17. (E) At the beginning of paragraph 4, leverage is described as “the use of power in one market to reduce competition in another,” a strategy which is clearly characterized as abuse in paragraphs 1 and 4. (A) Au contraire. We’re told that the manipulation of related markets constitutes abuse, even though these secondary markets aren’t monopolized. (B) “Tying arrangements” are presented as an example of leverage strategy, and all leverage strategies are considered abuses by the author. (C) Au contraire aussi. The use of monopoly power in itself doesn’t constitute abuse. (D) A company using leverage would still violate antitrust laws, even if it was charging competitive prices. • Once you see that “leveraging” is basically defined as an abuse of monopoly power, you can eliminate the two “nos,” (A) and (B), and the qualified “yes,” (D). 18. (D) The passage as a whole revolves around the distinction between possession of monopoly power and its abuse. In the third paragraph, the author brings up a number of cases where companies that possess monopoly power use it legally. The author is clarifying how far

48

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III

companies can legally exercise monopoly power. As (D) puts it, the author is distinguishing what is covered by the antitrust laws from what isn’t. (A) is outside the scope. There’s no mention of supracompetitive profits in the passage, if indeed such profits exist. (B) distorts the passage. We’re told how far companies can exercise monopoly power without breaking the law, a quite different thing from describing positive uses of monopoly power. (C) focuses on a detail, not the main purpose of the paragraph. (E) doesn’t really emerge until paragraph 5; it’s by no means the central idea of paragraph 3. • This question is a natural for pre-phrasing, one of the most useful questionanswering techniques. In this case, 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, which leads right to (D). 19. (B) Essentially the lawmakers’ attitude toward monopoly is that some methods of reducing competition are legitimate, and some aren’t.The point of the passage, after all, is to distinguish between legal and illegal forms of monopoly. Paragraphs 2 and 3 center around the extent to which companies can exercise monopoly power without violating antitrust laws. Paragraphs 4 and 5, on the other hand, focus on uses of monopoly power that are prohibited by antitrust laws. (A) Au contraire. At the end of paragraph 3, we’re told that monopolist companies can be allowed to grow at the expense of competition in the interests of consumers’ welfare. (C) The author says that consumer welfare is the principle aim of the antitrust laws. (D) Au contraire aussi. According to paragraph 2, when close substitutes for a product are available, competition benefits from a company that charges supracompetitive prices. (E) Since the existence of monopolies is considered better for consumer welfare under certain circumstances, 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. Here, once you see that it’s a mistake to tie competition to consumers’ welfare, it’s easy to reject the wrong choices.

© K A PL A N

49

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III

20. (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. We want a choice that’s relevant to this idea. (A) fits the bill by picking up the consumer-welfarebased distinction between abuse and possession of monopoly power, and explaining that monopoly power can sometimes be in the consumers’ best interests. (B) goes against the gist of the last paragraph. The author believes that antitrust laws have been effective in securing the consumers’ best interests. (C) is outside the scope. It focuses on two particular industries that haven’t been mentioned anywhere. (D) dredges up the idea of “supracompetitive” profits, which aren’t mentioned anywhere in the passage. (E) also goes against the gist of the paragraph. Restraints on monopoly haven’t been left to the market, but rather have been enforced by antitrust laws. • Finding the sentence that logically completes a paragraph is not difficult if you keep the paragraph’s purpose in mind.

50

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III

PASSAGE 4 — Navaho Blankets (Q.21-28)
Topic and Scope: Navajo weaving; specifically, the different styles of Navaho rug weaving and how they developed. 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 Structure: Paragraph 1 introduces Amsden’s view of Navajo weaving styles: three of them are banded with stripes, zigzags, or diamonds, while the fourth style is quite different, a border surrounding central figures. Paragraph 2 explains that Amsden believes that there’s some Anglo influence in the diamond style, but the most Anglo influence appears in the bordered style. Paragraph 3 gives the meat of Amsden’s argument: he believes that the bordered rug represents a radical break with previous styles, and that the very fact of the border changed the way Navajo weavers designed rugs. Paragraph 4 begins the author’s criticsm of Amden’s theory: “Amsden’s view raises several questions.” First question: what is involved in altering artistic styles? The author concludes that in the case of weaving, there’s no radical change in motor habits or thought processes. 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, but a result of the artist’s quest for invention. Finally, Paragraph 6 questions the idea that there really is a stylistic gap between banded and bordered styles. The Big Picture: • When more than one view is presented, you need to be clear about the distinctions between or among the different points of view. The questions will certainly test to see that you’ve grasped the differences. • Notice how neatly this passage is arranged. The first three paragraphs describe Amsden’s views, while the last three—beginning at line 28—supply the author’s critique of Amsden.

© K A PL A N

51

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III

The Questions: 21. (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) is outside the scope. The author never suggests that the Navajo rejected all Anglo cultural influence. (B) distorts the author’s criticism. The author questions Amsden’s account of how the styles developed, but doesn’t reject Amsden’s categorization of the styles. (C) focuses on a detail. It plays on an idea that the author puts forth in paragraph 5. (D) is outside the scope as well. It doesn’t even mention Navajo weaving, Amsden, or the author. • Avoid choices that are either too broad or too narrow in scope. 22. (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, bottom, and border. (A) paraphrases this sentiment, albeit in abstract language. (B) Amsden depicts the strips of color as signs of general Navaho abhorrence for borders, not necessarily an “echo” of the diamond style. (C) Au contraire. For Amsden, the strips of color bursting through the border reflect resistance to Anglo culture. (D) According to Amsden, the Navajo resisted the bordered style, not the banded style. (E) The desire for designs with a top, bottom, and border is presented as an Anglo desire. • Be suspicious of any choice that has a highly charged word like “disintegrate” (D), unless the tone of the passage clearly warrants such a word. 23. (C) (C) captures the author’s view as it is expressed in paragraphs 5 and 6. The author thinks that the bordered style gradually evolved from the banded style not necessarily as a result of Anglo influence, as Amsden believed, but as a result of Navajo experimentation with design and the artistic quest for invention. (A) In mentioning the Chief White Antelope blanket at the end of the passage, the author suggests that the diamond style pre-dated the arrival of the Anglos.

52

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III

(B) is outside the scope. There’s no evidence of what the author thinks is “generally” the case when two cultures occupy the same region. (D) is also outside the scope. Nothing in this passage suggests that non-Anglo cultures influenced Navajo weaving. (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. • Don’t spend an inordinate amount of time with any choice that confuses you—as (B) may have done here. Move on quickly to evaluating the other choices. 24. (D) What happened in 1890? The bordered style appeared. So, you’re looking for the choice that’s not characteristic of pre-1890 weavings—i.e., that’s uniquely characteristic of the bordered style. The bordered style used isolated figures (paragraph 1), while pre-1890 weavings used continuous patterns (paragraph 3). (A) Paragraph 3 says that the old patterns alternated decorations like stripes, zigzags, or diamonds in a regular order—that’s a “repetition of forms.” (B) Early Navajo rugs were continuous, with overall patterns rather than isolated figures. (C) and (E) According to paragraph 1, “horizontal bands” and “color” were used in early styles. • In “all/EXCEPT” questions, you’re looking for the choice that isn’t true. 25. (D) The author accepts Amsden’s classification that Navajo weavings used horizontal bands of abstract designs early on, and later moved on to isolated figures (when the bordered style was adopted); but differs from Amsden in arguing that the change was gradual, not a radical break. (A) In Paragraph 4, the author suggests that motor habits and thought processes have little application to Navajo weaving. (B) Neither the author nor Amsden attributes the zigzag style to Anglo influences. (C) Au contraire. The figures came later. (E) Also au contraire. Only the border style is said routinely to contain isolated figures. • In an open-ended question like this one, it’s difficult to prephrase. The only course to take is to go through the choices one-by-one.

© K A PL A N

53

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III

26. (C) The author’s main point of issue with Amsden concerns the claim about Anglo influence. The author’s objections occur in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6. The author’s basic point here is that Amsden has overlooked some things—the nature of weaving, the artists’ quest for invention, the existence of intermediate forms—that suggest that the bordered style may have arisen without Anglo evidence. As (C) says, the author thinks that Amsden fails to consider certain aspects of Navajo weaving in making his claim. (A) is clearly incorrect because Amsden sees little or no correspondence between Anglo and Navajo art. Rather, he views the two styles as radically different. (B) is outside the scope. The author never discusses Amsden’s feeling about Anglo culture. (D) The author doesn’t criticize Amsden for basing his theories on a limited number of weaving specimens. (E) is also outside the scope. There is no suggestion that Amsden has confused the features of the zigzag and diamond styles. • In inference questions, don’t endorse choices that stray too far from the passage’s content. 27. (B) In the final paragraph, the author makes the point that some stylistic changes that led the way to the border style can't be attributed to Anglo influence, and uses the Chief White Buffalo blanket as an example to illustrate this point. (A) Au contraire. The Chief White Antelope blanket argues against the influence of Anglo culture on the bordered style. (C) Au contraire, too. The author says that the vertically arranged diamonds in the Chief White Antelope blanket anticipate the border. Moreover, this blanket has a “flowing design,” not a central design. (D) The Chief White Antelope blanket questions the idea of Anglo influence. (E) This blanket seems to illustrate innovation within the diamond style. • In questions that ask for the “why” of a detail, the answer is to be found by reading the lines around the detail. Be sure to get a sense of the detail’s context before shopping among the answer choices.

54

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section III

28. (B) Paragraphs 1 through 3 describe Amsden’s view about how the bordered Navajo weaving style developed. Paragraphs 4 through 6 question that view. Thus, this choice accurately sums up the passage’s primary concern. (A) Although the passage does compare different weaving styles—the banded and the bordered—the central concern is not to compare the styles, but to question a view regarding the development of these styles. (C) is outside the scope. The passage never proposes new methods of investigation. (D) This choice focuses on a detail. While the author does discuss the influence of Anglo style on Navajo weaving, that’s done only in order to question Amsden’s explanation of how the bordered style evolved. (E) The author’s focus is on the evolution of a style. The interaction between two cultures is an idea of Amsden’s. • In questions that ask for the author’s main concern or primary purpose, start with a verb scan to eliminate wrong choices. In this case, it’s important to realize that the author isn’t neutral; he or she is disagreeing with a view. So, neutral verbs like “comparing,” “discussing,” and “analyzing” won’t do.

© K A PL A N

55

SECTION IV: LOGICAL REASONING

56

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV

1. (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, and to try to suit the original composition to the new instrument. Since the two different instruments are intended to be analogous to the two different languages, 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, but is also guided by the innate possibilities and limitations of the new language. (A) No; by the very nature of the analogy, the author is implying that poetry tranlation is possible, so long as the translation is guided by the nature of the language it’s translated into. (B) attempts to confuse the issue by combining the two elements of the analogy, music and poetry, byt the argument is not even remotely concerned whether some languages are more or less musical, and hence more or less poetic, than others. It also strays from the scope, translation. (C) also tries to combine poetry with musical qualities like rhythm and sound patterns, therefore confusing the purpose of the analogy, which isn’t included to convince us that poetry should be like music, but rather to suggest that similar factors that influence musical translation may also influence poetry translation. (E) is plainly outside the scope of the argument, which never debates the relative difficulty of translating philosophical insights or subjective impressions. • Understand that the purpose of an analogy is to show or imply one element of similarity between two different things, not to argue that the two things are or should be similar in every respect.

• Read critically and always keep in mind what the author considers important. Ask
yourself, “what would the author like me to take away from this passage?” In a question like this, any choices that don’t include the concept of translation, the main scope of the argument, should be quickly discarded. 2. (C) According to the author, if a student’s understanding of a subject consisted only of knowing facts and rules, then computers might well eventually replace human teachers as drill masters and coaches. However, a student's understanding also consists of having a grasp of the general concepts underlying them. The author concludes that the computer will not eventually replace the teacher, obviously assuming that computers can’t teach these general concepts along with the facts and rules. (C) undermines the argument by attacking this assumption. (A) asserts that computers are as good as teachers in drilling students on rules and facts, and (D) goes one step further and says that they’re better. The author freely admits that computers would be capable of replacing teachers if that’s all there is to it, but argues that computers fall short because learning requires a grasp of underlying concepts as well.

© K A PL A N

57

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV

(B) Au-contraire; 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. (E), if anything, supports the argument, because the author implies that drills and coaching are the computer’s strong point.

• One of the most common ways to weaken an argument on the LSAT is to call the
author’s central assumption into question. 3. (C) Here’s the reasoning: If city council spending (X) remains the same, then the sales tax (Y) can be expected to be at a certain level. Therefore, if the sales tax (Y) is higher than the predicted level, then it will be because city council spending (X) increased. This element of causation throws a kink into the logic. The contrapositive of the first sentence is “If the sales tax is not 2%, then city council didn’t maintain spending at the same level.” The higher tax mentioned in the second sentence could be the result of other factors; it need not be caused by an increase in expenditures. (C) most closely parallels this, complete with the logical flaw: If workers’ wages (X) aren’t increased, then the prices charged for goods (Y) will remain at the level it was at last year. Therefore, if the prices (Y) rise beyond the predicted level, then it will be because the workers’ wages (X) also increased. (A) begins with a premise relating the cost of house-building to the price of houses, but goes on to try to deduce something about builders attempting to sell a greater number of houses, which is a completely new idea. (B) also complicates things by introducing the idea of reduced profits due to shoplifting, a third term in the argument. (D) Much like in (B), (D)’s conclusion bears no resemblance to the stimulus conclusion, since it introduces the totally new idea of improved services, a third term not found in the original. (E) is concerned with qualitative terms, whereas the stimulus was concerned with quantitative terms. (E) also drags a new consideration, newspaper circulation, into its conclusion.

• It’s often quite valuable to do a quick scan and comparison of the argument’s and
choices’ conclusions in Parallel Reasoning questions. If the original’s conclusion is that if something happens “it will be because” something else has happened, chances are that the correct choice will follow this “it will be because” format. (A) and (C) are the only viable candidates to consider. • Assess the merit of the argument—if the original seems to botch a cause-and-effect relationship, then look for the choice that does the same.

58

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV

• If you can symbolize the argument algebraically, do so, and pay careful attention to the number of terms represented in the original; many of the wrong choices will include additional or fewer terms. 4. (D) Good deeds are beneficial to the immune system of the person who does them. White blood cells are needed to fight infection, and magnanimous behavior causes the brain to produce chemicals that stimulate and aid the activity of these white blood cells. We are therefore safe in inferring that magnanimous behavior is beneficial to one’s own interests. (A) The stimulus says nothing about what constitutes a good deed, or what sort of motives are required for a deed to be truly “good.” (B) While it’s claimed that magnanimous behavior helps the immune system, we can hardly say that lack of magnanimity actually causes most serious illnesses. (C) is way off. Magnanimity produces the chemicals; not the other way around. (E)’s a distortion—the stimulus said only that magnanimity will stimulate the activity of white blood cells, so we can’t infer that it will produce new ones.

• Beware of choices with extreme or radical language that doesn’t fit the tone of the
stimulus. Distortions, or extreme sounding choices are some of the most common wrong answers. • Focus on the path of causality when one thing is said to cause another. Very often, wrong choices can be eliminated because they switch the cause-and-effect relationship. Magnanimity causes the stimulation of beneficial chemicals related to the immune system—wrong choice (C) gets it totally backwards, while (B) misunderstands the relationship as well. 5. (C) The author concludes that if production costs for operas were lowered, then operas would no longer need corporate sponsorship, but instead could be privately financed; as a result, ticket buyers would be able to see a wider variety of operas, instead of just the most famous ones. (C) destroys this wishful thinking. If, without corporate support, opera companies could still afford to produce only the most famous operas, the argument falls apart. (A) subtly strengthens the argument, by opening up the possibility that people would be willing to pay to see little known operas as opposed to famous ones. (B) The argument isn’t affected in the least if corporate sponsors still wish to support opera, the whole issue centers on what will happen without corporate sponsorship. (D) The author’s whole point is to produce the operas without corporate sponsorship, so this piece of info has no bearing on the argument.

© K A PL A N

59

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV

(E) We can infer that the author has already thought of this, which is why her plan involves cutting production costs in order to produce operas without corporate support. • A simple restatement of something that the author is taking for granted as true (i.e. an assumption) doesn’t strengthen or weaken an argument; only a choice that breaks down or shores up this assumption can affect the argument in this way. • Don’t underestimate the power of asking yourself “so what?” when evaluating choices in strengthen/weaken questions; many choices in this question type are simply irrelevant, and therefore have no effect on the author’s logic. 6. (A) The sentence “at the same time that the clock opened up some avenues, it closed others” gives it away; it introduces the notion of something having both a liberating and a restricting effect. Since we’re looking for a proposition (a generality) illustrated by this example, (A) fits the bill by expanding the author’s observation about the double effect of clocks and applying it to new machines in general. (B) is never suggested, and besides, we’re looking for a general concept that can be illustrated by the clock example, not a recommendation of what to do. (C) The clock example doesn’t match this at all, as it illustrates that new technologies can improve our lives, even those that also have a restricting effect. (D) The author does not offer a final judgment about clocks, and once again, since we’re looking for a generally-stated proposition based on the clocks example, any choice containing only a clocks-related soundbite must be wrong. (E) mistakenly takes a specific attribute of clocks, the fact that they increase synchronization and productivity, and attributes it to most machines. The actual functioning of the clock, and the specific effects it has (like adding synchronization), cannot be generalized and applied to other machines, which may, after all, have entirely different functions and effects.

• Always keep the scope of the argument in mind. Many (if not most) of the wrong
choices will simply go beyond (or way beyond) what the author is saying. • When you see the words “proposition” or “principle,” think more in terms of generalities than specifics.

60

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV

7. (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. This is a case of confusing necessity with sufficiency. True, according to the second sentence, three hours a day of practice will make someone an expert eventually (i.e., it’s sufficient for expertise), but nothing rules out the possibility of becoming an expert by practicing less than three hours a day (i.e., three hours a day is not necessary). According to the first sentence, at least some practice is necessary, 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. (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. (C) is the contrapositive of the conclusion, and therefore makes the same error that the conclusion makes, that of assuming that one must practice three hours a day to become an expert. (D) The argument doesn’t specify that the practice hours must be consecutive, so the fact that some music teachers may frown on this notion is irrelevant. (E) also brings up an irrelevant consideration—the argument focuses the practice requirements that will lead to expertise. How many or how few people have this kind of time on their hands is outside the scope.

• Pay attention to, and never lose sight of, what you’re asked for. The answer to a flaw
question must contain a flaw. Statements about the argument that are true or simply restate information must be eliminated. • Don’t fault an author for not addressing a point that he has no logical obligation to address. If the argument proceeds “X will lead to Y,” the author has no obligation to also prove that lots of people can do X. It’s beyond the scope. 8. (E) First, define the unexpected finding. There’s “incontestable proof” that safety seats will reduce the number of serious injuries sustained by children in car accidents, 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, and have been proven to be effective in preventing. If, as (E) says, safety seats must be used properly in order for them to afford protection, and if parents are failing to use them properly, then it’s easily conceivable for children riding in safety seats to still suffer serious injuries. (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.

© K A PL A N

61

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, and for which they have been proven effective. (D) This one also explains nothing—it ignores the fact that children are sustaining the very injuries that the seats were designed to prevent. • Not all Paradox questions make use of the word “paradox;” learn to recognize the various ways this question type is presented. “Unexpected finding,” “discrepancy,” and “surprising result” are three common phrases that signify Paradox. • The answer to a Paradox question cannot contradict the stimulus or bring up irrelevant information (like parents who don’t even buy the seats). 9. (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, we can infer that people who aren't selfconfident aren't likely to enjoy being made fun of, either by themselves or by others. (A) implies that no one who lacks self-confidence will enjoy being made fun of, which may at first seem like a stronger statement than the argument can definitely support. However, the phrase “the surest mark” is meant to indicate that telling funny stories or jokes about oneself is tantamount to being self- confident; in other words, if you tell funny stories or jokes about yourself, then you are self-confident. (A) is the contrapositive of this. Even if you don’t see eye to eye with this logic, as some may not, (A) is still the best of the bunch, and very much in line with the gist of the argument. (B) Beyond the scope—the passage talks about other people making fun of self-confident people, but says nothing about the reverse scenario. (C) and (E) are also beyond the scope. There’s no way for us to infer the reason behind the stated correlation (C); that is, why self-confident people put themselves down. And the reason why anyone tells jokes about other people in their presence (what choice (E) discusses) is never discussed. (D) We have no idea who “most people” are, or what they would prefer.

• In Inference questions, pay attention not only to what you know, but also to what
you don’t know. Things that you don’t know will appear as wrong answer choices for sure.

62

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV

10. (E) This one’s fairly complex, but your best bet is to follow the cause-and-effect relationships and make deductions as if they represented Logic Games rules. Only one of the choices can’t be deuced from the “rules” of this stimulus, and it turns out to be (E): We know that if there's a decrease in atmospheric carbon, there's a decrease in atmospheric heat. We cannot infer the opposite: If there's a decrease in atmospheric heat, there may or may not be a decrease in atmospheric carbon. (A), (D) Straight from the passage: A decrease in atmospheric carbon leads to a decrease in atmosphere heat, which results in decreased evaporation of sea water. The decreased evaporation of sea water results in less rain, which means less carbon being washed into the seas. (B) If the amount of carbon in the atmosphere increases, then the atmosphere holds more heat. This increased heat in turn results in increased evaporation of sea water. Put 'em together, and we get (B): increased carbon in the atmosphere means increased evaporation of sea water. (C) More of the same process: Increased heat leads to increased evaporation of sea water, which leads to increased rainfall. • An inferred EXCEPT question is by nature complex; four out of the five choices must be inferable from the stimulus, which means that there’s a lot of reading between the lines to be done. One option is to skip this question type (and assumed EXCEPT questions as well) and come back to it at the end, especially when the stimulus is based on a long and confusing process like this one. • Don’t be afraid to temporarily skip intimidating questions. In order to succeed on the LSAT, you must dictate to the test, not the other way around. 11. (E) The author concludes that environmentalists are wrong to worry about increased carbon levels due to the burning of fossil fuels, because nature will continually adjust the carbon level. However, if, as choice (E) states, the adjustment process works very slowly, allowing wide short-term fluctuations in the carbon level, then it’s conceivable that dangerous or even lethal levels of carbon can build up, thus severely weakening the author's argument: the environmentalists would be right to worry. (A), (C) The author doesn’t debate the necessity of carbon, she merely argues that nature takes care of the carbon level by itself, and that the environmentalists should chill. (B) Some may feel that this weakens the author’s concession in the last sentence, but even if it did, that sentence is basically a tangential point that has little to do with the logic of the argument, which deals with nature’s regulation of the carbon level. However, this probably doesn’t even affect the author’s concession, because that statement never said or implied that the threat to humans of increased carbon levels would come from breathing it in; it would likely be more indirect, along the lines of the processes described.

© K A PL A N

63

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV

(D) This is an irrelevant comparison that has no bearing on the logic of the argument. • 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. There’s usually a wrong choice that keys off of such irrelevant info. 12. (E) Based on the statistical evidence provided, the author concludes that if American children are to become as capable as their South Korean peers, they must watch less television. The author doesn't consider the possibility that there are other reasons for this difference in mathematical ability. Surely how much television children watch isn't the only difference between lifestyles of South Korean and American children. In making this claim, therefore, the author assumes that other possible factors that could account for the difference in math abilities don’t in fact play a role. (E) zeros in on this assumption: it certainly would seem that mathematical instruction would also be an important factor in determining competence in math; therefore, in concluding that less TV watching will help improve U.S. childrens’ math abilities, the author must assume that math instruction in America and South Korea is of the same caliber. (A) and (B), if true, both weaken the argument by providing (and not discounting, as (E) does) other explanations: lack of interest and discipline on the part of American children compared with the South Koreans. If these things are true, then the impact of TV watching on the situation may be at best insignificant and at worst irrelevant. (C) The author’s conclusion, simply put, is based on a necessary condition that underlies U.S. children’s math success. The argument ends there; it stands regardless of whether children will be motivated to adopt this condition. (D) The conclusion is stated in terms of watching “less” TV; how much less is not addressed. This one hour time frame appears out of nowhere, and the author need not assume this for the conclusion to stand. Remember, watching less TV is a necessary condition, according to the author, but is not sufficient for math success, so the author need not assume that watching less than one hour of TV a day will guarantee an increase in math ability. • Assumptions often spring from something that the author has failed to consider, and therefore has assumed to be unimportant. In other words, a very common assumption on the logical reasoning section is the assumption that another viable explanation, which could in fact explain the scenario and weaken the author’s contention, is not so. Notice in this case that many of the choices contained alternative explanations for the discrepancy noted, but only correct choice (E) negated the possibility of the alternative it provided. • If there’s an alternative explanation for the facts of a situation, the testmakers can write a number of different questions that in some way play off of this other explanation: logical flaw, strengthen/weaken, or as in this case, assumption. Review, if necessary, the concept of the “synergy” between these types of Logical Reasoning questions, as discsussed in class.

64

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV

13. (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, then it certainly must be true that a bookstore that is profitably selling books at below market prices is getting discounts from publishers. (A) and (B) both confuse necessity with sufficiency: For (A), it’s necessary to receive discounts to sell at below-market prices, but it’s not a guarantee. As for (B), a high volume relies on either exclusive access or a large specialized market (a necessary condition), but neither of these things necessarily guarantees (i.e., is sufficient) a high sales volume. (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, so nothing can be inferred about it. (E) No; 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. • The technical term for a very common LR mistake that’s particularly related to formal logic stimuli is “denying the antecedent.” You don’t have to know this term, but you should be familiar with the common error it signifies. Using classic algebraic form, we know that we can take the statement “If X, then Y” and form the contrapositive by reversing and negating the terms: “If NOT Y, then NOT X.” Denying the antecedent involves negating the terms, but forgetting to reverse them, and the ensuing statement “If NOT X, then NOT Y,” an example of which appears in choice (D) here, is not logically valid. As stated above, NOT X, which in this case represents bookstores that don’t sell books at below-market prices, is outside the scope. • We’ve seen it plenty on this test alone, 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. 14. (D) Because this store doesn’t cater to mass tastes, if it does not have exclusive access, 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. (A) could be true; all the store needs is exclusive access to a large specialized market. (B) can literally always be true; nothing forces bookstores to sell at below-market prices, after all. (C) is certainly true. Since this store doesn’t cater to mass tastes, then either it has exclusive access to a large specialized market, or it can kiss the volume, and by extension, the discounts, goodbye. (E) Since this store doesn’t cater to mass tastes, it’s certainly possible that the store doesn’t have exclusive access or the publisher’s discount.

© K A PL A N

65

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV

• While you should always read the question stem first, be careful with stimuli with
two questions. If the second stem introduces new information (like 14 does), be sure that you don’t take that information back with you to the first question. Just like in Logic Games, new information is for that question only. • Draw upon your Logic Games skills for Logical Reasoning whenever possible. From Games, you know how to handle a CANNOT be true question—simply determine whether each choice could or must be true, and cross those off. 15. (E) Species have been coming and going long before humans ever came along, 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. In other words, 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. However, she has failed to present any proof that the more recently extinct species would have definitely become extinct without our help. (A) is mired in a scope shift—the author doesn't argue that technology has not harmed the environment in any way; all she argues is that damage to the environment didn't cause extinctions which wouldn't have otherwise occurred naturally. (B) The author isn't ignoring this fact; it's just not important to her argument. These species aren't mentioned because they have no effect on her argument, not because she erroneously overlooks them. (C) Once again, failing to consider something that has nothing to do with your argument is not a reasoning error. The existence of undiscovered species has no bearing on the argument that extinction is natural. (D) is a distortion of the author's second statement. She doesn't identify a group of scientists that have this theory, she just says that scientists, in general, estimate that it's the case.

• Pre-phrasing an answer can be particularly useful in identifying flaws. If you can
identify what’s missing in the argument, actively search the choices for your idea. More often than not, it will be there. • Once again, the author is not responsible for including in her argument every bit of information that falls under the scope of her general topic. So don’t be fooled by choices that appear to be true, thinking “Yeah, the author does fail to mention this.” The more appropriate test is “yeah, the author doesn’t mention this, 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), the better.

66

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV

16. (A) If the public distrusts the media, believing that it might be prejudiced, but they use information dispersed by the media as fuel for that doubt, then it seems probable that the public would find it difficult to detect a wide-spread media bias. In other words, it would be difficult to find an objective standard against which to judge a media report.(A) is a rephrasing of that thinking. (B) The public may believe that the media is biased, and the media may indeed be biased, but there's no evidence in the stimulus that there is a specific political agenda at work. (C) The author hasn’t even established that biases actually exist, just that the public may have trouble discerning media bias, if it even exists. The reasons for the bias therefore cannot be a conclusion the author’s moving towards. (D) We’re only interested in the bias of the media and the fact that the public would have a hard time seeing it. Whether or not reporters hold the same view as their public is immaterial. There’s also a scope shift here: The “views” discussed in (D) don’t necessarily fall under the category of “biases,” which is after all what the stimulus talks about. (E) We're given no clues as to how the public would respond to a scenario like this. • A conclusion will almost always cover the main topic and must certainly fall within the scope of the argument. Here, the topic is biases in mass media, which only the first three choices deal with. From there, paying attention to the scope of the argument should have helped you to narrow it down to correct choice (A).

17. (D) You should be able to pre-phrase a pretty close answer. If no risky projects are decided upon in bureaucracies, and the bureaucratic decision making involves “many people,” then the author is likely assuming that decisions to undertake risky projects are only made by a single individual. (A) Try the Denial Test: What if not all projects in a bureaucracy involve risk? Does the argument suffer? No; the conclusion is about the fate of risky projects, 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. (B) What “type” of people work in bureaucracies is beyond the scope, and certainly not a crucial factor in making this argument. (C) contains a few scope shifts: First,taking risks may be similar but is not necessarily the same thing as undertaking risky projects. Second, the choice concerns an individual with decision making power, whereas the stimulus indirectly refers to a situation where a single individual has all of the power. If you’re unsure, try the Denial Test again: It’s possible for an individual with decision-making power to not take risks, and for the conclusion to still remain valid.

© K A PL A N

67

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV

(E) says that people take fewer risks when they're members of a group. But we need a statement that implies that they take no risks when they're part of a bureaucracy. So while (E) may have initially appeared tempting, it's not strong or specific enough to allow the argument's conclusion to follow from the premises. • The point of previewing the question stem is so that in a case like this, you’ll expect to find a gaping hole in the argument.This advance notice should help you to prephrase an answer before moving on to the choices. 18. (E) Three things are required in order to achieve the physicalists' goal: 1) a knowledge of the basic functions of neurons; 2) a knowledge of how neurons interact; and 3) a delineation of the psychological faculties to be explained. At present, two of these things have already been attained—we have knowledge of the basic functions of neurons, and we understand the scope and character of many psychological capacities. Therefore, the author concludes, we can expect to achieve the goal of explaining mental functions in neurobiological terms in the near future. What happened to “a knowledge of how neurons interact?” The flaw is that three things are required to achieve a certain result, and the author concludes that the result can be achieved even though we only have two. (A) The conclusion agrees with, not contradicts, the physicalists. (B) The author should not be expected to describe “exactly what is currently known about the basic functions of neurons.” We’re concerned only that that knowledge is needed for the result, and that it currently exists. The argument’s validity doesn’t rely on a delineation of the specific mechanics involved. (C)'s complaint, that the word “neurobiological” is used as if it had the same meaning as “mental”, is the very opposite of the truth. If the two words had been treated as meaning the same thing from the beginning, the argument would have been pointless. The point is that ultimately all mental functions will be explainable in neurobiological terms. (D) Outside the scope; 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. • Transform the prose into simple thoughts and general terms whenever possible. All that’s going on here can be broken down into this: Something can be accomplished if we have X, Y, and Z. We have X and Y, so it can be done. The flaw? What happened to Z? • Remember the “Can vs. Should” scope shift: If the point of an argument is that something can be done, whether it’s useful or it should be done is usually irrelevant. Conversely, if an author argues that something should be done, demonstrating whether it’s easy or difficult or even possible to do is usually not the author’s responsibility.

68

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV

19. (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. However, this is possible only if these administrators will willingly change jobs again, and go back to the government posts they left behind. If not, the argument falls apart. (A) The individuals in question are already experienced, and the author feels that it is already worth the extra money required for the government to “recapture” them, so any new experience is not necessary to the worth of this plan. (B) We learn in the first sentence that these administrators are both experienced and extremely capable, and both of these qualities are important. Competence can be the most important factor, as opposed to experience, in determining how well government agencies function, and the argument would still be unaffected, which shows that this (B) is not a necessary assumption on the part of the author. (C) Try the Denial Test: The denial of (C) would be the government taking no action and the gap in salaries not increasing. This state of affairs does nothing to damage the author's proposal, which is about how to recapture administrators who have already left. (E) is the opposite of what is assumed. The argument has said all along that the administrators are chasing the big money. (E) would have them moving in large numbers to the lower-paying (public) government jobs. • Many authors see the world as purely black and white, and often present arguments in very simplistic terms that ignore alternative possibilities, implications, interpretations, and solutions. It’s no wonder that so many arguments on the LR sections are flawed, can be weakened, need to be strengthened, or have gaping holes in them (assumptions). Using your common sense and critical thinking skills to see other sides of the story will win you many points. 20. (C) The politician and his opponents—those who want more funding for low-income housing—agree that homelessness is a serious social problem. They disagree about how to solve it. Don’t worry yourself with the obvious flaw in his argument. We aren’t asked that. Focus on the phrase “homelessness is a serious social problem;” it’s simply information that serves to set up the argument, but actually does little more. Understanding this allows should help you eliminate choices that mistakenly ascribe special significance to this statement, when in fact it’s little more than filler material. And since the argument itself is based on other pieces of evidence, this intro statement is consistent with an acceptance or denial of the conclusion. (A) The statement is merely offered to frame the argument; it’s not an alternative perspective to the one the politician adopts. (B) The politician doesn’t set out to solve the problem, he sets out to refute a proposed solution.

© K A PL A N

69

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV

(D) The politician admits that homelessness is a serious problem; he's certainly not trying to discredit this position. (E) It isn't necessary for the politician's conclusion. 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.

• Again we see why reading the question stem first is vital and why we at Kaplan
continue to stress it. 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. • Always read with the questions “Why are they telling me this?” and “How crucial is this information to the argument?” in mind. In this case, 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. 21. (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. When Leona says that 5,000 lives might be saved, she means that people who would otherwise have died from an overconsumption of eggs would be spared. Who's to say that some of those people wouldn't die for some other reason? Therefore, 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, and with the diet wouldn't die, from eating too many eggs; however, she never said that they wouldn't die for some other reason. (A) and (D) discuss population growth (a major scope shift), which neither clarifies Leona's claim nor addresses Thomas's point. Neither person is claiming the overall population would grow by 5,000 people per year; Leona simply argues that 5,000 people who would have died from eating too many eggs would not die for this reason. (C) is irrelevant, as it addresses what would happen if egg consumption were cut by more than half, not by half, which is the issue. Anyway, if Leona responded with choice (C), she would only confuse poor Thomas even more, because then his 50,000 figure, which he thought was too high to begin with, would have to be even higher. (E) makes no sense as a response to Thomas. 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.

• In a dialogue question, keep in mind the person with which the question is
concerned. Arguments that Thomas could make are of no interest to us here. • As always, decode the stem when it’s more complex than usual, and if you’re asked to do two things, make sure the answer you choose accomplishes both.

70

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV

22. (B) The key notion in this one is that only after that transfer occurs can the new therapies help patients. The inference turns out to be pretty straightforward. If the new therapies can help patients only after they have been transferred from the lab to the marketplace, then they can’t possibly help patients before that. (A) We don't know that the FDA necessarily regulates all therapeutic agents after they've been put on the market. We're only told that the FDA regulates the actual introduction of these agents. (C) All we're told is that the research community carries out a long process of discovery and testing. For all we know, though, it's the FDA that is responsible for this—perhaps the agency requires the long testing period. (D) Maintaining the quality of therapeutic agents is a new subject altogether, as is the issue of what the FDA should, or shouldn't, do. (E) Here’s the necessary/sufficient thing again: Only after a new drug has been introduced can it help patients. That is not to say that it necessarily will help patients. • A word like “only” can alter the entire meaning of a stimulus. When you see this word, it tells you that a necessary condition is being introduced. As evidenced here, answers can spring entirely from an “only” statement. 23. (A) The question stem introduces a conclusion that could lead from this stimulus; that automobile theft has been reduced by the program. We’re asked for the choice that asks the question whose answer is most important in evaluating that conclusion—that is, whose answer is most likely to tell us whether or not the conclusion is justified. 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, we can expect that the correct question will ask if there might not be another reason that these cars aren't being stolen, besides the allegedly successful program (there’s that “alternative explanation” concept popping up again). (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. If the answer to this question is yes, then perhaps the other measures, not the program, are keeping the number of thefts down, which would signify that the stem’s conclusion that the program has reduced thefts is unwarranted. (B), (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, in terms of car types (E), are both irrelevant. The conclusion only claims that the program was successful in the neighborhoods where it was actually applied. (C) The program only takes effect between 1 A.M. and 5 A.M., so what happens during the daytime can have nothing to do with the program. Moreover, the issue here is the cars that weren't stolen, and the reasons why they weren't stolen.

© K A PL A N

71

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test III Explained: Section IV

(D) While this certainly might be of some concern to the owners, it doesn’t say much about the effectiveness of the program. True, if the answer is yes, it would indicate that the program is indeed functioning, but doesn’t help us to evaluate its effectiveness as well as (A) does, the answer of whih could blow the conclusion out of the water. • Once again, you need to translate, or transform the stem into a workable framework. This is basically an offshoot of a strengthen/weaken question; you need to determine whether the answer to the question posed in each choice will significantly damage or shore up the argument. It doesn’t matter which way it goes, since an evaluation could go either way. If the answer to a question greatly strengthens or weakens the argument, then that question is useful in evaluating the argument. 24. (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. An action is morally bad if it harms another person, and either 1) such harm was intended or 2) a reasonable person should have known that harm was likely to occur. The only way to find the situation that matches the spirit of this principle is to work through the choices, and unfortunately, the testmakers buried the answer in choice (E). Jonathan's act of neglecting his three-year-old niece caused harm to her, so it meets the first criterion for a morally bad act. Although he intended no harm, he should have realized that his failure to watch his niece carefully was likely to lead to harm; (E)'s judgment therefore conforms to the principle in the stimulus. (A) According to the stimulus, an action is only morally bad if it actually causes harm— which the action in this case did not. (B) Jeffrey's action indirectly—and that’s the key word—helped Sara. Since his action was performed with the intention of securing his own promotion, not with the intention of benefiting Sara, it fails the stimulus' test for a morally good action. (C) Once again, we have an action that fails the “morally good” test on the grounds that it doesn’t benefit anyone (quite the opposite, no less). (D) The homeless man was obviously harmed, which puts Marilees’ action in the morally bad ballpark. But it still needs to pass another test—the harm must be inflicted intentionally, or the harmful result must be foreseeable. Neither of these are met here (what are the chances that someone will choke on a sandwich; it was most likely the man’s own fault for talking and chewing at the same time), so the judgment that Marilees performed a morally bad action doesn’t conform to the principle in the stimulus.

• Take control of the test. This question has “possibly time consuming” written all
over it. It just happens to come at the end of the section, but if it didn’t it may have been a very good candidate to skip temporarily and come back to it time permitted.

72

© K A PL A N

I.N. LL3107 Rev.A Printed in the USA

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful