Past LSAT Explained/PrepTest 45

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

The December 2004 LSAT Form 1LSS51

On most test forms, the experimental section appeared in Section 3. 

Ratings of this administration placed its difficulty on par with other recent exams.


Logical Reasoning One scored Arguments section had 25 questions, and the other had 26. Test takers rated the Arguments sections as harder than usual. Most said the 25-question section was harder than the 26-question section, largely due to the mix of question types. The 26-question section had a more typical distribution of question tasks, and the 25-question section had a relatively large number of tough flaw and principle questions. Overall, there were fewer inference questions than usual.

Reading Comprehension Instead of the usual breakdown of topics - science, law, social science, and arts/humanities, the December RC section had one law, one science, and two social science/policy passages. Though the passage distribution was atypical, the questions tasks and answer choices were comparable to those on other recent exams. Examinees varied in their assessment of passage difficulty, but many said the law passage had the most difficult questions. The first passage had eight questions and advocated changes to the provision of relief after natural disasters. The second passage had six questions, and the author responded to those who criticize the relevance of the Hippocratic Oath in contemporary medicine. The third passage had five questions, and it described how new research into the DNA of the fungi in lichen has led to new insight into the evolutionary path of lichens. Eight questions accompanied the last passage, which dealt with provisions in the Canadian constitution that protect aboriginal rights.


Contents

Section I Logical Reasoning[edit]

Question 01[edit]

IDENTIFY

This is a conclusion question.

READ The author criticizes economists' argument about consumption as a measure of economic well-being.

ANALYZE The Conclusion + Evidence

CHOOSE

(A) Correct.

(B) Incorrect. This is a stretch and outside the scope.

(C) Incorrect. This is not true.

(D) Incorrect. This statement can be inferred from the second sentence but it is not what the author is leading us to.

(E) Incorrect. Maybe, but the author does not make this argument. He only discredits the economists obsession.

The following is a parallel question.

The obsession of the generals with manpower as a measure of military strength has prevented us from understanding the true nature of military power. Having a huge number of poorly trained and unequipped soldiers contribute little to the military power and the need to feed them can be a drain to national resources.

The author arguing that

(A) military strength cannot be defined solely in terms of manpower

(B) military power can be measured without considering manpower

(C) valid measures of military power cannot be formulated

(D) a large army of poorly equipped soldiers is a drain to the nation

(E) Things that contribute to the military power can provide an adequate quantitative measure of economic well-being

Question 02[edit]

IDENTIFY

This is a weaken question.

READ

The commentator discusses ozone layer depletion and an argument that we don't have to worry.

ANALYZE The author's view is that our ancestors was alright even though they were subject to something worse. So we should be OK. This argument presupposes that our ancestors and we are somewhat similar. The weakness is to attack this crucial point.

CHOOSE

(A) Incorrect.

(B) Incorrect.

(C) Correct.

(D) Incorrect.

(E) Correct.

Politician: Many people argue that the news release of the senator's misconduct into the media is distablizing the government and thus hurts the national interest. But 30 years ago a similar political scandal involving the president erupted in the country with no significant effect on our country's political stability. Because the president's scandal was far more serious than the secretary's today, there is no reason to think that the current news is affecting the country significantly.

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the politician's argument?

(A) Scandals involving the government officials tend to occur less often than those involving the celebrities.

(B) Loss of popularity among people continue to damage the president's prestige.

(C) People 30 years ago had much greater trust and faith in the government officials than we do now.

(D) The reputation damaged by scandals recovers at a slow rate, barring any chance for reelection.

(E) The country changed from a dictatorship to a democracy during the period the president was in power 30 years ago.

Question 03[edit]

A reason the physcist cannot give an expert opinion on the damage of the ozone layer is that she does not have necessary background knowledge in atmospheric science. On the other hand, a reason the biologist cannot is that he does not quite have the training in using the mesasurement tools. So, the task must be assigned to the chemist, the only scientist in the city other than the sciologist and biologist.

The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?

(A) The physicist has the proper training in using the measurement tools. (B) The expert opinion cannot be given by anyone other than a scientist in the city. (C) The biologist could have give an expert opinion if (D) (E)

Question 04[edit]

IDENTIFY

This is a Method of Argument question.

Question 05[edit]

Removed from scoring.

Question 06[edit]

Question 07[edit]

Question 08[edit]

trust mutual respect relationship marriage friendship

Dioxins, which cannot be synthesized except in the paper mills, is found in all fish noted for reproductive abnormalities whether they are from fresh water or ocean. However, the abnormalities in fresh water fish, such as loss of fins and inability to swim quickly, emerge only when the fish is infected with a LSAC virus which make them suspectible to dioxins to penetrate their body. Therefore, if fresh water fish have an abnormality, they must have infected with the virus at some point letting dioxins enter their body.

If the statements above are true, then which one of the following must also be true?

(A) A fresh water fish with no contact with a LSAC virus will not suffer from reproductive abnormality. (B) In the context of all reproductive abnormalities, paper mills resuppose dioxins. (C) (D) (E)

Question 09[edit]

Question 10[edit]

Question 11[edit]

Question 12[edit]

12. The environmentalist have noted bad breath of the people attending the annual LSAC dinner party. One possible cause is garlic rich dishes, which the party is abundant of. However, garlic dishes are unlikely to be the cause, since the most guests do not have bad breath in a few minutes after the party and garlic smell usually stays in the mouth for a long time.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) (B) (C) All guests are given a special mint when they leave that neutralizes garlic residue instantly. (D) Some guests still had bad breath after leaving the party. (E)

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 Reading Comprehension[edit]

Passage 1 Disaster Relief

Question 01[edit]

Question 02[edit]

Question 03[edit]

Question 04[edit]

Question 05[edit]

Question 06[edit]

Passage 2 Hippocratic Oath

Question 07[edit]

Question 08[edit]

Question 09[edit]

Question 10[edit]

Question 11[edit]

Question 12[edit]

Question 13[edit]

This is an attitude question.

Question 14[edit]

Question 15[edit]

Question 16[edit]

Question 17[edit]

Question 18[edit]

Question 19[edit]

Passage 4 Law

  • aboriginal rights

Question 20[edit]

Question 21[edit]

This is a purpose question.

Question 22[edit]

Question 23[edit]

Question 24[edit]

Question 25[edit]

Question 26[edit]

Question 27[edit]

Question 28[edit]

Section III Analytical Reasoning[edit]

This section was easier than usual. Game 1 order in which a woman scheduled five meetings and a workout (Easiest)

Question 01[edit]

Question 02[edit]

Question 03[edit]

Question 04[edit]

Question 05[edit]

Game 2 six people played in four chess matches of two players each (medium)

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]

Game 3 determining which one or more of seven people appeared in an album of photographs (medium) Game 4 Three groups each exported two of five products. (hardest)

Question 17[edit]

Question 18[edit]

Question 19[edit]

Question 20[edit]

Question 21[edit]

Question 22[edit]

Section IV Logical Reasoning[edit]

Question 01[edit]

IDENTIFY This is a conclusion question.

READ

The author is defending Mayor McKinney.

ANALYZE

CHOOSE (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

The government's action to require all the shoe factories to clean up the water in the nearby wetland has often been criticized on the grounds that it hurts the shoe industry, but that is not a fair evaluation. The government action in fact benefits the industry in the long run. The cleaner wetland will promote tourism in the area bringing many people to shop at the local shoe stores which helps the industry to sell many more shoes.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?

(A) It is impossible to tell wehther the government is more committed to the interests of the industry than to the enviromental cause. (B) The government has often been criticized for hurting the local industry. (C) The requirement to clean up the water will add costs to making shoes. (D) The criticism that the government action hurts the manufacturing industry is unwarranted. (E) The government's effort has increased tourists to the area and raised the income of the residents.

Question 02[edit]

IDENTIFY

This is a principle question.

READ

ANALYZE

CHOOSE

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]

Arbitration enables the parties to avoid the time and cost associated with going to trial. This always permits more flexibility and strongly encourages dialogue between the parties since arbitration facilitates negotiation and bargaining. Arbitration also permits the court to focus on more urgent cases without being overwhelmed by the senseless cases.

The statement above most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) Having no arbitration in the legal system is not maximally flexible. (B) (C) (D) (E) The people who take advantage of arbitration always avoid the cost of going to trial.

Question 19[edit]

Question 20[edit]

Question 21[edit]

ettiquette

Principle

Question 22[edit]

Question 23[edit]

Question 24[edit]

Question 25[edit]

Question 26[edit]

Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously. Copyright 1977 by Pantheon Books.

James H. March, ed., The Canadian Encyclopedia. Copyright 1988 by Hurtig Publishers Ltd.

Christopher B. Ogden, "What Kinds of Help?" Copyright 1993 by Time Inc.

Edmund D. Pellegrino, MD, "Ethics: Rethinking the Hippocratic Oath." Copyright 1996 by the American Medical Association.

Norman Solomon, Hidden Agenda. Copyright 1995 by San Francisco Bay Guardian Co., Inc.

Carol Kaesuk Yoon, "Pariahs of the Fungal World, Lichens Finally Get Some Respect." Copyright June 13, 1995 by The New York Times.