Past LSAT Explained/PrepTest 35

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
< Past LSAT Explained
Jump to: navigation, search

October 2001 Form 1LSS51

Contents

Section I Logical Reasoning[edit]

Question 01[edit]

IDENTIFY

This is a Conclusion question.

Question 02[edit]

Question 03[edit]

Question 04[edit]

Question 05[edit]

IDENTIFY

This is a Method of Argument question.

READ

Proponent and Opponent discusses the merit of gamma ray radiation of food.

ANALYZE

Your task is to evaluate how the opponent's argument proceeds.

CHOOSE

(A) Incorrect. There is no ambiguity in a crucial term here.

(B) Incorrect. No self-contradition mentioned.

(C) Incorrect. The proponent only proposes one remedy which is irration by gamma ray.

(D) Incorrect. Safety with respect to producers is not discussed at all in the passage.

(E) Correct. This response suggests an alternative means- using a safe chemical dip. This method without the particular disadvantage which is leaving Salmonella intact.

Question 06[edit]

Question 07[edit]

Question 08[edit]

Question 09[edit]

Question 10[edit]

Question 11[edit]

Question 12[edit]

Question 13[edit]

Question 14[edit]

IDENTIFY

This is an Assumption question. You need to analyze the formal logic strcture of this passage to answer the question.

  • novelist
  • academia

READ

Some difficult words are here such as intersperse.

ANALYZE

CHOOSE

(A) Incorrect. This response introduces a foreign concept of impartiality which is irrelevant in the passage.

(B) Incorrect. the powers of observation and analysis is only useful but not required. This needs not be assumed. The passage focuses on the intuitive grasp of the emotions and response (B) does not impact the central logic.

(C) Incorrect. Participation in life is not required at all. The logic of the argument hinges on the intuitive grasp which does not require participation.

(D) Correct. To see if this assumption is vital, suppose this reponse is negated. Novelists can be great without an grasp of the emotions. The factor which prevented the people in the academia from becoming a great novelist is gone! The author can no longer argue that you can't be great if one remain in the academia.

(E) Incorrect. This one is an attractive choice. The key here is the difference between knowledge and an intuitive grasp. The passage leads us to differentiate the aspects of emotions that can be grasped by observing and analyzing them as a dutiful scholar would do. The author argues that there are intangible aspects of the emotions that the scholars miss and that aspects had to be experienced by immersing oneself in real life. Just like you can read about law school but it is nothing like experiencing one.

Question 15[edit]

Question 16[edit]

Question 17[edit]

Question 18[edit]

Question 19[edit]

Question 20[edit]

Question 21[edit]

Question 22[edit]

Formal logic question

The argument follows:

  • c --> ~t
  • p --> t (cpositive: ~t --> ~p)
  • ~p --> h

So it leads: c --> ~t --> ~p --> h, thus All members of the family H are C.

Question 23[edit]

Question 24[edit]

Question 25[edit]

Question 26[edit]

Section II Reading Comprehension[edit]

Passage 1 Social Science French Revolution Women La Villirouet

Question 01[edit]

Question 02[edit]

Question 03[edit]

Question 04[edit]

Question 05[edit]

Question 06[edit]

Passage 2 Humanity Romare Bearden African American History

Question 07[edit]

Question 08[edit]

Question 09[edit]

Question 10[edit]

Question 11[edit]

Question 12[edit]

Question 13[edit]

Question 14[edit]

Passage 3 Natural Science

  • Philosophy of Science
  • biology
  • physics
  • DNA
  • Biological determist

Question 15[edit]

Question 16[edit]

Question 17[edit]

Question 18[edit]

Question 19[edit]

Question 20[edit]

Passage 4 Law

  • Ronald Dworkin
  • natural law
  • legal positivism

Question 21[edit]

Question 22[edit]

Question 23[edit]

Question 24[edit]

I can NOT figure out why the answer is E here. Can anyone help??

Another reminder why reading a sentence for its full meaning is so important on the LSAT. Look at line 27. "According to Dworkin, this account is incompatible with the actual practice of judges and lawyers, who act as if there is a fact of the matter even in cases where there is no consensus. The theory he proposes seeks to validate this practice without falling into what Dwokin correctly sees as the error of natural law theory."

Reading the entire sentence gives you E, and helps on question 25 as well.

Question 25[edit]

Question 26[edit]

Section III Analytical Reasoning[edit]

Question 01[edit]

Question 02[edit]

Question 03[edit]

Question 04[edit]

Question 05[edit]

Question 06[edit]

Question 07[edit]

Question 08[edit]

Can someone figure out why E is the correct answer for this question? I am having trouble making the deductions that make it logical that Z has a sunroof.

Question 09[edit]

Question 10[edit]

Question 11[edit]

Question 12[edit]

Question 13[edit]

Question 14[edit]

Question 15[edit]

Question 16[edit]

Question 17[edit]

Question 18[edit]

Question 19[edit]

Question 20[edit]

Question 21[edit]

Question 22[edit]

Question 23[edit]

Question 24[edit]

Section IV Logical Reasoning[edit]

Question 01[edit]

Question 02[edit]

Question 03[edit]

Question 04[edit]

Question 05[edit]

Question 06[edit]

Question 07[edit]

Question 08[edit]

Question 09[edit]

Question 10[edit]

Question 11[edit]

Question 12[edit]

Question 13[edit]

Question 14[edit]

Question 15[edit]

Question 16[edit]

Question 17[edit]

Question 18[edit]

Question 19[edit]

Question 20[edit]

Question 21[edit]

Question 22[edit]

Question 23[edit]

Question 24[edit]

Question 25[edit]

Question 26[edit]

The materials adapted for LSAT.