Past LSAT Explained/PrepTest 26
Back to Past LSAT Explained
Section I Analytical Reasoning
Section II Logical Reasoning
IDENTIFY This ia a flaw question. The keyword here is "questionable" in the question.
READ Politician P, as most politicians do, is attacking his opponent's claim. He states his oponent's claim in the first sentence and attacks it in the second sentence and argues that his opponent is "mistaken". His reasoning is that raising taxes upsets the taxpayers because of the loss of purchasing power and therefore, it is wrong.
ANALYZE His reasoning is that whatever makes people upset, it is wrong. It is a questionable logic because anything that lead to a number of people becoming upset is deemed "simple mistaken".
CHOOSE Let's go through the answer response one by one.
(A) Incorrect. P does not presupposes that the claim is wrong. P has a reason for it. Moreover, no "other unpopular views" is mentioned here. Raising tax may be a unpopular view but there is nothing else.
(B) Incorrect. There is no attack on character here. The politician only describes the effect of the claim that people would be upset.
(C) Correct. Right on target. P argues that raising tax (or the implementation of the claim) would lead to unhappiness (many taxpayers becoming upset).
(D) Incorrect. There is no irrelvant issue in the argument.
(E) Incorrect. P actually argues that the obligation does not exist. This choice is for the people who misread the question, thinking that the task is to find the flaw in the opponent's reasoning not Politician P's. Be careful.
IDENTIFY This is a flaw question. READ The editorialist argues that if one is mature enough to handle the responsibilities, then we can give the person the previleges. Previledges entail responsibilities. Then the editorialists cite a scientific fact that people are physically mature by 17.
ANALYZE He mistakenly equates physical maturity with all around maturity. Just because one is physically mature does not mean the person is capable in all regards. You can't run for U.S. president or the Senate when you are 18. You can't even buy alochol legally in the States.
CHOOSE (A) Incorrect. The argument does not assume what it sets out to prove. If this is the case, it would be a circular reasoning and easy to spot.
(B) Incorrect. The weakness is not in the small number of examples. The evidence the editorialist uses is pretty powerful. "Science has established" he says. He implies that there have been conclusive research findings to support this to be a generally accepted theory.
(C) Correct. You need to remember the definition of "equivocate" which is like beating around the bush. The editorialist confuses us by implying that physically maturity is all that is required for accepting adult's responsibilities, which isn't true. He is playing with the central concept of maturity.
(D) Incorrect. There is no authority here. He did not appeal to some eminent scientist. Even if there exists some goddess of science, she is not an inappropriate authority. She would be the authority. Therefore, this choice is clearly wrong.
(E) Incorrect. This is a side issue. The editorialist's argument is consistent with this choice since it could be true that most are mature by 17 while some are mature at 16. So this choice does not weaken the argument.
This is a parrell reasoning question. You might want to consider skipping if you are not very good at this type of questions or low on time.
Read carefully for the structure.
Use your logic game diagramming skill to briefly sketch the structure. All A -> commercial or critical All critical -> commercial All A -> commercial or commercial (substitute critical with commercial) All A -> commercial
(A) Incorrect. The word "Most" ruins it. The passage says "every new play". This choice is not a 100% foolproof logic because "most" opens a hole. (B) Incorrect. (C) Correct. (D) Incorrect. (E) Incorrect.
This is a flaw question.
Mr. Ziegler is on trial for shooting. His lawyer argues that his client is not guilty because he was insane when he fired the shot. The lawyer points out that the plaintiff did not prove (probably could not) that he was sane during the firing but only provided evidence that he is sane after the incident.
The attonery does not see the link between the defendant's sanity after the crime and his mental state before the crime. If he is sane now, why wouldn't he be sane then? His sanity after the crime sugguests a strong probability that he was sane then.
(A) Incorrect. We do not known Ziegler's professional qualification or educational background. The attorney does not raise this point.
(B) Incorrect. The lawyer does not conclude that there is a lack of evidence for his sanity- in fact, there is as the plaintiff submitted. The attorney does not provide any evidence against his sanity. He concludes that Ziegler is insane for lack of evidence in contrary.
(C) Incorrect. Ziegler's consulting firm may be worried about this point but this is not relevant.
(D) Incorrect. Moral responsibility is not an issue here. Legal culpability is. Moreover, this response does not address any flaw in the reasoning.
(E) Correct. Bingo. His sanity later indicates that he may be sane before.
This is a disagreement question. As the passage above indicates Monica and Hector are arguing about something.