Marathon - I
CLAT Classroom Prep Material
Part of the most Comprehensive Classroom Training, Prep Content & Test Series across the Nation.
From the producers of A.I.R. 2, 3 and 5 from Classroom Contact Program in 2019
MARATHON SESSION: CRITICAL REASONING I
QUESTIONS FOR CLASSROOM DISCUSSION
ANSWER KEY AND EXPLANATIONS
(Section-I)
1. (B); two important facts are presented within this
question: (1) the interior of the cave is now
completely filled with water, and (2) the cave
contains stalagmites, which are formed when drops
of water fall to the cave floor. One might infer that in
a cave completely filled with water, it would be
difficult for drops of water to hit the floor. The
question allows us to infer, then, that the conditions
must have been different in the cave when the
stalagmites were formed. Option (A) this claim is
not supported by the information in the question.
The only inference that can be properly drawn is
about the water level within the cave, not that of the
Mediterranean Sea as a whole. Also, the
information in the question suggests that the water
level is higher now than it was in the past, not lower
as in this answer. Option (B) is the correct option.
For the stalagmites to form, water drops must have
been able to fall to the cave floor. To allow for this
to happen, the water level in the cave must have
been lower than its current level, at which it is
"completely filled." Option(C) there is no indication
that this is true. Just because they "found" the
tunnel does not mean that no one else could have
"found" it before them. Option (D) there is no
evidence of this in the question. There is no reason
given that the cave must have been accessible
without using the underwater tunnel. Option (E)
there is nothing in the question to support this. If
stalagmites are no longer forming, the question
suggests that it is because water drops can no
longer fall to the floor because the cave is flooded.
2. (A); in the given question we have to weaken the claim
supported by Director of the Rexx Pharmaceutical
Company. The claim is - that the development
costs for new vaccines that the health department
has requested should be subsidized by the
government, since the marketing of vaccines
promised to be less profitable than the marketing of
any other pharmaceutical product. Option (A) is the
correct answer as it is not about per person one
time use of the vaccine rather it is about more
number of people using it. Option (B) draws a
comparison between medicines and vaccines which
don’t weaken the argument. Option (C),(D) and (E)
cannot be deduced from the passage.
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
3. (B); the manager explains that installing the computer
network during the day will disrupt work, but
installing during night will incur higher installations
charges. The manager concludes that since saving
money is important, the network should be installed
during the day. The manager assumes that the lost
productivity during the daytime installation costs
less than the extra money the night installation
would. Since you are asked what the manager
assumes, you should look for that in an option.
Option (A): Since the monetary value of the network
must be covered in either case, it is not an
immediate consideration when discussing the
proper installation time. This choice attempts to get
you to quickly "bite" on the cost of another factor,
but gives you the wrong factor, so this choice is
wrong. Option (B): This is the correct option. The
manager presumes that there is less loss from
interrupting work than there is loss from installing at
night. Option (C): Since you already know the
relative cost of installation itself, it does not matter
whether that loss is incurred because of differences
in the installation crew. "Installation charges" clearly
implies that the company hires the job out (your
employees receive wages, you do not pay them
charges), so you should not have presumed that
this option addresses whether the company will
have to hire more employees. Besides, even if the
company did have to hire more employees, that
could still be a temporary arrangement that would
not cost as much as paying for a night installation.
Option (D): The question concerns when the
network should be installed, and this choice
concerns what will immediately follow installation.
This choice is irrelevant and incorrect. Alternately,
this choice does not establish that the increased
productivity that might follow on the installation day
would make up for the productivity lost while the
system was being installed. Option (E): The
manager does not need to assume that most of the
employees will be able to be productive during the
installation. Even if none of the employees are
productive during the installation, the extra cost of
installing at night could be so high that it is better to
simply give up a day of productivity, so the
argument can be true even if this unnecessary
assumption is false.
Page 1 of 26
Marathon - I
4. (B); premise: Marijuana can inactivate herpesviruses.
Premise: Inactivated herpesviruses can convert
healthy cells to cancerous. Conclusion: Marijuana
can cause cancer. The question requires that we
seek the option which would cause one to question
the author's conclusion. Option (A): This option
certainly doesn't weaken the argument in the
question. If anything this choice strengthens the
author's conclusion, lending more credibility to the
cited results. Option (B): This is the correct option.
If there exists other ingredients in marijuana which
neutralize the harmful effects, then this of course
weakens the conclusion that marijuana causes
cancer. Option (C): This option strengthens the
assertion that marijuana use increases the risk of
cancer, so this option is incorrect. Option (D): The
effects that might be associated with a modified
THC play no role in assessing whether or not
marijuana increases cancer risk. Option (E): the
fact that it has been recommended for cancer
patients make it nor more or less likely that
marijuana use causes cancer, so this option is
incorrect.
5. (E ); the archaeologist grants that the restoration project
the corporation offers to fund would conform to
current theories about the site, but on the basis that
many parts of the site contain unexamined
information the archaeologist concludes that the
offer should be rejected. The archaeologist is
probably concerned that the new evidence could
have a significant impact on the theories about how
the site appeared. The archaeologist seems to
operate on the broad assumption that one should
not reconstruct archaeological sites until as much
evidence as possible is evaluated. Since you are
asked to find the principle that would justify the
argument, you should locate a choice that
reinforces the archaeologist's broad assumption.
Option (A): The archaeologist does not seem to
have a problem with commercial interests; the
archaeologist is merely concerned with accuracy.
Furthermore, even if the question clearly indicated
(it does not) that the corporation would own the site,
this choice does not respond to the argument,
which is based on the idea of evidence, not
ownership. Option (B): This response reinforces the
idea that restorations should represent the most
ancient period of a site's history, but the question
promotes the idea that the restorations should
represent the site at the relevant civilization's
height. Option (C): This response suggests that the
corporation is wrong to make a judgment
concerning the height of the civilization in question,
but the archaeologist actually seems to accept that
judgment and only argues that more evidence
should be evaluated, presumably to paint a better
picture of that civilization at its height. Option (D):
Since the archaeologist's argument was concerned
with the state of evidence rather than the source of
funding, the idea that the corporation should not be
the source of funding is irrelevant to the argument,
and this choice is wrong even if you incorrectly
presume it supports the archaeologist's conclusion.
In fact, this choice does not even support the
conclusion, because it is entirely possible that the
corporation in question actually has a true concern
for the site's history. Option (E): This is the correct
option. The archaeologist is concerned with the
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
potential of new evidence, and the principle that the
risk of losing evidence for future theories outweighs
the advantages of displaying the results of theories
based on current evidence speaks to that issue.
You cannot plausibly deny that restoration and
public access incurs some risk to evidence.
6. (D); the argument is that nesting boxes are actually
harmful to the reproduction of wood ducks, since
the easy visibility of the boxes makes them
vulnerable to the natural habit wood ducks have of
laying eggs in the nests of other wood ducks. The
behavior is normally harmless because real nests
are hard to find. However, since the boxes are easy
to spot, the nests become overly full of eggs which
somehow inhibit hatching. Option (A): The question
does not state the preference of wood ducks, and
you should not assume that creatures such as
wood ducks have the ability to realize that their
actions will be ineffective in the long-term.
Furthermore, it seems that wood ducks definitely
are choosing the boxes, and you should not
assume that is because of a lack of natural sites, so
this choice is unsupported and incorrect. Option
(B): Since overloading a nest with eggs actually will
actually limit the viability of the eggs, it seems that
this option might be false. The most successful
ducks would probably be the ones that protect their
own nests, and this choice is incorrect. Option (C):
You should not infer that because the nests overfill,
they are smaller than natural sites. The nests
overfill because they are highly visible, and this
choice is incorrect. Option (D): This is the correct
option. Since the main problem with the nests is
that they are too visible, it makes sense that limiting
their visibility would make them a better tool. Option
(E): Since the question never discussed the
destruction of any habitat, this response is
unsupported and incorrect. Furthermore, even if the
boxes were helpful, there would be no reason to
assume they are necessary.
7. (E); the key to answering this question quickly and
efficiently is to understand the conditional
relationships that underpin this argument. Quite
simply, any "new" theme or idea is always and
without exception a variation on a previous theme
or idea: Creation of "new" themes/ideas →
Variation of a previous theme/idea. Since the
question stem is asking us to find the one answer
that is not necessarily true (each must be true
EXCEPT), any answer that is logically inferable
from the conditional relationship above will be
incorrect. Option (A): This option is simply the
contrapositive of the first sentence in the question:
since the crux of creativity resides in (i.e. requires)
the ability to manufacture variations on a theme, a
lack of ability to manufacture such variations
connotes a lack of creativity. Because this answer
is inferable from the information in the question, it is
incorrect. Option (B): This option paraphrases the
main idea of the question: if each idea is a variation
on a previous one, then no idea is entirely
independent of others. Because this answer is also
inferable from the information in the question, it is
incorrect. Option (C): The third sentence in the
question suggests that careful analysis can make
us understand that every new theme or discovery is
itself always and without exception some sort of
variation of previous themes. Option (C) is a mere
Page 2 of 26
Marathon - I
paraphrase of this observation. Option (D): Quite
logically, if every idea, theme or discovery is always
a variation on a theme, it follows that everyone
making a discovery must be capable of
manufacturing a variation on a theme. Because this
option is logically supported by the question, it is
incorrect. Option (E): This is the correct option. If all
of the statements in the question are true and every
scientific discovery is a variation on a previous
theme, then option (E) must be false as it suggests
that some discoveries are not variations on a
theme. Such a possibility is clearly ruled out by the
evidence presented in the question. Therefore, this
option is correct.
8. (B) ; the argument concludes that since calls are the
only means of the bats locating each other, and the
pups cannot distinguish between various adult
calls, the bat mothers must be able to distinguish
their pup's calls. The argument proceeds by
explaining what the options are, and then
eliminating all but one. You should focus on that
when describing what the argument seeks to do.
Option (A) Since the argument does not involve
comparison between a sample and a population, it
is unlikely that the argument generalizes from a
small group, and this choice is wrong. Furthermore,
this choice can be seen as somewhat contradictory,
as pups seem different from the mothers. Option
(B): This is the correct option. The argument
attempts to arrive at a final explanation by
eliminating options. Option (C) Since the argument
does not describe the mechanism by which
mothers use calls to locate their pups, this choice is
wrong. Option (D) Since the argument implies that
the pups and mothers may be different in their
ability to distinguish calls, it does not follow that
argument makes conclusions based on similarities.
Option (E) The argument attempts to resolve the
general rule concerning how pups and mothers
reunite, not to apply that rule.
9. (C); In this question the author presents only one
premise and then draws a causal conclusion.
People develop distaste for foods that make them
sick is the only premise. This explains why children
don't like some foods. There is a completely new
element in the conclusion: children. This element
needs to be connected to the premise in order to
strengthen the causal argument. There is also an
element in the premise, sickness, that is not
present in the conclusion. We need to connect
these two lonely elements of the argument. If this
were a weaken question, we would attack this gap
in the reasoning.
Option (A): This option is incorrect because if
actually weakens the argument. If children are more
likely to get food without distinctive flavor, they are
less likely to develop aversions. Option (B): This
option is incorrect because it is entirely unrelated to
the question. If anything, this answer offers another
reason for children to develop aversions: they don't
see the health benefits of some foods so they go by
taste alone. Option (C): This is the correct option. It
fills in the gap that the question is missing. Children
tend to have more acute taste and become sick,
which connects the element in the premise,
sickness, with the new element in the conclusion,
children. If children are more likely to become sick,
they are more likely to develop distaste, based on
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
the premise. Option (D): This option is incorrect
because it is dealing with recovering from sickness,
which has nothing to do with actually getting sick or
developing distaste for food. Option (E): This option
is incorrect because it focuses on children refusing
to eat unfamiliar foods. If a child has never tasted a
food, he or she cannot develop a distaste for that
food, so this option is unrelated to our argument
about sickness and distaste for certain foods in
children after they have eaten them.
10. (C); The correct option is (C). In this question the author
presents two things that are correlated, and then
draws a causal conclusion from them. This
argument is a classic fallacy. Just because there is
a higher percentage of red cars involved in
accidents, this does not mean that the red cars
cause the accidents. For the conclusion to follow,
the argument must demonstrate that the red color
actually causes accidents, but it only demonstrates
a correlation between red and accidents. Read this
question and react to it with your own
commonsense; can getting rid of red cars really
prevent accidents? Attack the conclusion. Option
(A): This option is incorrect because the argument
does not claim that insurance companies have or
do not have the right to charge higher premiums. It
simply mentions these rates as a premise to
support its causal conclusion. This answer is not a
part of the argument; therefore, it cannot be a flaw
in the argument. Option (B): This option is incorrect
because it also deals with the higher premiums. If
this fact were true, then it may justify the higher
premiums for red cars. However, the argument has
already justified these premiums in a different way,
by stating that the red color of the car causes
accidents. Therefore, this answer is unrelated to the
argument. Option (C): This is the correct
option. Now, the causal connection between red
color and accidents has been destroyed. If bad
drivers preferred, then they are the cause of the
accidents, not the red color. Therefore, if the red
cars were banned, these drivers would just have to
buy other cars and lives would not be saved or
accidents reduced. Option (D): This option is
incorrect because it tries to tempt you by naming
something that is missing in the argument: an exact
percentage. However, in this argument we do not
need to know an exact percentage; it is irrelevant.
As long as there is "higher" percentage of red cars,
the correlation between red cars and accidents
exists. The flaw in the argument is mistaking this
correlation for a cause and effect relationship.
Option (E): This option is incorrect, but it is tricky.
The argument does make a big assumption in the
conclusion, jumping from automobile accidents to
lives being saved. However, the argument does not
assume that every accident results in loss of life, as
this option states. Also, the flaw is not in this
assumption, but in the cause and effect conclusion.
If you attack the question as you read it, you should
see it.
11. (D); In this question a typical credit card scenario is
presented and then a conclusion drawn. Again, pay
careful attention to the conclusion: "customers who
purchase merchandise [by mail] spend less" than
they would spend if they went to a store. Although
the premises demonstrate that the "purchase price"
is lower by mail, they never mention the idea of how
Page 3 of 26
Marathon - I
much the customer actually spends, which is a new
element in the conclusion. This demonstrates the
weakness of the argument, and where a Defender
assumption might be necessary. We are looking for
an option that, when we negate it, destroys the
conclusion of the argument. Option (A): This option,
when negated, basically says that other credit-card
companies offer the same merchandise at lower
prices. This does not affect the conclusion one way
or another since it deals only with the comparison
between items offered by this particular company
by mail and those items in a retail store. Option (B):
This option, when negated, only says that
customers can buy merchandise not available in
stores. It does not affect the conclusion because it
says nothing about money being spent or prices.
Option (C): This option, when negated, says the
companies make customers accrue a large number
of points, but still reinforces the fact that prices are
lower. When negated, it does not destroy the
conclusion. Option (D): This is the correct option.
Notice that it deals specifically with the gap in the
reasoning – spending. When negated, this option
destroys the conclusion because, even though the
prices may be lower, the customer spends more
when shipping is added. Thus, this option is
necessary for the conclusion to follow. Option (E):
This option, when negated, does not affect the
question in any way. It introduces the new element
of the "manufacturers' suggested retail price," which
is irrelevant to the argument in the question.
12. (D); this question denies the relationship between the
development of colic in infants and the consumption
of cow’s milk, saying that the infants’ drinking of
cow’s milk likely is not the cause of the
development of colic. The author supports this
claim by stating that infants fed breast milk
exclusively still occasionally develop colic. To harm
this conclusion you should look for an option that
shows that there is in fact some connection
between cow’s milk and colic. Option (A): this
answer supports the conclusion by showing that
genetics in likely the cause of colic (hence not
cow’s milk). Option (B): this answer also supports
the argument by showing that infancy itself could be
the cause of colic (hence not cow’s milk). Option
(C): This answer also supports the question, as the
vast majority of infants fed cow’s milk did not
develop symptoms of colic (hence cow’s milk is not
the cause). Option (D): this is the correct option.
Because the elimination of cow’s milk led to a
complete disappearance of colic, the conclusion
that cow’s milk is unrelated to colic is weakened.
Option (E): this answer also supports the
conclusion by suggesting that an infant’s digestive
system is the cause of the development of colic
(hence not cow’s milk).
13. (D); the main issue is addressed in option (D). As per
Yolanda harm caused by joy riding is the most
dangerous one and more as compared to
intellectual property harm caused by computers.
This particular stand is argued by Arjun. Option (A)
highlights only 1 element of the situation. Option (B)
again highlights same single element concerning
computer data. Option (C) draws comparison
between general terms and misses specific details
as per given question. Option (E) is extreme option
hence eliminated.
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
14. (C); the correct option is (C). In this question, Yolanda
presents an argument and then Arjun refutes it by
presenting an example. Yolanda presents
similarities between computer manipulation and
joyriding but then points out a difference between
them. Arjun disagrees with that difference by
presenting a hypothetical situation. Arjun's
conclusion is that "computer crimes also cause
physical harm to people." However, he only
presents a hypothetical situation and does not show
that these crimes actually cause harm, as he
asserts. This is the flaw in his argument. Option (A)
Arjun tries to demonstrate that the distinction made
in Yolanda's argument is inaccurate, so this option
is not a flaw in his reasoning but what his argument
tries (but fails) to accomplish. Option (B) Although
Arjun does deny Yolanda's conclusion, he also
does provide evidence, i.e. his hypothetical
situation. Option (C): This is the correct option. For
Arjun's conclusion to be true, computer crimes must
cause harm to people. He has only shown that they
could possibly cause harm in one hypothetical
circumstance; he has not shown that they do in
reality. Option (D) this option employs the word
"necessary" to try to tempt you, but does not apply
to Arjun's argument in any way. Option (E) Arjun's
evidence is consistent with his conclusion, so this is
not the correct answer.
15. (C); option (A) mentions a situation which is not
reasoning for our condition. Option (B) talks about
number of years which is an irrelevant criterion for
consideration. Option (D) and (E) are out of context.
Option (C) is the correct answer as this reasoning
can appropriately answer the above the criticism.
16. (A); the question begins by contrasting similar stars--
brown dwarfs and red dwarfs. Brown dwarfs are too
cool, whereas red dwarfs are just hot enough, to
burn oxygen. That particular contrast is actually
irrelevant to the argumentation, which takes place
after that first sentence. Since all stars upon
formation contain lithium, and all stars except the
coolest brown dwarfs can destroy lithium
completely, any star that lacks helium is not one of
the coolest brown dwarfs. The argument doesn't
make sense, because stars do not necessarily stay
the same over their histories. For instance, there is
no reason given to suppose that one of the hottest
brown dwarfs couldn't destroy its lithium and then
cool down later, thus becoming one of the coolest
brown dwarfs, while lacking lithium. You are asked
on which assumption the argument depends, so
you should focus on that unwarranted assumption.
Option (A): This is the correct option. The argument
must assume that those coolest brown dwarfs have
not, in the past, been hot enough to destroy their
lithium. Option (B): Importantly, this incorrect choice
treats the first sentence as if it plays a part in the
argument. Since the first sentence merely supplies
extraneous information, it is not connected to the
main line of reasoning, and you should not believe
that any connection is necessary. Also, since the
question makes conclusions about certainty,
assumptions about majorities may not be helpful,
and in any case this choice supports a conclusion
about most brown dwarfs, but the question only
made a conclusion about the coolest brown dwarfs.
Option (C): Since the question makes no
conclusion about the destruction of helium, this
Page 4 of 26
Marathon - I
choice is irrelevant and incorrect. You should not
have assumed that since helium is the result of the
destruction of lithium, the question claims that the
helium persists. A result can in turn be destroyed,
and the actual fact that helium requires a pretty
high incineration temperature is irrelevant. Option
(D): The question states that stars are born
containing substantial amounts of lithium, and it is
in no way necessary to assume that they contain
roughly equal percentages. You should not assume
that detection capability is relevant to the argument,
and this choice is wrong. You need to differentiate
between the structure of an argument and the
building blocks and results of the argument. When
criticizing an argument or finding assumptions, you
need to be interested in whether the premises
presented a complete picture, and whether the
premises definitely lead to the conclusion. You are
not actually interested in whether the premises and
conclusion are correct. Option (E): Since the
comparison between brown and red dwarfs was
utterly irrelevant to the main line of reasoning, this
incorrect choice cannot represent a necessary
assumption.
17. (D); In this question we have to analyze the reasoning
mentioned in each option and compare it with the
given condition. The reasoning should be
analogous, drawing parallelism and must be flawed
as per the given condition. The main reasoning is –
when a company loses lawsuit, its stock falls. Since
Cotoy was involved in a lawsuit, same happened
with it. Here, the major flaw is there can be some
another reason for fall in value of stocks not the
mentioned lawsuit can be held responsible for this
every time. Option (A) cannot be the answer as
treatment of customers discourteously leads to
customers’ interest in some other shop. This is a
criterion made for the employees, mandatory to
follow and drawing conclusion on the basis of this
criterion. This is not analogous to the above given
condition. Option (B) presents a statement and
conclusion drawn on the basis of this statement.
This is not similar to reasoning mentioned above.
Option (C) again draws a mandatory conclusion on
the basis of some cause and effect relationship.
This is not similar to our question situation. Option
(D) is the correct answer as it is flawed argument.
Because receiving $10,000 from college doesn’t
compulsorily proves that Eula has won the
performance scholarship. This amount can be for
something else, like refund etc. Option(E) can be
negated directly as it is presenting an contradictory
situation.
18. (C); option (A) contradicts with the given situation.
Option(B) introduces a new topic of Carbon-di-
oxide which is not helpful in answering the
question. Option (C) is the correct answer as it
provides possibility of insect population growth
which can apparently solve given paradox. Option
(D) and (E) are out of the context questions.
19. (D); since the only language classes being taught next
term are advanced ones hence Professor Alban will
not teach introductory level classes. We have to
match the pattern of reasoning in the given options.
Only option (D) is the appropriate choice.
20. (C); only option (C) cannot be a valid assumption by the
author. The main argument is since there are many
people with cold and do not use mixture, hence it
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
can be concluded that the mixture is not effective.
Remaining all the options is supporting the
argument.
21. (A); The cold sufferer begins with a hypothesis that the
mixture were effective. If that hypothesis were true,
everyone with a cold would be using the mixture.
Because not everyone does, it cannot be effective.
Observant test-takers will notice the conditional
reasoning that underlies this argument:
Premise (1): ..... Effective → Everyone uses
Premise (2): ..... Everyone uses
Conclusion: ..... Effective
Essentially, the cold sufferer establishes that her
hypothesis (about the effectiveness of the herbal
mixture) is false by virtue of showing that it would, if
true, require something that is false (everyone
using the mixture). Option (A) is the closest answer
to this prephrase and is therefore correct.
Option (A) This is the correct option. It is important
to understand the abstract language used in this
answer in terms of the actual substantive elements
of the argument:
Claim = mixture is effective
Consequence = everyone using it
False consequence = not everyone using it
False claim = mixture not effective
Option (B) The cold sufferer does not accept a
claim; she rejects one. This option is incorrect.
Option (C) The conditions required to establish the
truth of the claim that the mixture is effective are
actually not met, since not everyone is using the
mixture. This option describes exactly the opposite
of what the cold sufferer does and is therefore
incorrect.
Option (D) The author does not base a
generalization on a representative group of
instances: she only hypothesizes what would
happen if the mixture were effective. This option is
incorrect. Option (E) The cold sufferer does not
suspect the mixture would make recovery more
difficult. This option is incorrect.
22. (E); The argument concludes that holding criminals
responsible for their crimes is equivalent to failing to
recognize that for all people actions are the product
of an environment that forged the agent's character.
The argument asserts that the law-abiding majority
forges the environment, so it is the law-abiding
people who are responsible for crime.
The reasoning in the argument is absurd, since the
argument is self-contradictory. If people are the
product of their environment, then the law-abiding
majority is every bit as much such a product as is
the criminal element. At that point, if the criminal
element is not responsible by reason of
environment, why should the law-abiding element
be? The argument is based on contradictory
assumptions. Since you are asked to describe the
flaw, you should focus on the argument's absurd,
contradictory nature. Option (A): The argument
does not exploit any ambiguity in the term
"environment," so this choice is wrong.
"Environment" means "surroundings" and the term
was very clearly used to mean that. Option (B): The
argument very generally does distinguish between
acceptable and unacceptable actions in that it
acknowledges the existence of criminal and law-
abiding persons, so this choice is wrong. Option
(C): Since the argument did not concern the
Page 5 of 26
Marathon - I
methods by which one becomes a criminal, but
instead where the blame lies for those methods,
this choice is not related to the main line of
reasoning, and is incorrect. Flaw responses not
related to the main line of reasoning are in general
incorrect, even if you think the flaw may have
existed. Furthermore, this choice is actually false,
as the question does no such thing. Option (D):
Since the question concerns only an abstracted
discussion of "criminals" and "law-abiding majority"
without any clear specifics or comparisons to a
general population, you should not assume that an
overgeneralization has occurred. This choice is
incorrect. Option (E): This is the correct option.
Refusing to blame criminals for their actions on the
basis that all actions stem from environment, and
then asserting blame onto the law-abiding, even
though the discussion of criminals would more
consistently commit the question to the proposition
that no-one can be blamed, is an internal
contradiction.
23. (E); chronic back pain is usually caused by damage to
the spinal disk that occurs years before such pain
develops. According to the last sentence of the
question, a contributing factor to the onset of
chronic back pain among people over the age of 30
is the deterioration of the abdominal muscles
caused by insufficient exercise. Option (A): Just
because one person out of five has a damaged
spinal disk guarantees neither that this person will
develop chronic back pain, nor that others will avoid
it. It is entirely possible some spinal disk injuries do
not lead to chronic back pain; likewise, it is also
possible that other conditions such as obesity or
bad posture also cause chronic back pain. Option
(B): While regular exercise may be necessary to
delay or forestall the onset of chronic back pain
among those with injured spinal disks, there is no
evidence that exercising is sufficient to prevent
back pain. Furthermore, causes for chronic back
pain other than injured spinal disks might not be
manageable by exercise at all. This option is
incorrect. Option (C): While in most cases the disk
will have been damaged years before the pain
develops, it is entirely possible that in some cases
chronic pain develops a lot sooner. Furthermore,
even if chronic pain always took years to develop,
option (C) only talks about "mild and fleeting" back
pain. It is quite possible that many patients
experience such pain at the time their spinal disks
are injured, since "mild and fleeting" back pain is
not the same as "chronic" pain. Option (D): While
doctors may be able to predict which spinal disk
patients will develop back pain (e.g. those who fail
to exercise), there is no way to make a similar
prediction if the group consists of ordinary people
without chronic back pain. At best, doctors may be
able to diagnose the 30+ year olds who have
herniated or degenerated spinal disks but show no
symptoms (usually, one in five will fall into that
category). However, since injured spinal disks may
not be the singular cause of chronic back pain, it is
impossible to estimate who else will ultimately
develop back pain. Option (E): This is the correct
option. If insufficient exercise is a contributing factor
to the onset of chronic back pain among people
with injured spinal disks, it follows that exercising
represents a strategy that can be effective in
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
delaying or preventing the onset of pain. Notice the
degree of likelihood expressed by the correct
option: "there is a strategy that can be effective in
delaying" the onset of pain. Proving that a certain
outcome is possible is a lot easier than proving that
this outcome is certain. Extreme language is rarely
the hallmark of a good must Be True answer.
The correct option is (B)
24. (E); The question consists of information about coal in
Country Q. First, we find out that at the end of each
year, a tally is made of Country Q's available coal
supplies, which are defined as the amount of coal
that has been mined but not consumed. It is very
important that you interpret that statement correctly.
The tally does NOT refer to the amount mined that
year minus the amount consumed that year. What
the tally refers to is the amount of coal, total, that
the country has left over after consumption. That
means that the tally incorporates the "roll-over" from
the previous years. Most people who have trouble
with this question have misread that sentence.
Second, we learn that the tally in Country Q is lower
in 1991 than it was in 1990, and that Country Q
does not get its coal from anywhere else, or export
any coal. If you misunderstood the first statement, it
would be impossible to infer anything definite from
the question. However, once you understand that
the tally is a running tally, we know that if it has
decreased from 1990 to 1991, it must be true that
Country Q is cutting into its reserves. In 1991, it
consumed more than it produced. Option (A): Once
you understand that the year-to-year comparison is
irrelevant, you can eliminate this choice easily. If
you misread the first sentence, you should still have
eliminated this choice. Even if you thought that the
tally only took into account coal mined and
consumed in a specific year, it would be impossible
to say why the tally was higher in one year,
because either production or consumption could
account for the change. Option (B): This is the
correct option. A correct reading of the question
indicates that in the year 1991, Country Q cut into
its reserves, so that means more coal was
consumed than was produced in 1991. Option (C):
This option is wrong for the same reason that
option (A) is wrong. You should realize that under
the incorrect reading of the question, either of these
choices could explain the situation, but neither of
them must Be True. Option (D): This choice is
wrong, because you should not assume that
production necessarily remained constant.
Remember, under any reading, it is the relationship
of production to consumption that changes, and we
are not certain individually how the two have
changed. For example, consumption could have
decreased, while production decreased more. Or,
production could increase, while consumption
increases more. And there are more options still, so
this choice is no good for a must be true question.
Option (E): There is absolutely nothing to indicate
we ought to compare halves of years, and this
choice is incorrect.
25. (D); Tom concludes that since employers complain that
high school does not currently give graduates the
vocational skills necessary for full-time
employment, high school students should have to
work part time jobs so that they will acquire skills for
the job market. Mary brings up the practical
Page 6 of 26
Marathon - I
consideration that jobs are already under-available,
and simply requiring students to get jobs will not
create jobs. You are asked to identify the
relationship of Mary's response to Tom's argument,
so you must focus on the fact that she attacks his
plan by bringing up an important consideration that
may make his plan unworkable. Option (A) Mary
does not analyze any results of Mark's plan; she
simply suggests that the plan is not even possible.
Option (B) Mary might argue that Tom's suggested
method of reversing the trend of producing
vocationally unskilled graduates is unworkable, but
that does not mean that Mary thinks that there is no
way to reverse the trend, so this choice is wrong. If
you assumed that "trend" referred to the availability
of part-time employment, you still should have
eliminated this choice. There is no reason to
believe that Tom has even considered the
relevance of the trend in job availability, let alone
that he made a mistaken evaluation of the trend.
Option (C) Mary's new information is inconsistent
with the idea that Tom's plan would be possible to
apply; however, since Tom never states that his
plan would be practical, Mary's new information is
not an attack on Tom's explicit (stated) premises.
Option (D): This is the correct option. Mary presents
the consideration of part-time job availability, which
undercuts Tom's assumption that his plan is
workable. You might not consider it clear that Tom
makes such an assumption, but it is almost certain
that someone arguing from Tom's position would
believe that any requirements put upon high-school
students for their own good are requirements with
which students can comply, so you should grant
some leeway. Option (E) Mary offers no solutions,
so this choice is wrong.
(Section-II)
1. (D); the critic highlights the tension between
people's high value on respect for others, and
their appreciation for disrespectful comedians.
The critic explains this tension by saying that
disrespectful comedians highlight and
exaggerate regular people's failure to exercise
respect for others, and this portrayal makes
people laugh (thus producing "successful
comedy."). Option (A): This option would
greatly weaken the author's argument, by
showing that the fans of disrespectful
comedians are not the population (people who
place a high value on respect for others)
whom the author speculates about. This
cannot be the correct option. Option (B): The
author merely said that exaggeration of
disrespect "often" forms the basis of
successful comedy. The author never said that
such exaggeration is the only basis of
successful comedy. So if other bases for
successful comedy exist, this would not
undermine the author's argument.Option (C):
Try assuming the logical negation of this
option: What if few people disapprove of the
portrayal of disrespect in comedy acts? This
would not disprove the author's argument;
indeed, it would strengthen the author's
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
argument by showing that disrespectful
comedians are successful. The statement as
actually written in the option tends to weaken,
not strengthen, the author's argument. Option
(D): This is the best correct option. Try
assuming the logical negation of this option:
What if people who value an ideal especially
highly do always succeed in living up to their
ideal? In this case, there would be no "failings"
for comedians to exaggerate, and thus there
would be no basis for successful comedy, as
described by the author. So the statement in
this option is necessary to make the argument
work. Option (E): The question made no
reference to dynamic changes in popularity of
comedians over time.
2. (C); (A) Offers in support of its conclusion pieces
of evidence that are mutually contradictory :
We are not told the two things are
contradictory. (B) overlooks the possibility that
a person can practice law without being a
member of a law firm : No, it is actually saying
since that person is not practicing that thing,
so he is not the member, This point is the
other way round. (C) Concludes that someone
is not a member of a group on the grounds
that that person does not have a characteristic
that the group as a whole has : Yes, so this is
what the author is saying. Since that person
doesn't have those characteristics, he cannot
be the member of that group. Option (D) and
(E) are irrelevant.
3. (B); Premises: In the western part of the country
where triple trailers are allowed on some
highways, these vehicles have a smaller rate
of road accident fatalities per mile of travel
than other commercial vehicles. Intermediate
conclusion: Conclusion 1 : Clearly, triple
trailers are safer than other commercial
vehicles. Conclusion 2: Hence, opponents of
allowing triple trailer trucks are wrong in
claiming that these trucks are more dangerous
than other commercial vehicles. The first thing
I was thinking about is whether those triple
trailer trucks are (a) driving as much as other
commercial vehicles, (b) whether there are
significantly less triple trailer trucks on the
road, which could bring down the average
fatalities, and (c) whether there are less
people on the roads in the west and therefore
less of a chance of crashing there. Lets jump
into the options: (A) is wrong because it is
entirely out of scope. The amount of trailers it
takes to haul as much weight as a single
trailer can is simply irrelevant. (C) is wrong
because it doesn't matter what the opponents
of another problem thought about that problem
- it certainly doesn't tell us anything relevant to
our argument. (D) is wrong because it talks
about what is needed to drive the trailers,
which doesn't tell us about the safety of those
Page 7 of 26
Marathon - I
trailers relative to other commercial vehicles.
Get rid of it. (E) is wrong because it's simply
an unnecessary comparison. It doesn't hurt
the argument by telling us how many
accidents happened in one year compared to
the other two years. Finally, (B) is our correct
option because this hit nicely with our
prephrase (C), which is that the reason is
accidents per mile in the west are lower is
because there is less traffic and therefore less
of a chance to get into an accident. It could
very well be the case where the triple trailer
trucks are prohibited in the east because there
is more traffic and therefore more of a chance
to get into an accident with these trucks. This
sheds a ton of doubt on the support for the
original argument's conclusion because it
shows that the support (the rate of accidents is
lower in the west) is actually due to something
else. It doesn't entirely destroy the argument,
but it definitely gives us a damn good reason
to be suspicious of following through with the
recommendation in the argument.
4. (A) ; Whittaker tries to argue that there cannot be
a category of people that dropped out of
medical school before their second year
because if they dropped out they never
experience a second year. In response,
Hudson follows this same logic to show that
there is no category of people who will not
become rich because if you die before
becoming rich, you never experience it. Option
(A): This is the correct option. Hudson uses
the analogy of becoming rich to show that if he
uses the same logic as Whittaker, it leads to a
preposterous conclusion. Option (B):Hudson
does not cite anything specific that directly
counters Whittaker’s claim about second year
medical students. Instead he attacks it through
analogy. Option (C): Whittaker does not use
necessary/sufficient reasoning in his
statement, therefore Hudson cannot point out
such a mistake. Option (D): Whittaker makes a
simple statement without ever acting as if it
were false. Option (E): Hudson never claims
that Whittaker’s use of medical school
students is extreme and unrepresentative.
5. (D); this question presents an apparent paradox. If
the new light bulb costs three times the price
of a conventional light bulb but its lifespan is
ten times as long, then it might seem that the
new bulb has a much greater lifespan-per-
dollar-spent. (A mathematical demonstration:
Say the old bulb costs $1 and lasts for 1000
hours. Say the new bulb costs $3 and lasts for
10,000 hours. The old bulb gives you 1000
hours per dollar spent; the new bulb gives you
3333 hours per dollar spent.)Despite the
apparent advantage, why would the new bulbs
perform poorly in the market? Look carefully at
the wording of the question stem. Four of
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
these choices will resolve the paradox, but
one choice will not. Option (A): The new light
bulb generates unappealing light. This
explains why the new light bulb might be
unsuccessful with customers. This option does
resolve the paradox, so it cannot be the
correct option. Option (B): This option explains
exactly why people might prefer the old,
inexpensive bulb over the new, durable, but
expensive bulb. This option does resolve the
paradox, so it cannot be the correct option.
Option (C): If the new light bulb runs up more
electricity cost than the old bulb (or at least if
competitors are advertising this claim and
customers believe it) then this might erase the
new bulb's advantage in lifespan-per-dollar-
spent. This option does resolve the paradox,
so it cannot be the correct option. Option (D):
This is the correct option. The type of
packaging of the bulb has little apparent
connection to the market success of the bulb;
we are told nothing about packaging or
quantities in the question. This option does not
resolve the paradox, so this is the correct
option. Option (E): If a competitor is going to
introduce a "super bulb" with an absolute
advantage in cost and lifespan, this would
trump the second bulb's advantage in lifespan.
The second bulb will lose in the market to the
third bulb. This option does resolve the
paradox, so it cannot be the correct option.
6. (C); the key to answering this question quickly and
efficiently is to focus solely on those facts that
can be put together to form a logically valid
inference. For instance, you should notice the
strong element of conditionality between full
flooding and implosion: any sinking ship that is
not fully flooded will implode:
Fully flooded :arrow: Implode
According to the last sentence in the question,
the Rienzi apparently did not implode. By the
contrapositive of the above-mentioned
statement, the Rienzi must have been fully
flooded when it sank to the bottom of the
ocean. While the author observes that full
flooding can be achieved by sabotage, the
relationship between the two is not conditional
but causal (the author only states that full
flooding "can be achieved by sabotage," not
that it necessarily "must" be achieved by
sabotage). Therefore, we can only conclude
that sabotage was a likely cause for the full
flooding, a possibility that is also supported by
the first sentence in the question. If sabotage
was not the cause, however, water must have
flooded the ship unusually fast, since under
normal circumstances it does not enter the
ship quickly enough to fully flood it before the
ship sinks to the bottom of the ocean. Option
(A): It is entirely possible that the Rienzi sunk
by impact, which caused the water to flood the
Page 8 of 26
Marathon - I
ship unusually fast. How the ship was
constructed is irrelevant and not inferable from
the evidence presented in the question. Option
(B): This option is directly disproven by the
information in the question, since any ship that
sinks deep into the ocean floor when not fully
flooded will implode, and the Rienzi did not
implode. Therefore, the Rienzi must have
been fully flooded when it reached the ocean
floor. Option (C): This is the correct option.
Indeed, if sabotage was not the reason why
the Rienzi was fully flooded and water cannot
enter the ship quickly enough, water must
have flooded into it unusually fast. See
discussion above.
Option (D): There is no reason to suspect that
had the Rienzi sunk more slowly, it would not
have imploded. The question contains no
evidence to suggest that the speed at which
ships sink has any effect on whether they
implode or not. Furthermore, even if a slower
sinking ship has a higher chance of being fully
flooded when it reaches the bottom of the
ocean, such a ship can still implode. To
conclude otherwise would be to rely on the
Mistaken Negation of the conditional
relationship between flooding and imploding.
Option (E): How the ship was built is
immaterial to the information provided in the
question: the fact remains that any ship that
sinks deep into the ocean when not fully
flooded will implode. This option is incorrect.
7. (E); the argument is talking and gives information
about the following things:
1. One out of every 50 dogs dies because of
the disease
2. Vaccine is a virtual 100% cure for the
disease
3. Vaccine has a death rate as well i.e. one
death per 5000 vaccines
4. It is safer for a dog to receive a vaccine
than not to receive it
So as you can see (from above) that the
argument gives a lot of info about vaccine and
also that one out of 50 dogs die if they are not
vaccinated. In order to evaluate the argument
you would need to know - what is the
likelihood that an unvaccinated dog will
contract the disease.
Scenario 1 - Let's say 1 in 10000 dogs
catches this disease, then vaccinating all the
dogs is by no means a practical solution
because 1 in 5000 dogs can die after
vaccination.
Scenario 2 - Let's say 1 in 10 dogs contract
that disease and you already know that 1 out
of 50 dogs will die. Therefore the dogs should
be vaccinated.
Therefore in order to evaluate the argument
you need to know the likelihood, percentage or
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
probability of the unvaccinated dogs
contracting the disease.
8. (A); the argument in this question is basically that
if a mental disorder results from a chemical
imbalance, it can only be effectively treated
with medication that will reduce or correct the
chemical imbalance. The unstated
presupposition here is that other forms of
treatment (psychotherapy, say) cannot correct
the chemical imbalance. In order to make the
argument work, we need to find an option that
provides this missing assumption. Option (A):
This is the correct option. Assume the logical
opposite of this statement: What if
psychotherapy can produce effective
reduction/correction of chemical imbalances
that cause mental disorders? If this were true,
then the author's argument fails — medication
would not be the only way to treat chemically-
caused disorders. So by the Assumption
Negation test, this statement is necessary for
the argument to work. Option (B): The
argument makes no reference to the speed of
results; it discusses only the effectiveness of
treatment. So this option is irrelevant. Option
(C): We do not need to assume that most
mental disorders have non-chemical causes.
Even if most mental disorders do have
chemical causes, the argument can still work
— we would just be talking about a very large
number of disorders. Option (D): Assume the
logical opposite of this statement: What if
psychotherapy were sometimes more effective
than medication in treating patients with
mental disorders? This deals generally with all
mental disorders of various causes. This
would not undermine the specific argument
about medication being the only effective
treatment for chemically-caused mental
disorders. Thus, by the Assumption Negation
test, this option is not necessary for the
argument.
Option (E):"Effective treatment" was not
defined in the question. Does effective
treatment imply merely a reduction of
symptoms, or a deep correction of the
underlying cause? This is not made clear. For
this reason alone, we could reject this option.
Additionally, try the Assumption Negation test:
Ask yourself, what if psychotherapy has an
effect on mental disorders beyond just
reduction of symptoms? Just like option (D),
this is a very general statement about all
mental disorders, and it does not defeat the
specific claim about medication being the only
effective treatment for chemically-caused
mental disorders.
9. (B); due to the relatively complex structure of the
curator's argument, it is important to
understand it fully before proceeding to
answer the question:
Page 9 of 26
Marathon - I
Premise (1): ..... Reliable tests show that the
red pigment was applied after the painting had
been completed
Premise (2): ..... The red paint was not mixed
in Veronese's workshop
Sub. Conclusion: ..... An artist other than
Veronese tampered with his painting after its
completion
Main Conclusion: ..... The decision to restore
the cloak of the central figure in Veronese's
painting from its
present red to the green found underneath is
fully justified
As is often the case with Method of
Reasoning/Argument Part questions, it is
crucial to distinguish between the "subsidiary"
conclusion and the "main" conclusion of the
argument, particularly since the test makers
will often try to trick you by prefacing the
subsidiary conclusion with a typical conclusion
indicator ("hence") while providing no
conclusion indicators for the main conclusion.
This tactic underscores the importance of
understanding the function of each statement.
Compare the two contender conclusions and
check to see which one answers the question
"why?" — whichever one does, this will be the
subsidiary conclusion of the argument. In this
instance, the decision to restore the cloak is
explained by the observation that someone
must have tampered with the painting.
Therefore, tampering with the painting is not
the main conclusion of the argument, even
though two separate premises are used in its
support. By answering the question "why is the
decision to restore the color of the cloak
justified?", the statement that someone else
must have tampered with Veronese's painting
provides a premise for the main conclusion.
Because this claim is both supported by the
initial two premises and in turn supports
another statement, it is a subsidiary
conclusion of the argument. Option (B) is
therefore correct. Option (A) As discussed
above, the main conclusion is the first
sentence of the question and not the last one,
despite the misleading conclusion indicator
("hence") provided here. This option is
incorrect. Option (B): This the correct option.
Option (C) This statement does not clarify a
key term. This option is incorrect. Option (D)
There is no general position in the curator's
argument that needs defending. This option is
incorrect. Option (E) While the main point is in
the first sentence, the last one does not
reiterate it. Rather, it provides a rationale for it,
by explaining why the decision to restore the
color of the cloak is justified. This option is
incorrect.
10. (C); the curator in the question has provided
evidence supporting a conclusion that the
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
cloak in Veronese's painting was not originally
painted red by the artist, and therefore the
proposed restoration to the green underneath
is justified. The critic, in response, has
provided evidence that the cloak was likely red
at the time of Veronese's death. To get to a
prephrased answer here, we must combine
our knowledge that the proposed restoration
will change the cloak from red to green, with
the art critic's argument that Veronese
originally painted to cloak red.
Option (A): While this answer may be true, the
critic's statement does not provide strong
support for it. All we know is that a copy was
made and the cloak was red. We have no
information about the quality of the copy or
whether it would be distinguishable from the
original. Option (B): The curator's claim relies
on technology, not the critic's. Since the critic
provides no information, insight, or opinion
regarding the use of technology, this cannot
be the correct option. Option (C): This is the
correct option. The information provided by the
art critic tells us that the cloak was likely red at
the time of Veronese's death. Therefore, if the
proposed restoration is going to change the
cloak from red to green, it follows that the
restoration would not restore the painting to
the appearance it had at the end of
Veronese's lifetime. Option (D): The argument
made by the art critic provides no information
sufficient to make a value judgment on
whether or not an artist's work is compromised
when that work is tampered with by later
artists. Option (E): This one is tricky because it
seems to match with what the art critic is
implying. However, if you look at the art critic's
statement more closely, you will see that she
is solely making a statement on what color the
cloak was at the time of Veronese's death.
There is no information that can be derived
from the art critic's statement regarding
Veronese's original intent.
11. (D); the premises in the question establish the
following logical relationship: "If there are
holidays or vacation, John works less than five
days in a week. If neither holidays nor
vacation are present, John works five days per
week." We are told that last week there were
neither holidays nor vacation. The obvious
conclusion is that John worked five days last
week. We know that Friday he worked as a
blacksmith. But how can we be sure that his
other days of work were Monday through
Thursday? Why are we so quick to dismiss the
possibility that he worked on Saturday or
Sunday? This is the missing assumption.
Option (A): Apply the Assumption Negation
test. Even if John sometimes takes a vacation
of more than one week in length, it doesn't
matter for the argument: we know that John
Page 10 of 26
Marathon - I
had no vacation last week, so any
consideration of vacation is irrelevant. Option
(B): The argument is not really concerned with
the amount of time that John worked on
individual days. The argument is only making
a claim about the identity of the individual days
when John indeed worked. Option (C): Like
choice (A), this statement is irrelevant. We
know that neither vacation nor holiday
occurred last week, so we have no reason to
care about vacation or holiday.
Option (D): This is the correct option. Without
the statement in this option, it becomes very
possible that John worked on days besides
Monday through Thursday. Option (E): Apply
the Assumption Negation test: What if there
were some (at least one) days last week in
which John worked both jobs? Would this
destroy the author's argument? No: it is
conceivable that John could have worked his
insurance job on Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday; and that John worked
the blacksmith job on Thursday and Friday.
This story is perfectly consistent with the
premises of the question.
12. (B); only option (B) justifies the judgement about
George and Carla. Other options are not
appropriate as per the question situation.
13. (A);The question consists of premises, but drives
toward a fill-in-the-blank conclusion. You must
infer the main point of the argument. The
premises establish that mature white pines
obstruct sunlight well enough that such pines
cannot regenerate in their own shade, and you
need to decide what is likely in a stand of
white pines in a dense forest. You are
supposed to pick up on the theme of sunlight-
obstruction, and realize that as a stand of
white pines becomes thicker, it becomes less
likely that new white pines will grow. That
would suggest that a dense stand of white
pines consists of trees of fairly similar ages.
Option (A): This is the correct option. At the
very least, within the stand the pines should
not differ drastically in age. According to the
question, younger white pines would not
survive if they had to grow under the cover of
older white pines, so you would expect that a
close grouping of white pines consists of trees
of fairly similar ages. Option (B): The area
would not have to be cleared of all trees, just
enough trees that the white pine saplings
could get enough light to grow. White pines
cannot regenerate in their own shade, but
might be able to regenerate in a lesser amount
of shade. Option (C): The question suggests
that older white pines block the sunlight to
seedlings, but there is no reason to assume
that older white pines would deprive each
other of sunlight enough that some of the older
trees would die. Option (D): Since it is quite
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
possible that the obstruction of sunlight makes
it impossible for any seedling to succeed in a
stand of white pines, it does not follow that
other species of trees would colonize and
replace the stand of white pines. This choice is
unsupported, somewhat contrary, and
incorrect. Option (E): The question does not
establish that white pines grow at a fairly
invariable rate. Furthermore, the question
tends to suggest that the trees are all of very
similar ages if they are to survive together,
which tends not to support the idea that the
height differences should be attributed only to
age.
14. (C); Option (C) says that it concludes one thing
(let's call this Q) was caused by another (call
this Z), so: The argument apparently claims
that Z causes Q. If Q was caused by Z, this
matching makes sense. Let's continue:
...although the evidence given is consistent
with the first thing's (that's Q, as it was the first
thing listed in this option) having caused the
second (that's Z then).So this is saying that
the evidence is consistent with Q causing Z.
This, then, is describing a reverse cause and
effect flaw. If the argument claims that Z
causes Q, then we need to look at what the
argument claims to identify Z and Q with the
phenomena in the argument. The argument
concludes that owing a laptop led to a higher-
paying job, so the argument says: owning a
laptop causes a higher-paying job and Z is
"owning a laptop" while Q is "having a higher-
paying job". Because the option was phrased
in the passive voice, the "first thing" listed is
actually the claimed effect in the argument, not
the cause.
15. (B); This question is easier to understand if you
pay attention to the formal logic content:
Premises: Rhonda goes to movie ..... :arrow:
..... Paul goes to concert
Paul goes to concert ..... :arrow: ..... Ted goes
to concert
Ted refuses to go to the concert
Conclusion:
Ted goes to the concert ..... :arrow: .....
Rhonda goes to the movie
The reasoning is logically valid, and involves
the contrapositive of the additive inference.
Option (A): This option does not link the first
element to the last, so is dissimilar.
Furthermore, this choice involves a Mistaken
Reversal of the premise:
Janice visits ..... :arrow: ..... Janice finds baby-
sitter so this choice is logically flawed, and
incorrect.
Option (B): This is the correct option. It can be
diagrammed as:
Gary does laundry ..... :arrow: ..... Peter has to
work ..... :arrow: ..... Cathy is ill
Cathy is ill ..... :arrow: ..... Gary does laundry
Page 11 of 26
Marathon - I
This illustrates that this response involves a
correct additive inverse and uses the
contrapositive, just as was done in the
question.
Option (C): Since the first premise contains
two sufficient conditions, this response fails
the Premise Test, and is incorrect. You should
immediately eliminate this choice.
Option (D): Since the first premise contains a
choice of necessary elements, and the
question did not, this response fails the
Premise Test. Eliminate this choice
immediately.
Option (E): This response does not link the
first and last elements. Also, this option
contains a Mistaken Reversal of
Mark goes to the museum ..... :arrow: .....
Postponed appointments so this choice
contains fallacious reasoning, and is incorrect.
16. (D); Premise: Scientists in the private sector can
earn 50 percent more than in a government
job requiring similar skills. Additional premise:
Government-employed scientists would have
no problem finding private-sector jobs.
Conclusion: The most-skilled government
scientists will leave for the private sector,
unless their sense of public duty trumps their
self-interest. This argument implicitly assumes
that monetary compensation is the only factor
entering self-interest. What if the government
jobs are safer? What if the government jobs
have better job security? What if the
government jobs have more reasonable
hours? Any of these factors could undermine
the argument. Thus, to make the argument
work, it is necessary that we dismiss all of
these possibilities. Notice the question stem:
We are looking for a necessary, though
perhaps not sufficient, assumption which will
fill in at least one gap in this argument. Option
(A): Applying the Assumption Negation test:
What if government scientists are equally or
more likely to receive recognition and kudos
for their work? This would undermine the
argument, as it suggests an additional reason
why public-sector work might be more
attractive. This option looks like an attractive
candidate. However, note that we do not
completely destroy the argument by applying
the Assumption Negation test. Private-sector
jobs could still be better in terms of self-
interest, even if they do not win on the
recognition factor. Option (B): What if some
government research scientists earn more
than the highest-paid private-sector scientists?
At first glance, this seems to undermine the
argument: perhaps the government is giving a
salary premium for scientists at the very top of
the skills ladder, and thus such scientists will
not leave. However, this story would not
entirely destroy the question. Perhaps there is
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
only one government scientist who receives
such a premium, and perhaps he is receiving
the premium for entirely unrelated reasons
(maybe he's dating the boss). The author's
fundamental argument could still hold in this
case. Thus, the statement in this option is not
absolutely necessary. Option (C): The number
of scientists currently employed in government
jobs vs. private sector jobs is irrelevant to the
issue of the incentives for scientists to switch
jobs. Option (D): This is the correct option.
Apply the Assumption Negation test: What if
government scientists do get unusually good
working conditions or fringe benefits that more
than compensate for low salaries? This would
destroy the argument; in this case, clearly self-
interest would not push the scientists toward
private-sector jobs. Thus, the statement in this
option must be necessary for the argument.
Option (E): Applying the Assumption Negation
test: What if private-sector scientists work
shorter hours? This would actually support the
argument, not destroy it.
17. (E); This question provides that although efficient
use of fossil fuels is in the interest of the
nation and the world, government standards
are needed in order to make improvements.
The objection: Energy use should be
determined by the market. The question is
followed by another weaken question, so we
should look for the option which would cause
us to question the assertion that the market
should rule in such contexts. Option (A): There
is no mention of implementation "all at once,"
and no suggestion that either government
standards or market forces might immediately
maximize efficiency. Since this has no effect
on the argument that market forces should
rule, this option is incorrect. Option (B):
Whether or not certain products allow for easy
assessment of inefficiencies, this makes it no
more or less advisable to leave fossil fuel
decisions to the market vs. the government,
this option does not weaken and is therefore
incorrect. Option (C): The difficulty of
implementation does not weaken the author's
argument about market forces, so this option
is incorrect. Option (D): This option would
strengthen the argument that market forces
would naturally find efficiency in the use of
fossil fuels. Option (E): This is the correct
option. If the purchase of such products is
often made by someone other than the end
user, then market forces would not be as likely
to maximize efficiency in every case.
Landlords might, for example, buy an old,
cheap, inefficient dishwasher to save money,
knowing that tenants will be left with the higher
bills.
18. (A); Context: Some historians claim that the
people who built a ring of stones thousands of
Page 12 of 26
Marathon - I
years ago in Britain were knowledgeable
about celestial events. The ground for this
claim is that two of the stones determine a line
pointing directly to the position of the sun at
sunrise at the spring equinox.
Premise: There are many stones in the ring,
however,
Conclusion: so the chance that one pair will
point in a celestially significant direction is
large. Therefore, the people who built the ring
were not knowledgeable about celestial
events. So we are told about a theory where
certain objects helped people, potentially, a
while ago spot items in the sky. But our
argument is that there are a bunch of these
items, so the fact that there are so many
probably means it was an accident. Hmm. So
we are saying that, in our opinion, that if you
something could be a coincidence, not
purposeful, that that destroys the argument.
But this doesn't destroy our argument because
it is simply our opinion(A) The failure of cited
evidence to establish a statement is taken as
evidence that that statement is false -- Let's
break this sentence down: The failure of cited
evidence (the rings) to establish a statement
(that they point to sky items on purpose) is
taken as evidence that that statement is false
(They are not experts). Hmm. Pretty good. We
are told something is a fallacy because the
evidence presented doesn't add up. But this is
just one example. Can we conclude that there
weren't other structures? Further, can we see
how the structure matches well with what the
actual argument did? We are told that the
author doesn't believe it because of
coincidence. No additional evidence is given.
He is just restating his opinion. So looking at
the option, because we have no other
evidence and we disagree with it, we assume
that the statement is false. Perfect. (B)
Dobson’s conclusion logically contradicts
some of the evidence presented in support of
it -- Our premise matches our conclusion
pretty well. This would be like saying I hate red
items. And all apples are red. Therefore, I love
apples. Option (C) Statements that absolutely
establish Dobson’s conclusion are treated as if
they merely give some support to that
conclusion -- This is the opposite, in a way.
This is saying that the question doesn't believe
the arguer's statement. But it is the other way
around. (D) Something that is merely a matter
of opinion is treated as if it were subject to
verification as a matter of fact -- Trap option.
This is saying that the view about the rings is
being treated as a matter of fact when it is
opinion. It is established that this is fact and
we are arguing against it. The error is not
giving too much credit to the claim we are
disproving. The issue is in our argument,
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
which is an opinion itself. This is why this is a
tricky option. You see the word "opinion" and
you jump on it. But we need to break down
what the statements are actually saying before
we can make a judgement call about it being
the correct answer. In this case, this is 100%
wrong. (E) Dobson’s drawing the conclusion
relies on interpreting a key term in two
different ways -- No terms conflict. If we used
"knowledgeable" or "rings" in different ways
this would be the case, but we do not do this.
19. (D); the argument starts off with an estimated
delivery time for mail that is correctly
addressed and ends with an estimated
delivery time for "all" mail. Option (A) cannot
be concluded with the info in the argument.
We only know about correctly addressed mail
and incorrectly addressed mail. It could be that
the delay of 3 days or more is from the
incorrectly addressed mail. Option(B) takes
the conclusion too far. Option (C )- corollary is
not true. Correctly addressed mail comes
within 2 days but not all mail that arrives within
2 days are correctly addressed mail. Option
(E) is incorrect as it contradicts the last
sentence of the argument. Option (D) is just
better compared to the other options. Since
correctly addressed mail takes 2 days or less,
we know that the contributing factor for the
overall 3 days or more are the incorrectly
addressed and "damaged in transit" kind.
20. (E); the argument is essentially that since Senator
Armand maintains that the program could not
be successful, the figures cited in the report
are not accurate.
` That correctly utilizes the contra positive of
"Figures accurate → Program Successful."
All of the figures and the conditional are
designed to distract you from the real flaw: the
argument is based on the inappropriate appeal
to the expertise of Senator Armand. It doesn't
seem likely that we should reject 5 years of
study just because some "smart" person off
the top of her head decides that certain things
are impossible. We'd rather see the numbers,
and decide for ourselves. Option (A): This
option does not reference an authority-- in
fact, even though the father might be the
authority in some senses, the father's claim is
rejected. What this choice does do is side with
the person who claims to have an eyewitness
account, which is the opposite of what the
question does. Option (B): This option sides
with the child, not the authority, and weighs at
least some eyewitness claims more heavily
than other claims, so this choice is incorrect.
Furthermore, this choice contains a different
flaw. A failure to carry out a policy 100% does
not prove that the policy doesn't exist,
because policies define what people will
attempt to do rather than what people are
Page 13 of 26
Marathon - I
successful at doing, so the conclusion is
unjustified. Option (C): Even though Amos
could simply be an extreme freak of nature,
this response involves the correct application
of expertise. Dr. Treviso has specific, studied
expertise that would enable him to make his
judgment, and accepting his claim is not at all
the same as accepting Senator Armand's,
whose claim is not informed. Option (D): This
option involves a Mistaken Reversal of its last
premise, "Robert is right → Evelyn did not
listen to late news." The question did not
involve a formal logic error, so this response is
wrong. Furthermore, this response does not
involve an inappropriate appeal to authority.
Option (E): This is the correct option. Just
because Lomas is an engineering expert does
not mean he has the ability to judge which
athlete has a chance of winning. It makes no
sense to reject an eyewitness account in favor
of Lomas' "authority."
21. (D); the correct option is (D). Wirth clearly would
agree with option (A). Chang's opinion is more
difficult to establish. Remember that Chang
did say, "I do not dispute your evidence." This
means that he agrees that no evidence has
been found to prove that a single gene is
responsible for predisposing people to manic-
depression. Chang also states that
researchers have "found evidence that a set of
several genes is involved," but this implicitly
indicates that they have only found evidence
of interaction, not actually identified the genes
themselves. Thus, Chang would be forced to
agree with option (A). Since both agree, option
(A) must be incorrect. Option (B) is incorrect
because both would probably disagree with
the statement it contains.
22. (A) ; we don't need to assume anything here.
We're being asked to describe Chang's
criticism of Werth's argument. What does
Chang think Werth is wrong about? Werth
concludes that if it's true that there's no
"manic-depressive gene," it must be false that
anyone has a genetic predisposition to manic
depression. Clearly, his assumption is that a
manic-depressive gene is the only thing that
could cause this type of genetic predisposition.
Chang identifies this assumption indirectly and
weakens Werth's argument by introducing a
specific alternative to his assumption:
interactions among genes, rather than one
single gene, cause manic depression. So
Chang's issue with Werth is that he does
presuppose only one possibility (that a single
gene causes manic depression) when
according to her, at least one other possibility
(interactions among multiple genes cause it).
So (A) is correct. (B) is the opposite of what
Chang says; she agrees with the evidence
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
Werth cites. (C) is incorrect because Chang
doesn't address expertise, and Werth pretty
clearly cites the right experts. (D) is just way
out. Werth doesn't disallow any kind of
evidence. (E) is incorrect because likelihood
vs. possibility never comes up.
23. (D); This question begins with the author's
conclusion: garbage dumps do not harm
wildlife. One way to tell that this is the central
belief is that the remainder of the information
is classified as "evidence," meaning given to
support a view. So what evidence are we
offered to conclude that garbage dumps do
not harm wildlife? The single example of
baboons on the Masai-Mara reserve in Kenya
that use local garbage dumps as a food
source. Members of this baboon troop mature
faster and have more offspring than do
baboons on the reserve that do not feed on
garbage.
This may seem at first reading like a
somewhat convincing argument—after all, if
garbage-consuming baboons mature more
quickly and reproduce more readily than their
garbage-free neighbors, isn't it reasonable to
conclude that they're healthier?—but when we
start to really scrutinize the assumptions made
here problems quickly arise. First,
comparisons are tricky. To make a truly
legitimate sweeping comparison, like overall
fitness, between two things, like baboon
groups, you need to know a lot of information
about them. They need to be of the same
type, for instance, otherwise what's the point
of an A/B measure? Second, the conclusion is
that "garbage dumps do not harm wildlife."
That's an incredibly broad belief on three
counts: dumps in general (rather than just
garbage as food), no harm whatsoever, and all
wildlife. For the first, we can't classify dumps
safe merely because it might be safe to eat
their contents. Many, many other hazards
could arise from dumping garbage wholly
unrelated to its consumption. For the second,
multiple measures of health, certainly more
than just two superficial physical observations,
would be needed to conclude something so
generalized as "no harm." And for the third,
can you really draw a conclusion about wildlife
on the whole from some information about a
single troop of baboons?
With that in mind, it seems clear that the
implied causality between eating garbage and
improved fitness cannot be fully trusted, nor
can the jump from either eating garbage to
general dump safety or from baboons to all
wildlife. So this argument is actually riddled
with issues, making it ideal for a Weaken-
Except question stem. We'll have four
(incorrect) answers that undermine the
conclusion, and a single answer (correct) that
Page 14 of 26
Marathon - I
does not—it may help, or it may be irrelevant;
it simply can't weaken.
Option (A): This is, in my opinion, the most
interesting of the wrong, weakening answers.
To many it seems irrelevant, but think about
what it's telling you: if the two baboon groups
being compared to establish one group's
superior fitness are in fact different species,
then the comparison itself becomes
meaningless! Maybe the species that eats
garbage is supposed to mature faster and
have more offspring. Noting these differences
is only useful if they're unexpected or unusual,
but with two different species there's no way to
tell if the maturation/reproduction "success" is
actually success, totally expected, or even
less/lower than it should be.
In other words, the possible effects of garbage
consumption can't be known at all if the
comparison it's based on is irrelevant.
Option (B). This answer, along with the other
two wrong answers not yet discussed,
presents a direct attack on the health of the
garbage-eating baboons: their life expectancy
is significantly lower than that of the other
group. This clearly weakens, since it shows
that there may well be a harm to eating
garbage after all. In essence it shows the
cause (eating garbage) possibly leading to an
opposite effect (diminished health).
Option (C): In a near-copy of option (B), we
have another negative health statistic for the
garbage-eating troop: cholesterol levels
dangerously higher than those of the other
baboons mentioned. Once again, it's a cause
leading to a different/conflicting effect,
severely weakening the argument.
Option (D): This is the correct answer. Saying
that a population of hyenas living near
garbage landfills has doubled has absolutely
no harmful effect on this argument, primarily
because (1) we don't know anything about the
hyenas' behavior (do they eat the garbage?),
(2) we don't know if the doubling population is
normal, healthy growth or if it should have
increased even more, and (3) we can't
assume any connection between that growth
and the landfill itself.
If anything, one could possibly argue that this
answer strengthens the argument slightly—the
garbage dump they live near clearly hasn't
reduced their population size, so maybe it is
as harmless as the author believes—but
regardless it should be clear that this answer
doesn't weaken the conclusion. Because it's
the exception here it is correct.
Option (E): If you understood the negative
effects of (B) and (C), (E) should present no
problems. If birth defects have doubled for the
baboons on the reserve since the landfill
opened, then it increases the likelihood that
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
the dump does indeed cause some harm to
wildlife. It's another instance of the cause
likely tied to an effect that contradicts the
author's claim, and thus weakens the
argument.
24. (B); Marianne is a professional chess player who
hums, disrupting the other players. She is
ordered to stop humming or be disqualified,
but she argues that she is unaware of her
humming, so it must be involuntary and
therefore should not be held responsible for it,
and concludes by means of protesting the
order. Hopefully, Marianne's chess play is less
dependent upon the distraction of her
opponents than is her apparent reasoning on
the credulity of the officials. Marianne
presumes that awareness and voluntary action
are factors in responsibility, and you are asked
to find the principle that supports her
argument. Option (A): This choice would
merely provide for Marianne's opponents to
return the favor, but would not justify
Marianne's assertion that she should not be
held accountable for her actions. This choice
is wrong. Option (B): This is the correct
choice. If only voluntary actions are grounds
for disqualification ("DQ→Voluntary Actions"),
that means that involuntary actions should not
bring disqualification. That does not prove
Marianne's argument, because it is possible
that her lack of current awareness does not
prove that she is acting involuntarily, but it
does provide support for her presumption that
whether an action is voluntary is a factor in
accountability. Option (C): If a person should
be held accountable for involuntary actions
that serve a person's interest, that makes it
highly likely that Marianne's argument is
unconvincing. This choice would undermine
Marianne, so this choice is wrong. Option (D):
The idea that normally involuntary behavior
should be presumed voluntary at a
professional chess match serves to invalidate
Marianne's assertion that she should not be
held responsible for her humming, so this
choice is wrong. With this principle, we might
normally accept that random humming is
involuntary, but might not make that
consideration in a chess match. Option (E):
This choice does not clearly attack Marianne,
because you do not know that she is actually
attempting to distract her opponents.
However, it does not support her, either, since
it provides sufficient grounds for disqualifying
people, but Marianne wants sufficient grounds
for ruling out her humming as something for
which she can be disqualified.
25. (D); Premise 1: Marianne is a professional chess
player who hums audibly while playing her
matches, thereby distracting her opponents.
Page 15 of 26
Marathon - I
Premise 2:When ordered by chess officials to
cease humming or else be disqualified from
professional chess, Marianne protested the
order. She protested saying that she is not
aware of her humming as she correlates
humming to be an involuntary action.
Conclusion : therefore she should not be held
responsible for it. Not all of a person's
involuntary actions are actions of which that
person is unaware.This choice says some(not
all) - which means some of the involuntary
actions are done knowingly . But what if
humming which is also an involuntary action
does not fall under the some category thereby
strengthening Marianne 's argument that
humming was left unnoticed by her? Hence C
is incorrect. But D clearly explains that
humming is something that an individual can
notice easily and also can control , hence
weakening her argument.
26. (B); Since this is a resolve--except question, all
options but one will help to explain the
puzzling fact from the question. The correct
option will not provide such a resolution. Here
the author tells us that despite a big drop in
smoking, which has long been the main cause
of home fires, there has not been a
corresponding drop in the number of deaths
caused by home fires. Option (A) tells us that
when people smoke in bed it doesn't generally
lead to much damage. This would help to
explain why, even with a significant decline in
smoking, we should not expect a significant
decline in number of deaths (because such
accidents have always tended to have minor
consequences, decreasing the number of
such accidents should not have a major effect
on number of deaths that result). Option (B),
on the other hand, only provides that such
deaths usually occur after everyone has gone
to sleep. This does not help to explain why a
decrease in smoking has failed to bring about
a decrease in deaths caused by home fires.
Since this is the only option that does NOT
help to resolve the paradox, it must be the
right answer. Remaining options are irrelevant
as per the given situation.
(Section-III)
1. (C); the question explains that Braille is a system of
raised dots that can be read by touch, and that a
new computer screen will replicate the Braille using
heated dots. The question concludes that anyone
who is accustomed to reading Braille can easily
adapt to use the computer screen. The question
assumes without good reason that heated dots will
work just as well as raised dots. Since you are
asked to identify a necessary assumption, you
should focus on linking raised dots to heated dots.
Option (A): The question does not concern whether
systems other than Braille might work with the
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
screen, so no assumptions about other systems are
required. This choice is wrong. Option (B): This
choice seeks to rule out the possibility that people
who currently do not use Braille will be able to use
the screens. Since the question does not concern
anyone except current Braille users and is not
written to rule out other users, it does not matter
whether other people will be able to use the
system, so this choice is irrelevant and incorrect.
Option (C): This is the correct option. The argument
assumes that what people can sense by raised-dot
patterns they can also sense by heated patterns.
Option (D): Since the discussion in the question
simply concerns the viability of the new system of
rendering Braille, it really does not matter whether
there are other systems available. The point of the
question was not that the new system is best; it was
only that the new system will work. Option (E): If it
is eventually possible to train people to use Braille
by training them on the thermal screen, then it is
very likely that the system can currently be a good
substitute for raised dots. However, the question
concerned people who already use Braille, not
those who are to be trained in the future.
Furthermore, since even if the thermal screen is not
a good training device, it could be an acceptable
substitute for people who already use Braille, this
choice does not represent a necessary assumption.
2. (B); In this question, the mayor states that the town has
agreed to try to attract more residents, then makes
the claim that the best strategy for doing so is to
renovate the train station. The rest of the question
provides premises in support of the claim that
renovating the train station is the best strategy. The
conclusion to the argument should be the claim
about which the Mayor is trying to convince the
reader and which has been supported by the given
premises. Option (A): While the Mayor makes this
statement, it is not the conclusion that his argument
leads to. This statement has already been agreed
upon and is therefore not the claim that the Mayor
is trying to advance with the argument. Option (B):
This is the correct option. Not only is this the
Mayor's motivation for making the argument, but it
is also the claim that the premises were designed to
support. Option (C): While the Mayor states that the
number of jobs in Center City is increasing, there is
no claim made that Outerville residents should seek
work there. Option (D): While the Mayor suggests
that driving is becoming more expensive than train
travel, he does not claim that it is a better option
that should be used by all. This is not the Mayor's
motivation for making the argument. Option (E):
The Mayor is attempting to convince Outerville
residents to renovate the train station. The
argument is not meant to encourage people to
move to Outerville, although that is the ultimate
goal of the plan.
Page 16 of 26
Marathon - I
3. (D); the method used by environmentalist doesn’t
clarify, argue or attack the land developer’s point of
view. Hence options (A), (B) and (E) can be
eliminated. Our answer cannot be option (C) as it is
very extreme resolution which is not required.
Hence, correct answer is option (D).
4. (D); option (A) this gives us no reason not to like the
special treatment. In fact, I might like it even more
now because maybe having all that extra support is
good. Option (B) This is comparing flat feet to "feet
with unusually high arches." We know nothing
about those kinds of feet. Eliminate. Option (C) Are
these the children who wore the "special shoes?" If
the children who did NOT have corrected feet did
wear the "special shoes" then this would be a good
answer. However, it gives us nothing about the
special shoes and that is what we want to talk
about! Option (D) this certainly gives us one reason
to not like the treatment: the treatment is apparently
pointless. There is absolutely no difference
between wearing and not wearing the shoes so why
wear the shoes? This definitely seems correct.
Option (E) we only care about children who are flat-
footed so this is incorrect option.
5. (A); this question presents a traditional use of
conditional reasoning in a must be true question. It
is stated that an increase in carbon dioxide leads to
an increase in the number of large bodies of water
with temperatures over 26 degrees Celsius to a
depth of 60 meters. If the temperature of a large
body reaches this level, it is more likely that tropical
storms will develop in that area. Therefore, an
increase in carbon dioxide will make it more likely
that there will be tropical storms in the areas of
temperature increase. If this is true, it can be
inferred that there will likely be a larger number of
storms overall: ..... Increase in CO2 → more Warm
Water → more storms likely. Option (A): This is the
correct answer. This option combines the given
premises to reach a logical conclusion. If there is an
increase in the number of areas with conditions that
support tropical storms, there will likely be an
increase in the total number of storms. Option (B):
This is similar to a Mistaken Reversal of the first
premise. These temperatures simply make it more
likely that there will be storms, they are not
necessary for storms to occur. Also, the premise
deals with water temperature, not air temperature.
Option (C): The information in the question only
allows us to compare the number of bodies of water
today with the number that there will be in the future
if carbon dioxide levels continue to increase. There
is not enough information about past levels to
support this claim. Option (D): No information is
given in the question about the ferocity of tropical
storms. All of the information presented deals with
the number of storms, not their strength. Option (E):
In the question, it is an increase in carbon dioxide
that affects the temperature of the Earth's oceans,
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
not the other way around. This is a mistaken
reversal of that premise.
6. (E); based upon our knowledge of the real world — as
opposed to the crazy, mixed up LSAT world — we
know that politicians often base their actions in
office on the results of opinion polls. If Astorga's
campaign promises are crafted primarily from
opinion polls, who is to say that her actual actions
in office will not follow the same trend. In this
assumption question, we must find the option that
would eliminate that possibility, so as to allow us to
get to the question conclusion. Option (A): Just
because she will not be capable of carrying out her
campaign promises, does not mean that she does
not intend to make the attempt to carry them out.
The question is not addressing what she will
actually accomplish, but what she intends to try to
accomplish. Option (B): The problem in the
question argument has nothing to do with the
accuracy or inaccuracy of opinion polls. The
question is merely assuming that she will not
continue to rely on those polls — regardless of their
accuracy — once she is in office. Option (C): The
question conclusion is not concerned with the
chances of Astorga being elected, but with what will
result if she is elected. Therefore, our assumption
answer needs to deal with what will occur after the
election, not whether her campaign promises will be
successful. Option (D): Whether or not Astorga has
strong opinions of her own does not affect the issue
of whether she will simply follow opinion polls if
elected. Actually, if she has no strong opinions of
her own, that would aim more towards a conclusion
that she will simply follow the opinion polls if
elected. Therefore she would be telling the voters
what she actually intends to do. Option (E): This is
the correct option. Within the question, we have no
link between what Astorga is promising and what
she actually intends to do if elected. This option
provides that link. Now that we know that she does
not intend to do what she said she would, we can
get to the conclusion that the voters are being
deceived.
7. (E); here the question is presenting a correlation
between retired persons who volunteer and better
resources, health, outlook and functioning. From
this correlation, the question concludes that there is
a cause and effect relationship, in that the
volunteering is causing the better circumstances for
these retired individuals. So, we have a cause and
effect relationship in the question combined with a
flaw in the reasoning question. We are therefore
going to try to find one of four things: 1) an alternate
cause; 2) that when the cause occurs, the effect
does not follow; 3) that when the cause does not
occur, the effect does; or 4) that it is actually a
reverse cause and effect relationship. Option (A): It
is likely true that the center has a selfish motive in
Page 17 of 26
Marathon - I
reporting this correlation. However, that motive, in
and of itself, does not make the inference
unwarranted. Just because the group reporting
information has some type of bias, does not
automatically make the information untrue. Option
(B): There is no problem with interpreting "well-
being" to include these various factors. As opposed
to other undue assumptions made within LSAT
questions, this correlation between the concept of
"well-being" and the factors named is not
unfounded. Further, it does not address the cause
and effect issue. Option (C): The fact that some
retired persons who do not volunteer may be older
than some who do volunteer does nothing to
diminish the information that those who regularly
volunteer generally display fewer and milder effects
of agency. Option (D): Mental outlook is just one of
the factors addressed by the question. This option
does nothing to address the volunteers' relative
strength in the other areas. Also, once again, the
fact that growing older does not necessarily result
in a change in mental outlook does not change the
fact that the volunteers had a better mental outlook
than the non-volunteers. Option (E): This is the
correct option. This demonstrates that the cause in
effect relationship is in fact reversed.
8. (A); this is a classic weaken except question with a
correlation-causation issue. In the question we are
told that a new pesticide (X) was used in a pear
orchard. During the three years that this pesticide
was used, a lower proportion of fruit was lost to
insects than during the three year period in which
another pesticide (Y) was used previously. The
conclusion of this argument is that X is more
effective in the realm of losing fruit to insects. This
is coinciding of events, a correlation, could be
explained in a multitude of ways based on the
evidence given. To weaken the causal argument,
we want to think what in fact weakens causation.
However, we have to find that suitable option which
is strengthening the argument as the question is
asking “except”. Option (A) is the correct choice as
it strengthens the argument by focusing on amount
of matured trees. Option (B) presents an alternative
cause, what if it was the case that during the period
of pesticide X being used, there was an insect
assault campaign. That could have been what
caused the fruit to have not been harmed by the
insects, maybe the insects were lessened due to
this campaign that is unrelated to the pesticide
used. Option (C) is also an alternative cause. What
if the predatory birds that go after these insects are
becoming more common in the area? That could
explain why insects are becoming less of a problem
to the fruit. Option (D) Alternative cause. What if the
insects are losing their habitat and can no longer be
a nuisance in the area. Option (E) Alternative
cause. Maybe the pesticide that was used prior to
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
the newly introduced one was actually the one was
responsible for the great effects.
9. (C); to support the claim that the new pesticide was
more effective than the old one, one must be able
to directly compare the results of the two on the
same type of trees. If trees that were treated with
the old pesticide did not show a reduction in losses
of fruit to insects, then the conclusion that the new
pesticide was more effective than the more one is
strengthened. Option (A): If trees treated with the
new pesticide did not show a reduction in losses of
fruit to insects, this would directly weaken the
official’s conclusion. Option (B): This would not help
the official’s conclusion since by treating the trees
with both pesticides, it is impossible to credit the
reduction in losses of fruit to insects to the new
pesticide and not the old. Option (C): This is the
correct option. If trees treated with the old pesticide
did not show a reduction in losses of fruit to insects
but trees treated with the new pesticide did, and it
supports the conclusion that the new pesticide was
more effective. Option (D): This does not support
the official’s conclusion since it does not allow us to
compare the effects of the old and new pesticide.
Option (E): This does not support the official’s
conclusion because it does not allow us to directly
compare the effects of the old and new pesticide.
This is because the lack of reduction in losses of
fruit to insects could be due to the properties of the
neighboring district, and not the pesticide.
Moreover, by using the new pesticide, it does not
allow us to compare the effects of the old and new
pesticide.
10. (B); Argument says - because of self interest there are
quite a few motives evolved. Sometimes these
motives affect some human actions and sometimes
they affect all human actions. But those motives
that affect all human actions are necessarily
evolved only from self interest, whereas those
affect only some human actions can be evolved
from either self interest or something else.
Therefore its concluded that self interest is the
prime cause of human actions. Problem with the
argument is just because some motives affect
some or all human actions cannot make them the
primary cause and this is something we need to
look for in the answer. Option (A) denies that an
observation that a trait is common to all the events
in a pattern can contribute to a causal explanation
of the pattern - trait is not common. Self interest
doesn’t cause every human action. So not correct.
Option (B) takes the occurrence of one particular
influence on a patterns or classes of events as
showing that its influence outweighs any other
influence on those events. This seems to be
correct. Self interest causes human action does not
mean its influence outweighs any other influence on
human actions. Option (C) concludes that a
characteristic of pattern or class of events at one
Page 18 of 26
Marathon - I
time is characteristic of similar patterns or classes
of events at all times. This would be true if we
assume that self interest affects all human actions
since its affects just one human action. Since we
are not discussing that therefore it is incorrect.
Option (D) concludes that because an influence is
the paramount influence on a particular pattern or
class of events, that influence is the only influence
on the pattern or class of events. We are not
assuming that self interest only affects all actions.
We wont to disapprove that self influence is not the
only cause. So not correct. Option (E) undermines
its own premise that a particular attribute is present
in all instances of a certain pattern or class of
events. It doesn’t help to prove what is expected.
11. (E); this is a method of reasoning based question. The
author starts by explaining a general argument
made by "many people." We know that when "many
people" or "some people" argue something, the
question author will almost always make a
counterargument against those people. That is the
case here, as the author provides a specific
example to dispute the general argument
presented. Option (A): At no point does the author
appeal to any type of scientific authority. Just as in
Must Be True questions, you must be able to
support your answers in Method of Reasoning with
something that specifically occurs in the question.
Option (B): No evidence is provided to support the
original argument. There is no way for the accuracy
of non-existent evidence to be questioned. Option
(C): This question is not dealing with a natural
phenomenon. It is addressing the issue of not being
able to observe stars because of the man-made
lights in cities. Further, the author provides a
solution to a problem, not a scientific explanation to
a phenomenon. Option (D): There is no distinction
of terms made, or necessary in this question.
Option (E): This is the correct option. The general
claim is that interference from lights is inevitable.
The counterexample is the town of Sandsville,
which has restricted unnecessary lighting and
installed special street lamps that direct all their
light downward.
12. (B); Although not explicitly written out, the music critic’s
conclusion is that Vierne’s works should be
considered religious music. This is based on the
fact that, even though Vierne’s works are
apparently not based on familiar religious texts (like
Handel’s works), hearing Vierne’s music in a
particular setting invokes emotional feelings of
divine inspiration. The flaw here is in the shifting
definition of “religious.” The first usage of the word
is in reference to source materials (“religious
texts”), while the second, which the author uses to
make his/her conclusion is about religious/“divine”
inspirations (listener’s emotional response). This is
known as an uncertain use of a term. Option (A):
The author never claims that all religious music is
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
inspiring, but rather that Vierne’s music is religious
because it seems to be divinely inspired (whereas
previously “religious” meant taken from religious
texts). Option (B): This is the correct option. As
discussed above, the author uses the notion of
“religious” in two different ways in the question.
Option (C): Whether or not other organ music is
divinely inspired is not a part of the author’s
argument. Option (D): This tricky option also
represents an uncertain use of a term, but the term
“symphonies” does not change meaning in the
argument (although it is used twice, it means
“musical compositions” both times). Option (E): We
cannot know that the author believes all organ
music to be religious. All we know is that the author
believes Vierne’s works are religious.
13. (C); In this question, Charles points out that during
recessions unemployment generally rises, which
means that fewer people are commuting to jobs. He
argues that, because fewer people are traveling to
jobs, cars emitting pollutants are used less, and
concludes that air pollution due to automobile
exhaust decreases. Darla wonders why we should
think that air pollution (from cars) would decrease,
because during a recession fewer people can afford
new cars, but as cars age they pollute more. Darla
makes a legitimate point, because even with fewer
cars on the road, pollution could increase if the cars
are "dirtier." Charles' argument is based on
incomplete evidence, and many issues could
damage his conclusion. Darla brings up an
additional consideration, and you should realize
that Darla has provided the critique you will likely
need, and proceeds towards the options. This
question asks you to describe the relationship of
Darla's response to Charles' argument, so you
should focus on the fact that Darla introduces a
new interpretation of the evidence Charles has
presented. Option (A): Darla does not attack
Charles' premises; she merely adds the entirely
new consideration of whether the cars on the road
might be "dirtier" during a recession. That shows
that Charles' premises may not be sufficient to
prove his conclusion, but it is an attack on the
argument, not the premise. Option (B): This choice
states that if Darla's claim is true, then Charles'
conclusion is false. However, Darla's claim does not
prove Charles wrong. Introducing additional
considerations generally reduces a "strong"
conclusion to an "uncertain" conclusion; it does not
prove the conclusion false, so this choice is
incorrect. Option (C): This is the correct option.
Darla's additional consideration of whether the cars
on the road would be "dirtier" challenges the notion
that simply having fewer cars on the road would be
sufficient to prove that pollution would decrease, so
she weakens the support that Charles' conclusion
receives from his evidence. Option (D): Darla
questions whether Charles' conclusion is true, so
Page 19 of 26
Marathon - I
this response that claims that she supports his
conclusion is contrary to the question, and
incorrect. Option (E): Darla does not commandeer
Charles' reasoning to demonstrate an absurdity;
instead, Darla adds a consideration that shows that
Charles' argument may not be sufficiently complete.
14. (D); this question asks you to identify a necessary
assumption in Charles' argument. Since you know
that Charles ignores additional factors, you should
focus on that when you review the choices. Option
(A): If people who have never been employed keep
up their driving levels during a recession, that does
not help prove that fewer cars would be on the
road, or that pollution would decrease, so this
unhelpful response can be quickly eliminated.
Option (B): Since Charles does not argue that
overall air pollution would decrease, and restricts
him to pollution caused by automobiles; a response
about the relative amount of pollution that
automobiles contribute is irrelevant to his argument,
so this choice is wrong. Option (C): The effect of
this choice upon the argument is unclear. If most
people employed do not use public transportation,
which makes it more likely that, recessions would
affect drivers. However, if most of the people
employed did use public transportation, it could still
be true that a large number of those employed
drive, so recessions could still affect drivers. This
choice fails the negation test, and is incorrect. As a
point of clarification, Charles does need to assume
that some of those employed sometimes do not use
public transportation, but that assumption does not
need to be any more extreme. Option (D): This is
the correct option. Charles needs to assume that
additional factors do not counter the possibility that
fewer people need to drive to work. If the reduction
in driving to work were offset by an increase in
driving for other reasons, Charles' conclusion would
not follow, so it is critical that Charles assume there
is no countering increase of automobile use for
other reasons. Option (E): Charles does not need to
assume that more people who drive than people
who do not drive lose their jobs during a recession.
As long as some people who drive lose their jobs,
the recession could have the effect he proposes on
drivers, even if most people were not driving, so
this choice is wrong.
15. (D); this Question contains some conditional reasoning
statements (Sufficient and Necessary). The first
such statement is the initial sentence: if the condor
is going to survive in the wild, then the breeding
population must be increased. A second conditional
relationship presented in the Question is that if
there is going to be any increase in the breeding
population, then most of the eggs must hatch. The
likelihood of the eggs hatching is impacted by
environmental factors. The author suggests that
one possible way to eliminate the effects of the
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
environmental factors is to breed the birds in
captivity and return them to the wild later.
One way to approach the Question is to diagram:
..... Condors survive → breeding population must
be increased; and
..... Breeding population increased → most eggs
must hatch.
Putting the two statements together:
..... Condors survive → breeding population must
increase → most eggs must hatch
..... Condors survive → most eggs must hatch
In plain English, if the condor is going to survive in
the wild, most of its eggs must hatch. The Question
Stem asks which one of the following Options is
most supported by the information above. This is a
Must Be True type of question because it asks what
inferences can be made from the information that is
contained in the Question. Whenever you have a
SufNec Question with a Must Be True question
type, look for an Option that contains the contra-
positive of the reasoning contained in the Question.
The pre-formed answer is the contra-positive of the
reasoning in the Question. The contra-positive is:
..... Most eggs hatch → Condors survive
In plain English the contra-positive is if most eggs
do not hatch, then the condors will not survive.
Option (A) says that the condor will eventually
become extinct in the wild. If most of the eggs do
not hatch, this is true, according to the reasoning in
the Question, but it assumes that most of the eggs
do not hatch. The Question gives no indication as
to the likelihood of the eggs hatching or not. This
Option is not the contra-positive of the reasoning in
the Question, and therefore, it is not the correct
Option. Option (B) states that the best way to save
the condor in the wild is to breed it in captivity. This
is a very attractive answer, but the Question
discusses that breeding in captivity is "one possible
way" to eliminate effects of environmental factors
that impact the breeding of the condor. It may very
well be true that the best way to save the condor is
to breed them in captivity, but that information is not
contained in the Question and requires additional
information. Additionally, it is not the contra-positive
of the reasoning contained in the Question, and
therefore, it is not likely to be the correct Option.
Option (C) states that it is almost impossible to
eliminate all of the environmental threats to the
eggs of the condors. The Question does not
discuss eliminating all of the threats – just reducing
them as much as possible. This inference goes
further than what is stated in the Question and it is
not the contra-positive of the reasoning contained in
the Question. Therefore, it is not likely to be the
correct Option. Option (D): This is the correct
option, as it states that if the condor eggs do not
hatch, then the condor as a species will not survive
in the wild. This is an exact reproduction of the
contra-positive as stated above. Option (E) states
Page 20 of 26
Marathon - I
that the most feasible way to protect the condor
from extinction is to increase egg production. The
Question does not discuss feasibility at all, only
possibility. Additionally, the Question does not
discuss egg production; it does discuss getting
more eggs to hatch, which should not be confused
with egg production. Option (E) introduces two new
concepts to the discussion and therefore it should
be eliminated.
16. (E); this is a parallel reasoning question. This question
provides a fairly simple argument:
Premise: ..... Increasing steel imports would hurt
the steel industry.
Premise: ..... The present government would not do
anything to hurt the steel industry.
Conclusion: ..... Therefore the government will
continue to restrict those imports. Because this
argument is on the simpler side, we will more likely
be able to double the conclusion and quickly
eliminate at least some of the wrong options
presented. Again, the author concludes that the
government will continue to restrict steel imports.
This is an absolute conclusion, so the option which
parallels the author’s argument should provide a
similarly absolute conclusion. Option (E): This is the
correct option. Option (E) is the only choice which
displays valid logic and an absolute conclusion. The
argumentation, as shown below, provides a solid
parallel:
Premise: ..... Bright floodlights would make the
telescope useless.
Premise: ..... The astronomy department wouldn’t
do anything to make the telescope useless.
Conclusion: ..... The astronomy department will not
support the floodlight idea. Incorrect option (A) ends
with a conclusion that is slightly less absolute: “we
can expect…” Additionally, this choice reflects a
mistaken negation, flawed reasoning which cannot
parallel the valid reasoning found in the question.
None of the other choices’ conclusions parallel the
absolute conclusion found in the question. Option
(B) provides, “there is no need…,” which doesn’t tell
us much about whether such regulations will be
established. Incorrect options (C) and (D) both end
in limited, rather than absolute, conclusions: “they
will probably result…,” and “will probably not accept
stock…”.
17. (D); the question can be summarized as:
Fact 1: Wild cheetahs live in the African grasslands.
It is an necessary condition.
Fact 2: Previous estimates of the size that the wild
cheetah population must be in order for these
animals to survive a natural disaster in the African
grasslands region were too small.
Fact 3: The current population barely meets the
previous estimates.
Fact 4: At present there is not enough African
grassland to support a wild cheetah population
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
larger than the current population. --> Necessary
condition is not met.
Analysis:
Fact 2 means previous cheetah population needed
to survive a natural disaster was too small.
Fact 3 means the current cheetah population is
even smaller that in the past. It means the current
cheetah population is not enough to survive a
natural disaster.
Fact 4 means the current cheetah population can’t
become larger because there is not enough African
grassland. Fact 4 clearly states that the cheetah
population is not increasing, at least in the short
term. Combine fact 2, 3, 4 we can say that in the
short term, the wild cheetah population will be
incapable of surviving a natural disaster in the
African grasslands. Thus, only option (D) is correct.
18. (B); the give principle is – work of art must satisfy 2
necessary conditions: (a) originality and (b) far
reaching influence upon artistic community. Option
(A) lacks anything about far reaching influence.
Option (B) is the correct answer satisfying both the
conditions. Option (C) presents originality and
profound impact. That is different from far reaching
influence. Option (D) is a cause and effect
argument. The art needs originality and far reaching
influence to be truly great. Not the other way
around and also this does not talk about far
reaching influence. Option (E) is a cause and effect
argument. The art needs originality and far reaching
influence to be truly great. This can be eliminated
as extreme condition.
19. (A); the given condition is – a particular crater was thought
to have been made by a meteorite that caused
mass extinctions in the late Mesozoic era.
Professor Robinson does not believe the impact
that caused this crater was to blame for the mass
extinction. This is because molten rocks reflect the
Earth’s polarity at the time they crystallize, and the
rocks around the crater are the reverse of the
polarity of the Earth at the time of the extinction.
The question is followed by an assumption X
question, which means that the all of the answers
except for one will provide an assumption on which
the author’s conclusion is based—that the meteor
that caused the crater was also responsible for the
mass extinction. The correct option will provide an
assumption on which the author’s conclusion does
not rely. Option (A): This is the correct option,
because the author did not need to assume that the
crater was more than sufficient size to cause the
mass extinction—it could have been just
sufficient—that, of course, would have been
enough. To confirm this as the right option, we can
take it away (by logically negating it) and note
whether or not the argument is weakened: “The
crater was not more than sufficient.” Again, since it
could have been just enough, this negated version
would not hurt the argument. Option (B): This is an
Page 21 of 26
Marathon - I
assumption that the author needs, because the
conclusion is based on the inconsistent polarity
between the crater site and the earth at the time of
the extinction; the argument assumes that the area
around the crater reflects the polarity at the time
that the crater was formed. A significant delay in
crystallization would thus weaken the argument.
Option (C): Since the author’s conclusion is based
in part on the assumption that the rocks around the
crater reflect the polarity at the time of the impact, if
the rocks at the location were melted by some other
event, that would weaken the argument. Thus the
author’s argument does assume that no other event
melted the rocks, so this choice cannot be the
answer to this Assumption except question. Option
(D): The author assumes that the surrounding rocks
were melted by the impact—if something else
caused the rocks to melt, that would weaken the
author’s argument, which depends on linking the
melted rocks to the timing of the impact (and the
mass extinction). Option (E): Again, the author’s
argument is that the impact happened at some time
other than the extinction—this is based on the
inconsistent polarities. If we negate, or take away,
this assumption, we get: The extinction would not
have occurred soon after the impact”. If that is the
case then that would weaken the author’s
argument, which is based on the assumption that if
the meteor had indeed caused the mass extinction,
the two events would have happened around the
same time.
20. (E); the argument in this question concludes that music
has a temporal dimension, while paintings do not.
This is supported by the fact that music is
presented as a set sequence of sounds, whereas
paintings are presented as a whole to the viewer,
and the viewer has no set path to follow with his
eyes. The obvious retort to this argument is "What
about the path that the viewer creates for himself
with his eyes when he views the painting? How is
viewing the painting first from the corners, then
inwards not a temporal sequence?" As such, even
though the viewer creates his own path while
viewing the painting, the path that he creates
supplies the temporal dimension. The only
difference, therefore, is who creates the path—with
music, it is the composer; with paintings, it is the
viewer. Nevertheless, in both cases, there remains
a temporal dimension. Option (A) It mentions the
passage of time as a red herring. However,
remember what the argument is about—the
absence of a set sequence or path in which the art
form is presented. Immersion in the experience of a
painting so that one loses track of the passage of
time has nothing to do with the rest of the question.
Option (B) The question is mainly dealing with
paintings, and only uses music as an example of an
art form that is allegedly distinct from paintings in
that it has a temporal dimension. The flaw in the
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
argument has nothing to do with the example of
music, but rather its discussion of paintings. Option
(C) This is an example of an option that at first
glance seems profound, but upon reflection, really
does not say anything useful at all. What are these
aspects common to both music and painting that
the argument fails to bring out? There may be
many, and indeed, can be anything that music and
paintings have in common, but even if brought out,
such would not remedy the flaw in the argument.
Option (D) it essentially criticizes the argument for
relying too much on the metaphor of "reading," so
much so that the metaphor itself assumes the
conclusion to be established. However using the
metaphor of reading in no way causes the
argument to assume the truth of the conclusion.
Rather, the argument still focuses on the lack of a
set sequence in which things are presented in a
painting to conclude that paintings lack a temporal
dimension. Option (E) is the correct option. It
rephrases our objection in more eloquent terms.
Hence, when viewing a painting, there exists some
path that the eye takes, and therefore, there exists
a temporal dimension in viewing a painting as the
eye moves along this path.
21. (D); there are two studies to deal with in this question.
The first involves the relative earnings of men and
women who are employed full time. The second
involves the relative earnings of all employed men
and women. The relative earnings for all employed
women are much lower than the relative earnings
for full time employed women. In such a situation,
you should look to see what would likely be the
factor in one survey that would cause such a
deviation. Here, the one thing that does not seem to
be addressed is the fact that part-time workers
were included in the second study. Therefore,
chances are the correct answer will involve part-
time workers. Option (A): The discrepancy we are
trying to resolve is based upon current salaries, not
on the changes in salaries through the years.
Therefore, any answer focused upon those
changes will do nothing to resolve the current
discrepancy. Option (B): This similarity between
men’s and women’s salaries in similar full time
positions would be factored into both studies, so
therefore would not have any effect on the
differences between the two studies. Option (C):
This would be a good option to explain changes in
women’s relative earnings from year to year, but it
does nothing to explain the differences in the two
studies regarding current earnings. Option (D): This
is the correct option. Here we finally find our option
that takes the part time workers into consideration.
Knowing that more women than men are part-time
workers and part-time workers earn less than full
time workers, explains the discrepancy between the
first study and the second study. Option (E): We are
concerned only with the differences between the
Page 22 of 26
Marathon - I
two studies in Naota. Any information regarding
differences in other countries is going to do nothing
to resolve the discrepancy between the two Naota
studies.
22. (D); given condition can be framed as : Some claim
island goats have evolved to be smaller, in order to
increase their number and ensure a diverse gene
pool. But there is only one way goats would evolve
(and make the trait of being small more common),
and that would be for smaller goats to have greater
success reproducing. So, the biologist disagrees
with the claim that the goats have evolved to
increase their numbers by becoming smaller--
evolution doesn't work that way--the individual
goats don't sense the need for greater numbers and
respond with smaller offspring. Instead, what has
lead to smaller goats on average must be some
factor other than evolutionary pressure. This is
provided by correct option (D), which states that
evolutionary pressure would not cause smaller
goats to become more common. Option (A) is an
Opposite Answer: take a look at the wording--it is a
perfect logical opposite of correct answer (D).
Option (B) is incorrect because greater reproductive
success could lead to a greater frequency of small
goats in island populations. Option (C) if true would
not support the biologist's view and would appear to
present a paradox, because smaller goats are more
frequent in island populations. Option (E) provides
that reduction in the average size of the population
is necessary. As you point out though, this is
irrelevant, because the question is whether
evolutionary pressure could have led to that size
reduction.
23. (E); The question of this problem contains a flawed
reasoning because it is missing the basis for
comparison:
75% of strict vegetarians reach 50 without
developing heart disease.
Sub-conclusion: Cause ..... ..... ..... ..... Effect
Vegetarianism ..... = ..... avoid heart disease.
Therefore, to reduce risk of heart disease, one
should not eat meat. This is, however, incorrect
reasoning since we do not know what percentage
of non-vegetarians reach 50 without developing
heart disease. If 75% of non-vegetarians reach 50
without developing heart disease, for example, then
the sub-conclusion of this argument is no longer
valid, neither is the final conclusion /
recommendation. Thus it is an incorrect reasoning.
Option (A): The reasoning in this option is sound,
so this cannot be the right option. The conclusion of
this argument also does not match that of the
question: it should say something to the effect of
"To avoid traffic accidents, one should drive below
the speed limit". Finally, this argument is missing a
sub-conclusion, which the question has. Option (B):
The reasoning in this option is sound as well. It is
not missing the basis for comparison: it states that
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
cigarette smokes have a greater chance of heart
disease than non-smokers. Also, this option is
missing a sub-conclusion, which the question has.
Option (C): This answer is missing a subsidiary
conclusion, which the question has. Moreover, the
conclusion of this answer also does not match that
of the question: it should conclude, instead, that
"people who want to avoid dental problems should
not drink coffee”. Option (D): This option is not
missing the basis for comparison because it states
that "people who do not exercise regularly have a
shorter life expectancy than those who exercise
regularly". Moreover, this choice lacks a sub-
conclusion. Finally, the conclusion does not match
that of the question: it should instead state that
"people who wish to live a longer life should
exercise regularly”. Option (E): This is the correct
option. Most people who exercise regularly can
handle stress.
Sub-conclusion: Cause ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Effect
Exercising Regularly ..... = ..... decrease chance of
being overwhelmed by Stress. Thus, to handle
stress better, one should exercise regularly. Again,
this is an incorrect reasoning since it is missing the
basis for comparison: if everyone who does not
exercise regularly can handle stress, for example,
then it seems that exercising regularly is actually
bad for handling stress, and the sub-conclusion and
conclusion of this argument will no longer stand. All
the parts of this argument match those of the
question, and it commits the same flaw, thus it is
the correct answer.
24. (C); Mr. Nance states that Ms. Chan said that she has
retired from Quad Cities Inc., but that he has
overheard one of her colleagues say that Ms. Chan
will be on business trips for much of the next year,
so he concludes that Ms. Chan or her colleague is
lying. Mr. Nance is ignoring the incredibly obvious
fact that Ms. Chan could simply work for another
company next year, or attend to her own business
affairs. Since you are asked to identify the flaw in
Mr. Nance's reasoning, you should focus on the fact
that he has ignored the many interpretations of the
situation in which no one is lying. Option (A): Mr.
Nance's argument is not based on hearsay; rather,
his argument is based on an overly extreme
acceptance or rejection of hearsay. If Mr. Nance
had concluded that Ms. Chan is definitely lying, he
would be basing his argument on hearsay;
however, Mr. Nance is just as open to rejecting the
hearsay as to accepting it. Option (B): Mr. Nance
does not criticize Ms. Chan, as he does not identify
the exact source of the "lying." Furthermore,
asserting that a claim is not true, or that someone
has lied, is in fact a criticism of the "claim." A
criticism of the person would involve designating
someone as a "liar." Option (C): This is the correct
option. The equivocal language referenced in this
option concerns use of the term "retired." Mr. Nance
Page 23 of 26
Marathon - I
apparently believes that his definition of retirement
should dictate the retirement activities of others.
While Nance may believe that retirement means
living on a golf course, it may be that Mr. Chan is
simply retiring from his current position while
continuing to work. Option (D): Since this response
would actually mean that Ms. Chan has lied to her
colleague, this response could not describe a flaw.
Even if Mr. Nance did not consider this possibility,
the possibility that Ms. Chan lied only supports the
idea that someone is not telling the truth, so this
choice is wrong. Option (E): Actually, assuming that
someone has superior character on the basis of a
long and loyal service is itself a logical flaw, and it is
not a flaw to refuse to infer things that do not
logically follow. This choice is wrong. Furthermore,
Mr. Nance never claims that Ms. Chan is the one
who is lying.
25. (B); The question concludes that more people believe
elected officials should resign if indicted that believe
they should resign if convicted, and argues that on
the basis that 50% of people believe an official
should resign if indicted, whereas 35% believe one
should resign only if convicted. If you keep your
Conditional wits about you, you can escape the
somewhat confusing nature of the question by
simply observing that since the 50% is
accompanied by an "if," while the 35% is
accompanied by an "only if," the percentages
cannot be compared because they are about
logically different types of conditions.
If not, you will need to diagram the question so that
you can clarify the issue:
Premises: ..... 50% believe "Indicted ..... = .....
Should Resign"
..... ..... 35% believe "Resign ..... =..... Convicted."
Conclusion: More believe that a politician should
resign if indicted than believe a politician should
resign if convicted. First of all, you should recognize
once again that you cannot make the comparison in
the conclusion, because you do not have
information about what people believe should occur
if someone is convicted, because conviction was
never presented as a sufficient condition. Secondly,
that conclusion is absurd, since everyone who has
been convicted has by definition been indicted (that
is common knowledge and you are supposed to
realize it). Everyone who believes a politician
should resign if indicted by definition believes that
the politician should resign if convicted. The LSAT
test-writers are simply using numbers that seem to
accompany their reasoning quite well in the hopes
that you will have a hard time disbelieving their
fundamentally absurd and flawed reasoning.
However, the easiest way to get this question
correct is simply to observe the illogical comparison
of a sufficient condition to a necessary position, and
proceed to identify that flaw. Option (A): This choice
references an overgeneralization, but the question
involved a necessary-sufficient error. This choice is
wrong. Option (B): This is the correct option. Simply
focusing on the "if" and "only if" should be sufficient
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
for you to notice that this choice is very probably
the correct response, even if your analysis is no
deeper. Option (C): The argument is not based on
the ambiguity of any of the terms. You should avoid
choosing such a response when you simply find the
question confusing. Frequently, confusing stimuli
are accompanied by choices about circular
reasoning, ambiguous terms, and impossible
reasoning in the hopes that confused test-takers
will basically choose the suicide option for such
questions. If you are confused, eliminate these
types of choices. This choice is incorrect. Option
(D): It is unclear what the third specific belief is,
unless it concerns comparing the numbers of
people who hold certain beliefs. It is actually not a
flaw to use information about two different beliefs to
make conclusions about certain third beliefs, as
long as the information is used in a consistent,
logical manner. Since it is not the goal, but rather
the method that is flawed, this choice is wrong.
Option (E): The argument contains no contradiction,
and this choice is for the testers who could not
understand the 50% and 35%. If you chose this
answer, you probably realized that the conclusion
had to be false, because if 50% of people believe
politicians should resign if indicted, then at least
50% of people have that same belief about
conviction. However, you probably did not realize
that the 35% is described by "only if," so is not
contradictory.
(Section-IV)
1. (A); Option (A) is correct answer. Siuzdak counters
Janeck's statement by saying that the experience of
running a major corporation is a valuable
experience to run for office and that he is qualified.
This means that Siuzdak interpreted Janeck's
remark to be suggesting that Stevenson was
unqualified for the office of governor. Option (B)
Mr. Janeck does not say this. He does imply that
many voters would not vote for a businessman with
no political experience. What about a Lawyer with
no political experience? This statement says No
Candidate, regardless of previous work/career
experience, has been elected without political
experience. Option (C) Mr. Janeck says the exact
opposite. Option (D) the issue is experience here.
Not how profit chasing affects the character of a
person and makes him unsuitable for government
office. Option (E) is incorrect because she
overlooked voters completely and responded to Mr
Janeck as if he had said the following: "A
businessman with no political experience should
not be elected to such a responsible public office."
2. (D); option (A) higher income group will not lend support
as they will end up paying more in a flat tax regime
than under progressive tax rate. Option (B) the
increase or decrease in tax revenue to the
government has not been mentioned. No numbers
to support that the revenue collected under flat tax
system will be higher. The ratio of lower income
and higher income group will also be a factor, which
has not been disclosed. Option (C) not necessarily,
maybe the flat tax will be fixed at rates presently
prescribed for the lower income group. Their
position will be unaltered. Option (D) The
progressive tax system does not always tax
thehigher income group more. The actual tax in
Page 24 of 26
Marathon - I
comparison to their income may be lower than the
tax rate being levied on the lower income group.
Option(E) possess same logic as option (C). The
lower income group may not enjoy a different
situation but the higher income group may end up
paying a higher tax rate than the effective tax rate
under the progressive system. Hence option (D) is
the appropriate answer.
3. (D); the question is asking about "misuse of confidential
information" and hence we can eliminate options
(A), (B), and (C). By clarifying option(A) "all
persons" there is nothing a person who is
concerned about his/her misusing his/her
information. So is option (B) as it describes the
depth of harm/abuse, which again is of little
importance/interest to the person who is concerned.
Eliminating option (C) is easy. We are left with
options (D) and (E). What interests more for a
person concerned about "misuse" of his confidential
information - US Laws - may be NO. Knowing all
the US LAWS would of no-help for someone who is
compliant with laws. Also, knowing "appropriate
circumstances" when the information be released to
authorized personal is important. So option (D) is
the correct answer.
4. (E); While cameras, stereos, and video games arguably
rank as ’high technology’, frozen foods certainly do
not. Thus, option (E) fails to strengthen, and is
correct. Remaining options are strengthening hence
eliminated.
5. (B); only option (B) best summarizes the passage.
Option (A) passage only says Johnson's text is still
guilty of its own forms of distortion hence discarded.
Options (C), (E) and (D) are irrelevant and out of
scope.
6. (C); the main argument has 2 parts - Premise: Law
requiring companies to offer parental leave will
harm the nation’s business competitiveness;
Conclusion: Companies must set their own parental
policies. Options weakening the argument are:
option (A): irrelevant, this doesn't say that
strengthening the family means more a competitive
nation; option (B) if many offer some form of leave,
then this could strengthen the fact that comps
should set their own policies; option (D) irrelevant;
option (E) is again irrelevant. Option (C) is the
correct answer because if some with the most
competitive businesses have strong regulations,
then there must be something flawed in the
argument.
7. (C); we are given A -> B, B -> C, and C -> D, and told
they're all true. Since they're all true, you can say A
-> D. Then by the law of contra positive, ~D -> ~A.
The answer is (C).
8. (A); only option (A) can be easily inferred while
remaining options are irrelevant as per situation.
9. (A); option (A) is the answer. "It is ironic that the
innocent passenger should suffer for the driver's
carelessness, while the driver often suffers only
minor injuries or none at all." What if the driver was
not at fault? i.e. another car caused the accident.
For the reasoning to be true, most automobile
accidents must be caused by the driver in which an
occupant is killed. A states this. Remaining options
do not go with the reasoning of the passage.
10. (C); From the last line of the passage we can come to
main conclusion that despite of various factors
author is coming back to point of following the
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
“truth”, this conclusion is shown analogous to
“water”. Hence only option (C) is the correct
answer.
11. (E); the main point can be inferred directly from option
(E). Remaining options are irrelevant hence
eliminated.
12. (D); the given argument comprise of :
Conclusion: the Daily Bugle is owned by an out-of-
town business syndicate that couldn't care less
about the people of Gothan City.
Evidence: Daily Clarion is the only real voice of the
people Gothan City. The fundamental thing about
question like this is if you inadvertently take
conclusion for evident, you will miss the point.
Therefore, for refuting means to prove to be false
the argument, we must select answer that denies
the conclusion. Option (A) does not deny anything
about Daily Bulge. Option (B) does not deny Daily
Bulge. Option (C) does not deny Daily Bulge.
Option (D) refuses the fact that Daily Bugle is
owned by out-of-town business syndicate. If the
Editor-in-chief and all other editorial staff have lived
and worked in Gotham City for ten years, then we
cannot really say they less about the people of
Gothan City. Option (E) it’s not about how many
years Daily Bulge has been publishing. Hence
correct answer is option (D).
13. (E); the main argument is depletion of earth’s resources
at very fast rate. As mentioned in the second
sentence of the passage only option (E) satisfies
the mandatory assumption. Hence (E) is the
answer.
14. (B); option (A) if new resources are being constantly
discovered, then there is no need for the US to
keep a check on their resource consumption. This
option weakens the argument. Option (C) this
option teaches an important lesson: More countries
need economic development- There is no reason to
believe so. Do not use your prejudice in this option
that US does not need more development as
compared to other countries. Approach the
question as if United States is Country X which you
have never heard of in that case you can tell that
there is no reason to prove that other countries
need more development. Option (D) other countries
have put a check on the resource consumption but
does it imply the United States also needs to do so
. It is possible that other countries 's present level of
consumption is 50 times that of US .In that case by
US putting a check on its consumption does not
help World's cause too much. Option (E) since its
been conserving resources for several yrs it might
already be judicious in using its resources is what
this option suggests which is not suggested
anywhere in the argument and can’t be verified, if it
were the case the world resources would not have
been threatened. Option (B) since US takes 1/3rd
of the share of consumption, this indicates that US
is one of the major shareholder in consumption and
maintaining current levels is the least it can do to
prevent the resources from depleting at a faster
rate. This is the only option which strengthens the
argument to some extent.
15. (C); in option (A) the facts she presents do not support
her conclusion that Senator Frank is soft on crime. -
She does not present any such facts. In option (B)
she assumes without proof that crime is the most
important issue in the upcoming election. - It is the
Page 25 of 26
Marathon - I
issue which she is concerned with. In option (C)
she argues in a circle, using an unsupported
assertion to dismiss conflicting evidence. - I agree,
she states that the latest law must be soft because
he is not a strong supporter of crime. She does not
prove so. Hence it is the correct answer. Option (D)
she attacks Senator Frank on personal grounds
rather than on his merit as a political leader. - The
issue is related only to war on crime. Option (E) in
deciding not to vote for Senator Frank, she fails to
consider issues other than crime. - Irrelevant.
16. (C); the author in the above passage is condemning the
television coverage on election campaigns and only
option (C) is providing appropriate solution to the
issue highlighted in the passage. Option (A) is
talking about number of hours in terms of length of
election campaigns which is not our concern, the
main topic is regarding its television coverage.
Hence too vague and can be eliminated. Option
(B), (D) and (E) are irrelevant options.
17. (B); option (A) proposition 13 is unconstitutional
because it imposes an unequal tax on properties of
equal value. - "unconstitutional" is an additional
information. Option (B) if proposition 13 is repealed,
every homeowner is likely to experience a
substantial increase in property taxes. - no visible
contradictions. Option (C) by preventing inflation
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433| www.legaledge.in
from driving up property values, Proposition 13 has
saved homeowners thousands of dollars in property
taxes. - "preventing inflation" is additional
information. Option (D) If Proposition 13 is not
repealed; identical properties will continue to be
taxed at different rates. - Properties is
generalization of houses. We cannot infer it from
the passage. Option (E) Proposition 13 has
benefited some homeowners more than others. -
I'm not sure but it seems to be incomplete and "has
benefited" is not clear here for me. Hence option
(B) is the correct answer.
18. (D); option (D) can be deduced from sentence- "But
what does the company think sailboat hulls used to
be made of?”. Hence D is the correct answer.
Option (A), (B) and (C) are irrelevant while option
(E) is out of scope.
19. (A); the main conclusion of author is – highlighting the
mania for high technology by a leading chemical
company. Only option (A) weakens the conclusion
as it is talking about good quality and advantage of
product produced by high technology. Remaining
options are strengthening the conclusion hence
eliminated.
20. (D); the main quality the teacher wants to imbibe in
student is patience i.e option (D).
Page 26 of 26