Past LSAT Explained/PrepTest 42
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
October 2001 Form 1LSS51
[edit] Section I 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] Section II Logical Reasoning
[edit] Question 01
IDENTIFY
This is a Weaken question.
READ
Conclusion: Carl is incompetent. Premise: Lowest rate of solving cases- a statistic- among the detectives.
ANALYZE
The logic hinges on the job performance statistic for Carl. How shall we attack this statistic? We need to find a way to discredit this statistic or make it irrelevant.
CHOOSE
(A) Correct. This fact makes the statistic loses its force. He was assigned to the toughest cases because he was the best. A similar example- because there are fewer A grades given at MIT than at LSAC Community College does not mean the MIT students are worsen than those of the LSAC College.
(B) Incorrect. This is not relevant. Carl’s performance after he became a detective is the issue here and he being respected by the resident isn’t outside the scope. We can use this fact to strengthen the argument, saying that he is incompetent because he is unwilling to risk his reputation among the residents and always plays Mr. Nice guy to everyone.
For Choice B to be correct, the passage should look something like this:
- Carl is clearly the most competent detective. Though he has been a detective for less than a year, he is by far the most respected detective on the police force, which includes many who have been detective for more than ten years. Since people generally show the greatest respect to the most capable detectives, Carl’s excellent reputation can only have come from the display of his extraordinary ability in such a short period of time.
(C) Incorrect. Since Carl and other detectives are provided with the same kind of resources, it does not weaken the conclusion (and thus defending Carl’s position within the police force) necessarily. Carl performed miserably despite having all the same resources as the others.
- Detectives on the police force must be clairvoyant. They seem to know everything about the suspects and all the relevant information that can potentially lead to the solution. A normal person is incapable of remembering and keeping track of all the information that detectives handle daily and this can only be possible if the detectives have some supernatural powers.
(D) Incorrect. This fact only shows that he improved but does not show that he is not incompetent. We can actually use this fact to argue that Carl is truly helpless. You can say his rate of improvement is so low and performance so dismal for someone with 4 years of prior detective experience.
- Carl is clearly an extremely competent detective. No other detective on the police force has solved a greater percentage of the cases assigned than Carl- 1 out of 25- despite that he has been on the police force only for three years. His impressive performance despite of his relative inexperience now rivals those of detectives who have worked for more than 7 years.
(E) Incorrect. Promotion is totally out of scope. We can concerned with competence here. Moreover, promotion is not always based on merit- in many government organizations, it is based on seniority.
- This yellow page, only six years old, has so many typographical errors. I’ve called dozens of people on the police department using the number on the page and they were all wrong. Carl who is a detective on the police department said that the department always submits the correct and up to date contact information to the publisher.
[edit] Question 02
IDENTIFY
This is a Method of Argument question.
READ
The passage presents a hypothesis.
ANALYZE The structure of the passage is: Premise 1. Old fact (established) Premise 2. New fact (newly revealed) Conclusion. A hypothesis which incorporates the old fact and new fact.
An example of an argument parallel this structure is:
It is well documented that people who take an intensive LSAT coaching course have a strong aversion to the analytical reasoning section. Recently, the LSAC research data have revealed that people who self-study without any outside help also dislike the analytical reasoning section very much. This shows that people's preferences for a certain LSAT section are conditioned not only by some LSAT prep courses but also by independent study.
CHOOSE
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
[edit] Question 03
IDENTIFY
This is a Weaken question.
READ
A typical medical topic question.
ANALYZE
A correlation is shown on the first sentence and the second sentence establishes a causal relationship. An LSAT favorite- correlation and causation aren't the same!
CHOOSE
(A) Incorrect. The passage does define the term "hypertensive personality" to be the personality combination of nervousness and anxiousness. Moreover, even if the passage doesn't define the term, it is still incorrect because the flaw is not in the absence of adequate definition. Imagine having to define every single term in any argument if failing to do so would make the argument vulnerable to criticism.
(B) Incorrect. Nowhere in the argument you see the world "permanent". The passage does not presuppose it at all so it is a completely groundless criticism so you can safely ignore it.
(C) Incorrect. The argument goes further than simply restating the claim that hypertensive personality exists. It links it to development of high blood pressure. A nice try but it tackles a flaw that does not exist.
(D) Correct. Exactly what we are looking for.
(E) Incorrect. This is an attractive choice but it does not address the critical flaw of the argument. Moreover, the argument does not preclude other personality traits from causing high blood pressure. The argument did not say "is the only cause of high blood pressure".
[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] Section III Reading Comprehension
Passage I Law Thurgood Marshall Supreme Court justice NAACP civil rights movement public interest law expert testimony public interest litigation
[edit] Question 01
[edit] Question 02
[edit] Question 03
[edit] Question 04
[edit] Question 05
[edit] Question 06
[edit] Question 07
[edit] Question 08
Passage 2 Humanity Roy Lichtenstein expressionism Pop Art
[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] Section IV Logical Reasoning
[edit] Question 01
IDENTIFY This is a Strengthen question.
READ
ANALYZE
CHOOSE
[edit] Question 02
READ
An economist makes an argument in favor of capitalism.
ANALYZE
The argument proceeds like this. The communal ties are weakened. The large corporations come in. The communal ties are promoted. The assumption required is that the large corporations somehow have the effect of reversing the effect of weakening the communal ties.
CHOOSE
(A) Incorrect.
(B) Incorrect.
(C) Incorrect.
’’’(D) Correct.’’’
(E) Incorrect.
[edit] Question 03
IDENTIFY
This is a Method of Argument question.
READ
ANALYZE
CHOOSE (A) Correct. (B) Incorrect. (C) Incorrect. (D) Incorrect. (E) Incorrect.
