Past LSAT Explained/PrepTest 64
Section I Logical Reasoning[edit | edit source]
Question 01[edit | edit source]
Simple main conclusions question. Often when there is a but it is the counter-argument which everything else revolves around or is the main point so to speak.
Looking at the question we can look for something that states what is followed.
Done perfectly by answer C.
If we look at the other answers they are either premises or not stated in the conclusion this is an easy question without need to elaborate.
Question 02[edit | edit source]
Must be true question- It tells us that in order for panthers to be self sustaining population it must reach 250 but, the habitat is not large enough to accommodate this. Hence we can infer that they will not be self sustaining.
A-we can not know anything regarding this from the stimulus hence, it is wrong B- no, this is not true, we know that if the population exceeds 250 the current habitat will not be able to accommodate hence, it will not be self sustaining, C- Yes, We know that the panther population is increasing and we know that if they remain in their current habitat it will not accommodate them therefore in order for them to be self sustaining, they will need to get a large habitat. Also, through POE you can determine that this is the righttext D-no, we do not know that and according to the argument it is increasing E- No! we do not know that- they could be in the same habitat just more crowded, think of cities
Question 03[edit | edit source]
This is a method of reasoning a little tricky. Think go the way the argument is set up it begins by telling us a criticism, then it states that this is wrong due to the fact that it fails to consider another outcome of implementing equality. . Looking at the answers we can look for something like that but, the way that they are stated often is confusing so POE is helpful
A- it says that the argument discredits the view by showing a slippery slope. It does not do this b- Yes, this is the answer the argument assumes that implementing will result in a certain outcome while the scents claims otherwise. c-it does not resort in ad hominem attack D- it does not do that e. Uses no universal claim
Question 04[edit | edit source]
This is a correlation vs Causation type argument, it assumes that because something has happened it is a result of that.we must counter this. the argument assumes that the magentas resulted in a decrease in pain.
A- does perfectly. if we say that believing makes one feel better this would undermine the theory. B- does not undermine the argument , irrelevant C-irrelevant, doesn't matter we need to counter that the magnets made the pain go away. we do not care about the scientist D-irrelevant, doesn't matter we need to counter that the magnets made the pain go away. we do not care about the scientist E irrelevant does not affect the argument