14-PrepTest 14 Expls

KAPLAN LSAT PREP

LSAT RELEASED TEST XIV EXPLAINED A Guide to the February, 1995 LSAT

KAPLAN The answer to the test question.

1995 Stanley H. Kaplan Educational Center Ltd All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by photostat, microfilm, xerography or any other means, or incorporated into any information retrieval system, electronic or mechanical, without the written permission of Stanley H. Kaplan Educational Center Ltd.

SECTION I: LOGIC GAMES

© K A PL A N

1

LSAT PREP _______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test XIV Explained: Section I

GAME 1 — Company Employees (Q. 1-6 ) The Action: We’re asked to group five employees—F, G, H, K, and L—(a Godsend; more entities would have made this game considerably less manageable) into three categories— president, manager, and technician. There’s an extra dimension in this one: Some employees supervise other employees. The Key Issues are: 1) What employees can, must, or cannot be distributed into each group? 2) What employees can, must, or cannot supervise what other employees? The Initial Setup: This is not an easy setup to get a handle on, because we want to include not only the consideration of position, but also who supervises whom. One way is to mimic a “family tree” type of game, with entities placed above and below each other and connected by lines. This way we can place entities who supervise over those they supervise and connect them with lines, like so (the exact numbers of each position will have to wait for the rules):

President FGHKL

Manager Technician

The Rules: This game has many vital rules built into the opening paragraph: We’re told that only the president is not supervised, and that each employee is supervised by one employee who is either the president or a manager. We can infer then that technicians cannot supervise anyone. We’re also told that the supervised employee has a different position than his or her supervisor. Since the supervised employee and the supervisor cannot hold the same position, this means that all managers are supervised by the president and all technicians are supervised by a manager or the president. These basic rules are just as important as the indented ones. If you missed them, the game is undoable.

2

© K A PL A N


1) Only one president means that only one of our employees will go unsupervised. Note how Logic Games tend to reflect real life situations. It makes sense that there is only one president, just as it makes sense that the employees can only supervise those that are of a lower level. 2) At least one of the people that the president supervises will be a manager. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that this rule means that the president must supervise more than one employee; that’s not what the rule states. It’s quite possible that the president supervises exactly one employee, a manager. 3) This rule will prove vital. We know that the president is unsupervised (opening paragraph), and that a manager cannot supervise another manager (opening paragraph). So if each manager supervises at least one employee, we now know that there must be at least as many technicians as managers. 4) Don’t just write “F supervises no one.” Consider what that means. We learned from the setup that only technicians do not supervise anyone, so instead of rewriting the rule, we can put F directly into our diagram as one of the technicians. 5) You will want to make a note reminding yourself that G must supervise two employees, but once again, first stop and think about what this tells us. We can put G right into our diagram by noting that she must either be the president or at least a manager (since technicians do not supervise anyone). Key Deductions: We’ve already jumped the gun and made a few deductions from the opening paragraph and the rules (it’s okay to deduce as you go along; we usually discuss deduction in a separate paragraph in these written explanations for the sake of clarity. But there’s more to think about before moving on to the questions. With only five entities and one (F) solidly fixed to a group (Technician), you can bet that it would be worth our time to consider the numbers game and drive it to something concrete. Five entities and exactly one of them is president. What could be the numbers breakdown of president, managers, and technicians, respectively? The only possibilities are 1, 1, 3 and 1, 2, 2; we inferred from Rule 3 that the number of managers can’t be greater than the number of technicians. We could even take this thinking one step further by combining it with Rule 5. If G is a manager, then the setup has to be 1, 1, 3. Do you see why? If G’s a manager, the requirement that she supervises at least two employees (technicians in this case), wouldn’t leave any technicians for the other manager to supervise in the 1, 2, 2 setup. Going another step further, what if we know that there are two managers? Well, that means that the setup is 1, 2, 2, and G must be the president. G can only be the president or a manager, and we just showed that G can’t be a manager unless she’s the only one. This is quite a bit of deducing to do up front; don’t get the idea that you couldn’t have handled this game without working all of this out up front. But if you’re able to deduce this far, it saves you a tremendous amount of time in the long run.

© K A PL A N

3


The Final Visualization: Here’s what we’re armed with as we move on to the questions:

1/2/2 G

or

1/1/3

President G

G supervises 2

Manager

HKL

Technician F

F

The Big Picture:

• This section is a perfect example of why Kaplan suggests taking time to do an overview of the section before plunging in. This game is one of the trickiest in the section. You would have been better served if you left it towards the end, after you’ve already racked up some points (and confidence) with the other games.

• Critical reading is just as important in Logic Games as it is in Logical Reasoning and Reading Comp. If you just glazed over the opening paragraph, you missed the heart of this game. Remember: All rules are not indented.

• Always take number-related info as far as you can, especially in grouping games where you’re asked to distribute entities into various subgroups. Sometimes they tell you how many go in each. When they don’t, it’s up to you to at least attempt to figure out the possibilities. The Questions: 1. (B) We love these acceptability questions. Just check each rule against each choice. Rule 1 downs (D). Rule 3 cuts (A) and (E). Rule 4 (among others) takes care of (C), which leaves us with our answer.

• Actively seek out “acceptability” questions. They are among the most straightforward on the test, and also give you the opportunity to practice using the rules.

4

© K A PL A N


2. (A) Here’s where they test our deduction. This we already know: exactly 1 president (Rule 1), at least 1 manager (Rule 2), so a maximum of 3 technicians.

• A “must be true” question with no new information is always testing a deduction that you could have made up front. Sometimes (like here), that deduction is expressed in more abstract terms, but don’t let that throw you. 3. (E) We can cross off (A) and (B), thanks to our first deduction that F is a technician. We also deduced that if there are two managers, then the president must be G. Since G can’t be one of two managers, we can cross off (C) and (D), leaving (E). If you hadn’t made that second deduction, no problem; you’re simply forced to make it now: If G is one of two managers, then there needs to be three technicians: Two for G to supervise (Rule 5) and one for the other manager to supervise. This is no good, because it leaves no one to be president. • Use prior thinking to quickly eliminate as many choices as you can. Then, if you have to, don’t hesitate to put some work into analyzing the remaining choices, even if you have to try them out to see what you get. Often, you’ll not only get the answer, but you’ll also increase your overall awareness of the game. 4. (B) To the choices: (A) No way. From the beginning we’ve said that there has to be at least two technicians. (B) Yes. We also deduced at the start that this is indeed possible (as long as G is our president). On test day, mark (B) and go on, but to get some practice at spotting wrong answer choices, we’ll continue. (C) No; the only employee who isn’t supervised is the president, and there’s only one president, so only one employee will go unsupervised. (D) No, we know that the only two possibilities are 1, 1, 3 and 1, 2, 2. There can’t be more managers than technicians, thanks to Rule 3. (E) Rule 2 said that at least one of the employees that the president supervises is a manager. Rule 3 says that every manager supervises at least one employee. Since every employee is only supervised by one employee, (E) is not possible.

• Even in situations like this where you have to try out each choice, the work you did up front still proves to be extremely valuable in quickly eliminating wrong answer choices.

© K A PL A N

5


5. (D) Start by working with the new information. F (a technician) is supervised by the president, and we know (Rule 2) that the president also supervises at least one manager, so the president supervises at least two employees. But since F is supervised by the president, the manager whom the president is supervising needs another technician to supervise (Rule 3). So now we have one president, one manager, and two technicians with only one more employee to place. Learn to ask yourself the relevant questions. Could it be a manager? No, all of the technicians are already being supervised, which would not leave anyone for a new manager to supervise. We therefore must be dealing with the 1, 1, 3 setup, which gives us our answer. (A) No, G could indeed be that one manager supervising two of the three technicians. (B) No, G could be the president. H could either be the one manager or even one of the technicians. (C) No, L could be the president or the manager. (E) No; as we’ve figured out, there are exactly three technicians.

• You don’t have to figure out exactly who goes where in order to answer every question. Work with the information given and take it as far as you can. Sometime just understanding the number requirements will be enough to get you the point.

6

© K A PL A N


6. (C) So now K as well as G both supervise two employees. Since the maximum number of technicians (as we deduced) is three, either K or G must be president while the other is a manager (if they were both managers, they’d need four technicians to supervise). Where to now? Well, one of the two people supervised by the president can be K or G (whoever isn’t the president), but whoever isn’t president is going to need two technicians to supervise. The president is also going to need another employee to supervise. Can it be a manager? No, because, just as in question 5, there is only one employee left, and if that person was a manager, there would be no one left for him or her to supervise. So K and G must be president and manager, in either order, and all of the other employees, including L, must be supervised technicians. (A) Rule 4 makes this impossible. (B) only could be true. G could just as easily be president. (D) is wrong. We deduced that there can be only one manager (G or K). (E) Actually, we figured out that there are (once again) exactly three technicians.

• Learn to ask yourself the important questions. After you’ve worked with the information, but still haven’t found the answer. Ask yourself, “what do I need to know now?”

• Don’t treat the questions as if they exist in a vacuum. Learn from your previous work.

• Four out of this game’s six questions were “non-ifs,” meaning that they are answered based solely on the work you do up front before jumping into the questions. This is why Kaplan stresses the initial deductive work over everything else.

© K A PL A N

7


GAME 2 — Washing Dishes (Q. 7-12 ) The Action: Here we have a sequencing game within a sequencing game. Three types of dishes, seven objects in all, are being washed: China (a mug and a plate), glassware (a water glass and a juice glass), and utensils (a fork, a knife, and a spoon). Here in the opening paragraph we get another important rule: The objects within each type are washed consecutively. This means, for example, that the fork (a utensil) will not be washed in between the mug and plate (pieces of china). However, within each group, the order in which the objects are washed can vary, thus accounting for the sequence within a sequence. There are only two basic sequencing Key Issues in this one: 1) Which objects are washed in which order? 2) Which objects are washed before and after which other objects? The Initial Setup: This begs for a simple setup. For now just separate the dishes into type and wait for the rules:

China MP

Glass JW

Utensils FKS

The Rules: 1) is your typical loophole closer. Don’t let it worry you. All it means is that Ron won’t go back and rewash any of the dishes. Once is enough. 2) This rule has tricky wording, but once you comprehend it, it’s quite helpful. The glasses are washed after the china or after the utensils, but not after both. Again, make the information concrete. What are the possibilities? The “not after both” part eliminates C, U, G and U, C, G, so the “type” order will either be C, G, U or U, G, C. In other words, the two glasses, W and J, will always be washed in the middle of the three types. 3) deals with the internal order of the dish washing. There are only two pieces in the china category, and we now know that the mug is always washed before the plate. Likewise we are told that of the utensils, the knife is washed before the spoon. Note though, that the fork can float around anywhere in relation to the knife and spoon. Write “M . . . P” and “K . . . S” as reminders. 4) Another loophole closer, and again don’t give it a second thought. No two objects are washed at the same time (no “Octopus Ron” doing the dishes).

8

© K A PL A N


Key Deductions/Final Visualization: We can further flesh out our work with Rules 2 and 3. Thanks to these two rules, there are only two possible options for the order of dishes washed:

1 M K = 1 or 2 S = 2 or 3 F = 1, 2, or 3

2 P

1 2 3 K…S (F)

3 4 (W) (J) (J) (W) or 4 5 (W) (J) (J) (W)

5 6 7 K…S (F)

Option 1 K = 5 or 6 S = 6 or 7 F = 5, 6 or 7

6 M

Option 2

7 P

And that’s it. From this we can see many valuable facts (M can only be washed first or sixth, etc.) These two possibilities (our “Final Visualization,” really) is what we will come back to again and again to answer nearly all of the questions. After making the abstract “C, G, U or U, G, C” more concrete, we have an infinitely better grasp of what’s going on. The Big Picture: • Always attempt to make the abstract concrete. • Critical reading is just as important in Logic Games as it is in Logical Reasoning and Reading Comp. This section’s games all have important concepts buried in the opening paragraphs. • Washing dishes is something we all can relate to (unfortunately), and therefore this was probably easier to get a handle on than the first or third games. This is yet another argument for quickly looking at all of the games in a section before deciding where to start. Take command of the LSAT; don’t let the testmakers dictate how you proceed.

© K A PL A N

9


The Questions: 7. (E) By scanning the two possibilities, it’s pretty easy to see that the plate can only be washed second or seventh, not third. (A) through (D) all could be true.

• Don’t be surprised if after a fairly involved setup, the first question is fairly simple. This is the testmakers’ way of rewarding you for putting in the good work at the start. 8. (A) Again, using what we know about the two possibilities, the second option shows that the fork could be washed first, in which case the knife would be washed second. (B) through (E) are all impossible, as we see with our ordering.

• If you took the time to work out the different options, you can see how it’s possible to blow through two questions in about half a minute. 9. (B) Simply check each choice against the possibilities: Knife, fork, juice glass? For 2, 3, and 4? That’s way off. The only order close (as we see with our two possibilities) would be knife, fork, spoon in the 1, 2, 3 slots. (A), (C), (D), and (E) are all very possible.

• Trust your work. When you see something that doesn’t jive with what you know must be true, don’t doubt the work that has thus far proven to be sound. 10. (C) Again, use our two possibilities. The knife can’t be washed third. First, second, fifth, sixth— (A), (B), (D), (E)—yes, but not third.

• By now, we hope you’ve realized the value of previewing the section. This is a much kinder, gentler game to start with than the first one. Leave difficult games like that for the end, after you’ve racked up all of these (and Game 4’s) easier points.

10

© K A PL A N


11. (E) Ask yourself, “what does this mean in the context of this game?” The only way for this to be possible is if the utensil order is knife, spoon, fork. Now test out the options using this new restriction. (A) and (B) would relate to the second option, but are both impossible because they violate the K, S, F order. The plate can never be washed third or sixth, in either option, so (C) and (D) are out, but the plate can be washed seventh if K, S, and F are washed first, second, and third, respectively. • Some choices are impossible due to the question stem, and occasionally other choices are simply impossible to begin with. In this game, the plate can never be washed third or seventh, so even if you got bogged down in this question and had trouble incorporating the hypothetical, you should still at least be able to eliminate a few choices, increasing your odds if you have to guess. 12. (A) Ask yourself, “how can this be possible?” Only if the order by type is C, G, U, our first option, and the knife is washed fifth. The plate is washed second, and the fork either sixth or seventh, so (A) is obviously false. (B) and (E) could be true, and (C) and (D) must be true.

• Make the abstract concrete. Only when you know what the information means in the context of this particular game, can it help you find the answer.

• This game had four of six questions that were “non-ifs” too. In the first two games, we’ve already encountered eight questions answerable from your work up front. We hope this point is not lost on you.

© K A PL A N

11


GAME 3 — Birds on Display (Q. 13- 18) The Action: This may have been the hardest game of the bunch, simply due to the sheer number of entities (10), and the number of details involved in the game’s action. And once again, there’s lots of important information found in the opening paragraph. At the heart of it, this game is really another grouping game of distribution: Ten birds—H, J, K, M, N, Q, R, S, T, and W—will be placed into either an exhibition, cage 1, or cage 2. Here’s where it gets more complex: Each bird is one of three different types—goldfinch, lovebird, and parakeet—and each is either male or female (no surprise there, but it does add another element to keep track of). Up to two pairs, consisting of a male and a female of a single type (for example, parakeets S and T), will be exhibited, and the rest will be placed into two cages. The Key Issues are: 1) What birds can, must, or cannot be exhibited with what other birds? 2) What birds can, must, or cannot be put into a cage with what other birds? The Initial Setup: The roster of birds is already helpfully included right on the page. And like the game on page 219 of Unit 4B in your lesson book, when you’re given a diagram, use it. You could picture the groups that we’ll put the birds in like this:

Cages

Exhibition ___ ___ 1 Pair Definite (___ ___) Maybe 2

The Rules: 1) Each cage has a limit of four birds. “4 Max” should suffice. 2) Birds of the same type and sex cannot be put in the same cage. (For example, J and K, the two female goldfinches, will have to be split up if neither of them is exhibited.) 3) If either J or W is exhibited, then S can’t be. Don’t neglect the contrapositive: If S is exhibited, then J and W are not.

12

© K A PL A N


Key Deductions: Rule 2 is very helpful—it allows us to deduce that at least one of the three male parakeets must always be exhibited (with a female, of course). If not, with three of them and only two cages, we’d inevitably have to place two of them in the same cage. So make a note that one of the exhibited pairs will always be a pair of parakeets. We can make this even more concrete by writing “T or W” for the female space of one of the exhibited pairs. By extension, if J or W is exhibited, then S can’t be, which means that Q or R must be exhibited (if not, we wouldn’t have enough cages to split up our three badtempered male parakeets.) It should be obvious by now that emphasis should be placed on the three male parakeets. The Final Visualization: There’s still a lot left open, but this will aid us in pursuing the answers:

If J or W ➔ No S Same sex, kind ➔ Diff Cages

Cages

Exhibition or W ___ T___

If S ➔ No J, No W 1 Pair Parakeets

(___ ___) The Big Picture: • Whenever you’re given a sketch, use it. We couldn’t have divided the birds into neater groups if we tried. • While there wasn’t really a true “process” game in this section, this game has one particular aspect characteristic of “process” games—the sketch is less important, while returning to the rules will probably come in handy in most of the questions. • Sometimes, a quick glance at the questions can help you pick up on the action of a game. Here, Q. 13 nicely lays out the grouping paradigm in a visual way. The Questions: 13. (D) An acceptability question, so check each rule against the choice: The opening paragraph (pairs of birds are exhibited), as well as Rule 1, kills choice (E). Rule 2 axes choices (A) and (C). Rule 3 eliminates (B), and just like that we’re left with (D).

• Search out acceptability questions. They are our friends. Not only can you get the answer quickly, they also help by giving you another look at how the rules interrelate with the entities. If you had any trouble visualizing the action of the game, the way the choices are set out in this one should help clear things up.

© K A PL A N

13


14. (D) We deduced that at least one of the male parakeets must always be exhibited (thanks to our work mainly with Rule 2), so only consider those choices that include Q, R, or S which are (B), (D), and (E). (B) and (E) both violate Rule 3, so only the pair in (D) is possible.

• Once you’ve made a deduction, use it. Right up front we identified the importance of those three male parakeets, and this question spells it out for us. One pair of parakeets will always be displayed. 15. (D) And here they are again. Two of the three male parakeets are caged, so the third, S, must be exhibited. The contrapositive of Rule 3 tells us that J and W can’t be exhibited and must be caged. That’s quite a bit of good work, so stop and scan the choices. There it is, choice (D). (A), (B), and (C) could be true. (E), no way.

• The LSAT truly does tend to test the same concepts over and over. Honest. For example, this parakeet issue. They just want to make sure that you had the ability to see that deduction in the first place. But even if you missed it originally, by the middle of the game it should begin to dawn on you that there always has to be a pair of parakeets exhibited. 16. (D) One of our three male parakeets, Q, is assigned to the cages, which means that one of the remaining two, R or S, must be exhibited. And since one of the only two female parakeets is also caged, R or S must be exhibited with the only remaining female, W. The mere sight of W should lead you straight to Rule 3—W can’t be exhibited with S, so the pair of parakeets that must be exhibited is R and W. (A), (B), (C) could be true. (E) is always possible.

14

© K A PL A N


17. (B) Not much to do but try out the choices, keeping our three male parakeets in mind, of course. (A) The correct answer for acceptability Q. 13 allows us to axe this choice. (B) Boy, do they know how to test a concept, or do they know how to test a concept? You’ll probably here this in your sleep by now: “One of the pairs of exhibited birds must be parakeets.” This is our answer. (C), (D), and (E) all have the required parakeet pair. You can try them out if you care to. Do note that for (E) to be possible, Rule 3 tells us that S can’t be in either of the two pairs.

• Even when you have to try out the answer choices, a firm grasp on the important concepts gives you something to look for, even if it’s stated in a slightly different way.

• Use you previous work. If something was acceptable before, it’s acceptable now. 18. (E) Rule 3 forces T to be the female parakeet exhibited with S, and also forces W and J into cages. No help on its own, but that uses up all of the female parakeets. So the other two males, Q and R, have to go in (separate) cages. Scan the choices—yup, R in a cage. (A) through (D) only could be true only. • Learn to focus on the major issues. Every question in this game was answered either directly or indirectly by a consideration of the parakeet situation. Weed out major deductions, and when you find something important, make it your first consideration when working through the questions.

© K A PL A N

15


GAME 4 — Seasonal Sports (Q. 19-24) The Action: A straightforward matching game. We’re asked to match up two kids, Nikki and Otto, with the sport—hockey, kayaking, mountaineering, running, or volleyball—that they play in each of the four seasons. Predictably, the Key Issues deal with: 1) What sports can Nikki and Otto play in each season? 2) What sports can’t Nikki and Otto play in each season? The Initial Setup: Either a grid or a list would work well for this game. For our purposes, we’ll use a 2 X 4 grid with Nikki and Otto on the side and the four seasons (the real ones, not the singing group) on the top, like so:

F

W

SPR

S

Nikki Otto

The Rules: There’s something concrete way down at the bottom, so let’s start with that: 7) Otto plays volleyball in the summer. Great, build it right into the grid. 1) Once a kid plays a sport, that sport is out for the rest of the year. For example, since Otto plays volleyball in the summer, volleyball is off limits for him for the fall, spring, and winter. 2) The only sports that the kids can play in the fall are mountaineering, running, and volleyball. Note again, Otto plays volleyball in another season, so Rule 1 means that his fall sport is either mountaineering or running. Indicate these things somewhere in the grid. 3) Only hockey and volleyball may be played in the winter. Once again, since Otto plays volleyball in the summer, he can’t play volleyball in the winter, so Otto’s winter sport must be hockey. Put a huge “H” in Otto’s winter column, and “H, V” in Nikki’s winter column. 4) We’re used to this by now. Put “K, M, R, V” over the spring column. Note that volleyball is still out for Otto.

16

© K A PL A N


5) Otto’s summer sport is volleyball, so this rule really applies only to Nikki: Put “K, M, V” in the summer column for Nikki. 6) Here’s the rule that really opens up the entire game: Nikki and Otto will not play the same sport in any season. Since this will serve to greatly restrict the possibilities, this rule is huge. Key Deductions: Like good LSAT test-takers, we considered the implications of Rule 1 with each successive rule as we went along. Now let’s go back and do the same with Rule 6. Otto plays hockey in the winter (we deduced this by combining Rules 1, 3, and 7). Since Nikki therefore can’t play hockey in the winter, Nikki must play volleyball in the winter (which, by the way, turns Q. 19 into a nice ‘gimme’). Now that volleyball is taken care of for both kids, cross of all the “Vs” from the other seasons. You may also have noticed that since Nikki doesn’t play hockey in the winter (she plays volleyball), that means that Nikki never plays hockey (which, by the way, turns Q. 20 into another welcome ‘gimme’). The Final Visualization: Here’s our final sketch, which contains a great deal of information:

Never H ➔

F

W

SPR

S

Nikki

M/R

V

K/M/R K/M All Diff

Otto

M/R

H

K/M/R

V

Diff

Diff

Diff

Diff

All Diff

The Big Picture: • Did you do this game first or second? If not, why not? Did you at least get to this one? That’s why previewing a section is so important. If you never even had the chance to get to this game, you missed many easy points. Take control. You are in charge. You decide what to answer and what to skip. You decide the order. • Don’t be intimidated by a large number of rules. It may look scary on the page, but actually, a large number of rules normally makes for a much more manageable game. It’s the games with fewer rules that are ore difficult because they’re much more ambiguous and abstract.

© K A PL A N

17


The Questions: 19. (B) One of our bid deductions: Nikki plays volleyball in the winter. (A), (C), (D), and (E) all could be true only.

• A “must be true” question with no new information is a bullhorn screaming, “there’s a deduction to be made.” If you hadn’t found it, now’s your chance to pick it up and use it for the rest of the game. 20. (A) Our second gimme. We noticed before that indeed hockey can’t be played by both kids. It’s only available in the winter, when Nikki’s busy playing volleyball. (B) through (E) are all sports that each kid could play.

• This is an example of a question that the testmakers probably didn’t intend to be a gimme, but thanks to our great up front work, we’ve turned it into one. 21. (C) If Nikki’s fall sport is running, then running is out for Otto in the fall (Rule 6). Volleyball is already out for him (he plays it in the summer), so the only thing left for Otto in the fall is mountaineering. (A), (B), (D), and (E) all could be true, but we don’t have the information to tell for sure.

• After identifying the rules that will help you most, use them. Always focus on the most relevant rules. 22. (B) Not much to do except try out the choices. (A) No way. We know (and see quite clearly in our grid) that Nikki must play either M or R in the fall (V is out, since she plays it in the winter). (B) Sure, Nikki could play K in the spring, M in the summer, and R in the fall, along with V in the winter. This is possible, so it’s our answer. (C) Same as (A). Since V is out for Nikki, she’s down to K or M in the summer. (D) Otto also has to play M or R in the fall because he plays V in the summer. (E) These are exactly Otto’s options for the spring: V’s exclusion means that Otto’s only spring choices are K, M, or R.

18

© K A PL A N


• When you find the choice that could be true, trust in your work and move on. Since Logic Games answers are objectively correct, there’s no need to check the remaining choices; you must save time wherever you can on the games section. 23. (B) Since Otto was down to M or R in the fall, this means it must be M. Rule 6 therefore forces Nikki’s fall sport to be R, cross off (A). Rule 1 eliminates R from Nikki’s choices for the rest of the year, and there’s our answer. She can’t run in the spring. It turns out that every sport can be determined in this one; (C), (D), and (E) all must be true.

• You can check the answer choices as you fill in the situation, or you can fill in as much as you can before moving on to the choices. Sometimes, the answer will be available before you finish the chain of deduction, so you may be able to save a few seconds by checking the choices as you deduce new pieces of information. 24. (C) Again, not much to do but try out each choice. Remember that the Rule 1 makes it necessary to make sure that the entire year works out. So we’ll just plug in the info and see if we can come up with a year that works for both kids. (A) If M is Nikki’s fall sport, then R would have to be Otto’s fall sport. It couldn’t be his spring sport, too. (B) If Nikki’s spring sport is R and her summer sport is M, she’s out of possibilities for the fall (we deduced way back, that M and R were her only fall options). (C) No problem. Here’s what we get: fall: Nikki—R, Otto—M; winter: Nikki—V, Otto—H; spring: Nikki—M, Otto—R or K; summer: Nikki—K, Otto—V. (D) If Nikki’s spring sport is R, then her fall sport would have to be M. Rule 6 then makes it impossible that Otto’s fall sport is M. (E) If Nikki’s summer sport is M, then her fall sport has to be R. That would force Otto’s fall sport to be M (Rule 6 again). Rule 1 makes it impossible for Otto’s spring sport to also be M.

• A question like this is a prime candidate for skipping the first time around. Just the sight of these complex answer choices and the “could be true” stem should have given you pause. This question almost screams, “I’m a big time consumer.”

• All in all in the section, fifteen questions on these four logic games were “non-ifs.” This means that fifteen questions could be answered just by your initial up front work (which is not to say that they were all easy). But if you hone your ability to work with setups, you’ll do well if faced with a Logic Games section like this.

© K A PL A N

19

SECTION II: LOGICAL REASONING

20

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP ______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test XIV Explained: Section II

1. (C) The paradox is: How is it possible for the city’s water shortage to get worse, even as the city receives unusually heavy rainfall? (C) gives the answer: People were simply using more water throughout the month of June, which presumably counterbalanced the effect of added rain. So people saw the rain falling, threw conservation to the winds, and used so much water that the city suffered a net water loss, despite June’s heavy rainfall. (A) is irrelevant; it does nothing to explain how the water shortage managed to get worse during the month of June. (B) Au contraire. By showing people using less water in June, (B) makes the deepening water crisis harder to understand. (D) has nothing to say about the particular period we’re interested in (the month of June), and moreover it gives a reason for the shortage to be not so severe. (E) is a flat-out au contraire choice; if per-capita use of water declined in June, we’d expect the water shortage to become less severe. • Make a note of it when the stimulus is very careful about setting boundaries of time; here you’re sure that the correct answer must deal with something that happened in June. • When you’re dealing with a paradox, it’s important to notice the specific terms used. Here the paradox is increased supply (more rain) vs. worsening shortage; it should be no surprise that the reason turns out to be increased demand (more water use). 2. (C) There are only two ways an applicant can qualify: either have an earned doctorate and a record of published research or have five years’ work experience. The only fields that count toward either qualification are sociology, psychology, and education. We’re looking for someone who fails to meet either qualification, and that’s Edward St. John, (C). He’s done the work, and earned the doctorate and published a lot, but his work and doctorate were in the field of business, and his publications were novels, not research. Sorry, Mr. St. John, no job for you. (A) Joanne Berstein has the work experience—eleven years at the department of education. No need to read the rest of her “resume.” (B) Alvin Johnson also has the work experience—seven years in the field of psychology. (D) Michael Roberts’ “resume” is a little harder to follow, but his two years teaching education classes and his four years work on an education task force add up to six years work in the field of education, so he’s OK. (E) Alicia Arias gets by on her academic record; she holds an earned doctorate in sociology and she’s published plenty of sociological research.

© K A PL A N

21


• When a stimulus sets out some conditions, make sure you understand them precisely. That way, when reading each choice, you can quickly distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information. In (B), for instance, when you see Alvin Johnson is a doctoral candidate (notice the scope shift; an earned doctorate is necessary to satisfy that requirement), it’s immediately obvious that his educational background is no good, and that you need to focus on his work. • Take the time to understand all the conditions. The stimulus here falls into two parts—the first outlines the two types of qualifications possible, and the second narrows down the acceptable areas of expertise to only three fields. 3. (B) Normally deer mice don’t have a clue when it comes to getting back to their nests. What’s different about this case? The only clue you get is that the researchers camped near the deer mouse’s nest for a time, and that the mouse found its way back to the nest near the researchers’ camp. This suggests that presence of the camp may have helped the mouse find its way home. (B) explains how this could happen; the mouse could have followed the smell or trail of the smoke back to the location of the camp, and then found its nest. (A), (C), and (E) all side-step the issue by simply describing the new area to which the mouse had been moved. (A) tells us the terrain is rocky; (C) that there are few other deer mice in the area; (E) that there are many prey animals in the area. But nothing in any of these features relates to the ability of the mouse to find its way home. We’re only interested in how this mouse succeeded where so many others have failed—describing the new environment doesn’t explain that. (D)’s description of the manner in which the mouse was moved also isn’t helpful. In fact, its being kept in a dark box removes one possible (admittedly farfetched) explanation for how it found its way home—that it looked out the window and retraced its steps. • When rejecting answer choices, it helps to notice basic similarities between them; (A), (C), and (E) all take the same approach, that of describing the mouse’s new home. Once you reject one, it becomes easier to reject the others by thinking “Oh, that again.” • In many questions in which the stem contains the phrase “if true” (such as paradox and strengthen/weaken questions), it may be difficult to pre-phrase the answer in any detail. In this one, for example, it’s unlikely the campfire thing would have jumped into our minds from out of the blue. However, you may have been able to pre-phrase the general idea: e.g. “The mouse found it’s way back to the camp.”

22

© K A PL A N


4. (E) Simple argument here: Arts groups survived an 8 percent cut in public funding last year, so they can survive another 8 percent cut in public funding this year. This should have struck you as fishy; just because the groups managed to survive one funding cut doesn’t mean they can survive further cuts indefinitely. (You’ve certainly heard of the straw that breaks the camel’s back.) That’s exactly the flaw that (E) points out: The “cumulative” effects of the cuts might reduce the arts groups’ funding so much that they can no longer survive. (A) The argument never ties the survival of the arts groups to an improvement in the economy; in fact, the author says that the arts groups managed to raise enough private money last year despite a recessionary economy, which suggests that a good economy isn’t necessary for the groups’ survival. (B) is a “beyond the scope” choice. The argument is trying to establish the factual conclusion that arts groups will survive another funding cut; in order to establish that conclusion, the argument needn’t address the issue of whether there should be public funding of the arts. (C) Again, outside the scope—the argument never brings in the concept of “flourishing,” or equates it with survival. (D) The possibility raised by (D) actually seems to strengthen the argument by minimizing the effect of this year’s cuts. In fact, however, the actual dollar amount of any particular year’s cut isn’t the point; as (E) says, the real flaw is that the argument fails to see that many small cuts can have a large cumulative effect. • When the stimulus only discusses what “does” or “will” happen, be suspicious of any choice, like (B) that talks about what “should” happen. • Be alert for small clues; this means reading actively. When they tell you that last year “private fund-raising was very difficult,” think of how you can use that information. If they barely made it last year, who says they can survive more of the same? 5. (D) Seems like another paradox: The number of books sold has increased, but the time spent reading by the average literate person has decreased. Anything that helps resolve this discrepancy must somehow affect one of these factors. The best approach here is to eliminate the choices that seem to resolve the seeming discrepancy; the choice that remains will be the answer. (D) fails to resolve anything—how does the fact that people used to display large book collections explain why more books are sold now, or why literate people spend less time reading now? If anything, (D) would lead us to expect more books to be sold fifty years ago, to people trying to build up impressive libraries. (A) explains how the total number of books sold could have risen even though the average literate person spends less time reading; there are simply many more literate people around now, so even if they spend less time reading on average, they could certainly buy more books in total.

© K A PL A N

23


(B) attacks the idea of “number of books sold.” It gives a valid explanation for why more books are sold now—fifty years ago, readers were less likely to buy their books because they borrowed them from the library instead. (C) gives us a group that might be spending the same or even less time reading as it did in the past, yet would be buying many more books than in the past. (E) attacks the idea of “time spent reading.” If books are shorter and easier to read than they used to be, then it’s quite possible that literate people spend less time reading on average, even if they buy more books. • Even though it’s often difficult to pre-phrase the answer in paradox questions, if you take note of the differences in the elements of the discrepancy, you should know what to expect when you hit the answer choices. Here, the discrepancy revolves around the difference between the total number of books sold and the average time spent reading by literate people. 6. (D) A new record—two mice questions on one page. The naturalists deny that mice depend on humans for survival and predict that mice could survive even if the environment became too harsh to support human life. Their reasons are that mice reproduce rapidly, and that, “more important to their survival,” they can adapt to all sorts of habitats. (D) supports their prediction by confirming the most important survival attribute of mice, their ability to survive in environments too harsh to support humans. According to (D), mice have already demonstrated they can survive where human beings cannot—in Antarctica. (A) Irrelevant: This describes something that can limit the mouse population (lack of food), which gives us no reason to think mice can survive without humans (especially since mice probably get a lot of food from humans). (B) So what? The reproductive ability of mice is less important to their survival than their ability to adapt to different environments, and we get nothing about that here. (C) ignores the claim that the ability of mice to survive in nature has diminished because of contact with humans; we want something that indicates that mice can still make it on their own, not that they once could. (E) Au-contraire; if anything, (E) implies that most mice live in man-made environments, which certainly doesn’t show they don’t need humans to survive. • Remember that strengthen/weaken questions always include the phrase “if true” in their question stems. Therefore, a choice containing “Antarctica,” for example, like the correct choice here, is not necessarily outside the scope of the argument.

24

© K A PL A N


7. (D) All zebras have stripes so stripes must have some use. But they can’t work as protective camouflage for zebras that live in grasslands, says the author, so they must serve some other function. The author decides that stripes must somehow serve as signals to other zebras. (D) supports this with evidence that zebras respond in a special way to striped shapes: They react more quickly when they see striped shapes moving. (Possibly, this helps zebras move together and function as a herd.) At any rate, (D) supports the author’s belief that stripes serve as signals to other zebras by demonstrating a specific reaction that zebras have to stripes. (A) gives further evidence that stripes are good for zebras, but doesn’t support the author’s contention that stripes function by signaling other zebras in some way. (B) suggests that stripes may serve as camouflage in grasslands, which undermines the author’s contention that stripes must have some function besides camouflage. (C) discusses a different kind of visual signal among animals of the same species—color changes—but that doesn’t help establish that zebra stripes work as such an intraspecies signal. (E) is irrelevant; zebras’ ability to whinny and snort to each other proves nothing about the functioning of their stripes. • Occasionally, an argument will contain more than one conclusion. Here, the author first drew the conclusion that “stripes are important to zebras” and then based on that, drew the conclusion that “stripes must be a signal to other zebras.” In cases like this, be sure you know which conclusion the testmakers are interested in. Here, the question stem here specifies that they want support for the conclusion regarding “signaling function.” 8. (B) The author charges that the editorial writer’s attitude towards government restrictions on academic freedom is inconsistent. The editorial writer first excuses U.S. restrictions on academic freedom, saying that scientists who receive public funding can’t detach themselves from politics, then turns around and condemns the Soviet government for saying what seems to be the same thing, that scientists can’t detach themselves from politics. The author complains that the editorialist hasn’t explained the difference between the two cases, so as things stand, it seems that the editorialist is treating the same thing in two different ways. That’s inconsistency. (A) The author doesn’t question the editorialist’s facts, but rather is critical of the way the editorialist both accepts and rejects the same principle. (C) The author doesn’t come up with an exception to a general claim; instead, she complains that the editorialist accepts a general claim (scientists can’t detach themselves from politics) in one case and rejects it in another.

© K A PL A N

25


(D) The author doesn’t refute the editorial’s basic assumption, but complains that the basic assumption (or principle) behind the editorial seems to change. (E) The author doesn’t deny the editorial’s conclusion (the author doesn’t conclude that U.S. policy is unjustified, or that Soviet policy is justified), but points out that the conclusion hasn’t been persuasively argued. • When you’re asked for the criticism made by the author of a passage, concentrate on the author’s conclusion. The author above concludes: ‘If there’s a difference in the principles involved, the editorial should have explained it.’ That’s the criticism right there, and it plainly has nothing to do with “factual claims” (A), “finding an exception” (C), “refuting an assumption” (D), or “drawing a different conclusion” (E). 9. (C) They give us a big verbal clue in this one; “hence” tells us that the claim that doctoral dissertations shouldn’t be required is a conclusion, although at first we can’t be sure that it’s the argument’s main conclusion. When you look further, you see that the rest of the passage is indeed intended to establish this main conclusion; the argument says what doctoral programs should do, gives a number of reasons that the requirement of a dissertation frustrates these proper goals, and concludes that doctoral dissertations shouldn’t be required in the humanities. As (C) says, this is the claim that the whole argument is intended to establish. (A) No further conclusion is based on the claim about doctoral dissertations; instead, the other statements provide support for that claim. (B) is all wet; the claim isn’t an example, but is itself a general principle, and it doesn’t concern the goals of Ph.D. programs—that’s discussed in the first sentence. (D) First, the claim doesn’t “provide evidence;” it’s a conclusion based on evidence already provided. Second, the argument never differentiates between humanities and other disciplines. (E) gets the flow of the argument reversed; the observation that the dissertation requirement is counterproductive is meant to support the claim that dissertations shouldn’t be required. • This question explicitly asks you to do something you should be able to do on every question. You should always be able to see how the argument works, how the author makes her (or his) point, what function each piece of the argument serves. It’s a matter of separating evidence and conclusion, and understanding how the evidence supports the conclusion. • Always read the question stem first. In this question, we’re immediately alerted as to which idea to focus on.

26

© K A PL A N


• Use the structural signals provided. When you found the sentence in question (from previewing the question stem), the fact that it began with the word “hence” should have led you right to (C). • Remember, the conclusion can come anywhere in the stimulus. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the last statement must be the conclusion. Ask what the statement does. Is the author saying, “doctoral dissertations shouldn’t be required, therefore they are counterproductive?” No!! She’s saying, “doctoral dissertations are counterproductive, therefore they shouldn’t be required.” 10. (B) Penglai merchants protest the plan to reduce outdoor advertising on the grounds that it would reduce the overall volume of business on the island. They reason that a report has shown that Panglian businesses that advertise do better than those that do not. But this evidence only shows that advertising gives businesses a competitive edge, not that advertising increases the total amount of business done on Penglai. As (B) says, the merchants assume that advertising hasn’t simply diverted customers from businesses that don’t advertise to businesses that do advertise. If you deny this assumption and say that advertising simply redistributes customers, then the claim that cutting advertising will hurt overall business falls apart. (A) The merchants don’t assume that there are no good reasons to restrict advertising, only that restrictions would also have negative results. (C) The merchants needn’t examine the objectivity of the government’s report, since their claim is that the report argues against the government’s course of action. If the report were unobjective, we would expect it to be slanted in favor of the government position. (D) is tricky; since the government doesn’t want to eliminate advertising, but only reduce its size, you may think that the merchants’ argument should make some reference to the importance of advertising size. However, (D) is too strongly worded; there’s no reason the merchants should have to establish a “precise” proportion between market-share sizes and amount of advertising. (E) The question of constitutionality is irrelevant to the merchants’ argument, which is based not on law, but on the restrictions’ effects on business. • The “overall business” ploy used above is extremely common on the LSAT. You should go on the alert every time a stimulus uses words like “overall” or “total” or “cumulative.” Watch out for arguments that use evidence that only compares the parts of some thing, and then draws a conclusion about the whole of that thing. • Evaluate the vocabulary of the answer choices and ask if it’s appropriate. (D) says merchants should be concerned with what is “precisely proportionate,” but there’s nothing precise about the passage. If you recognize this incongruity, you can save yourself the trouble of working through (D) and finding out exactly what it means, which can be time consuming.

© K A PL A N

27


11. (D) When tenants of rent-control units have political power, and can make or break rentcontrol laws, they’re always motivated by desire for short-term gain. According to the author, short-term gain (smaller rent increases) comes from applying rent control. So when tenants of rent-control units have the power to enact rent control, they will also desire to do so. That means they will enact it. What’s the result? According to the stimulus, the longterm result will be a “shortage of rental units.” Finally, we know that in “many municipalities” tenants of rent control units do have this political power. That leads at last to (D); in many municipalities, there will eventually be a shortage of rental units (owing to the rent-control laws perpetuated by those politically powerful tenants). (A) A distortion, signaled by the word “impossible.” Rent-control ordinances are described as “placing limits” on rent increases, not making them impossible. (B) The stimulus never hints at the conditions under which rent-control ordinances are likely to be repealed. (C) Au-contraire; the author specifically says that rent control has “several negative effects for renters.” (E) The stimulus provides no evidence about the results of a shortage of rental units, in the long term or short term. • When it’s hard to find the right answer, concentrate on eliminating wrong answers. Here it was difficult to follow all the twists and turns of the stimulus, but relatively easy to eliminate many of the choices (such as (A), (C), and (E)), which are flatly contrary to specific parts of the stimulus. • Paraphrase paraphrase paraphrase! When reading such a cumbersome stimulus, try to break it down into its general theme: e.g. long-term disadvantages vs. short-term advantages, and rent-control tenants are interested in the short term. That makes the correct answer a lot easier to recognize. 12. (A) The author concludes that when a language has fewer words for colors than does English, speakers of that language must be “perceptually unable” to distinguish as many colors as can English speakers. So the author believes there’s not just a linguistic difference, but there’s an actual difference in perception. (A) undermines this conclusion by severing the connection between words and perceptions. Russian has two different words for two shades of blue; English has only one word for both shades, yet English speakers are able to distinguish between them. This suggests that the lack of a word to describe a color doesn’t imply lack of ability to perceive that color. (B) points to a basic similarity in languages, which doesn’t help us decide whether or not differences between languages point to differences in perception.

28

© K A PL A N


(C) describes how Khmer applies words for colors differently from English speakers, but tells us nothing about how the Khmerians perceive the colors in question. Therefore, it doesn’t affect the link between language and perception. (D) is useless; it points out one similarity between Spanish and English, and tells us nothing about how language differences relate to perceptions. (E) doesn’t tell us whether people who speak languages that have no word for gray can perceive gray, so it doesn’t affect the author’s conclusion. Notice the scope shift: The fact that a color commonly occurs in nature doesn’t indicate the relative perception of that color among users of various languages. • The conclusion, signaled by the keyword “therefore,” contains two elements: vocabulary and perception. Notice that only the correct answer contains these two key elements; the others only discuss vocabulary. • Sometimes, a weakener will undermines the author’s conclusion by attacking the principle behind the conclusion. This one was tricky—it gave an example of a language that has more color words than English, whereas the stimulus had discussed languages with fewer color words than English. To recognize this as a weakener, you had to understand the principle behind the conclusion: When it comes to color, a difference in language implies a difference in perception. 13. (B) We’re asked for a choice that plugs the gap in the argument; that is, a choice that makes the connection between vocabulary and perception. That’s (B): If each language has a word for every sensory perception that its speakers experience, then the lack of a word for a sensory quality indicates the lack of a perception. If a language lacks a word for a color, that means its speakers can’t distinguish that color. (A) has nothing to do with colors, which is what the conclusion focuses on. The fact that most languages have words for the most basic family relationships does nothing to establish a link between words for colors and the perceptions of colors. (C) observes that different languages make different “category distinctions” (i.e. distinctions between colors, relationships, etc.) without establishing that those differences reflect differences in the ability to perceive the distinctions. (D) says that the existence of words for certain categories reflects the importance of the categories for the speakers, but not that the existence of those words reflects speakers’ ability to perceive the categories. (E) gives the example of languages that don’t have words for colors that aren’t encountered by their speaker, but fails to show that the speakers of those languages are unable to perceive those colors.

© K A PL A N

29


• Use the work done in one question of a two question set to help answer the second in the set. As with Question 12, the correct choice here was the only one that contained both elements of “existence of a word for a quality” and “ability to perceive a quality.” (C), (D), and (E) all confirmed the idea that different languages make different category distinctions, but none of them gave evidence that those differences reflect different category perceptions. Ignoring the perception issue is the same basic problem in many of the wrong choices in Q. 12. 14. (C) Cynthia presents a scenario where two individuals believe they are morally obligated to take mutually contradictory courses of action. According to Zachary, both individuals have the right and duty to pursue their “morally obligatory” courses of action without interference. The artist has the right and duty to prevent the demonstrator from destroying the pornographic art; the demonstrator has the right and duty to destroy the art. At the same time, the artist has no right to interfere with the demonstrator and vice-versa. Zachary’s principle leads to a contradiction, and as (C) says, it’s untenable on its own terms. (A) Cynthia doesn’t attack Zachary’s concept of moral obligation, but instead attacks his account of the rights and duties that moral obligations impose. (B) No; Cynthia attacks a logical contradiction inherent in Zachary’s notion of the rights and duties imposed by moral obligations. (D) The problem isn’t that the term “moral obligation” is understood differently by different people, but that it’s possible for different people to feel opposite moral obligations. (E) The problem isn’t that Zachary’s understanding of moral obligation can’t be applied to artists, but that it becomes contradictory when it’s applied to people with opposed obligations. • Pre-phrasing is especially helpful on this question, where, for a change, the answer is the one choice that doesn’t look like the others (it’s the only one that doesn’t contain the term “moral obligations”). If you go to the answer choices with some idea like “Cynthia shows that Zachary’s principle can lead to a contradiction” you’ll probably recognize the answer quickly. 15. (E) Cynthia presents a case where two people felt moral obligations that brought them into direct conflict, and we’re looking for a choice that also presents an impossible situation, and that’s (E). The health inspector must force the householder to get rid of some of her cats; the householder must keep all the cats she has, and collect more if possible. It’s impossible for both to fulfill their moral obligations. (A) Only one of the two people here actually feels a moral obligation, so we can cross this choice off on those grounds alone.

30

© K A PL A N


(B) The moral obligations here are in harmony with each other; no good. (C) Scope shift: This deals with opposing beliefs about a third party’s moral obligations; it doesn’t force the two bankers into inevitable conflict over their own moral obligations in the same way as the characters in Cynthia’s argument. (D)’s problem is that we can’t be sure that the moral obligations are mutually contradictory; it may be possible to maximize shareholder profits while designing an energy-efficient building. (D) is missing the element of impossibility. • Once again, try to use the first question in a set of two to help you with the other. Here, the first question gives you a theoretical description of Cynthia’s argument and the second asks you to pick out the choice that would furnish the best parallel argument. Keep the theoretical description in mind (“untenable on its own terms”, i.e. leads to an impossibility), and it’s easier to find the parallel. • Beware of choices that subtly shift the scope: We’re not looking for a theoretical disagreement here (as in (A) and (C)), but a situation where two people are required to act in contradictory ways. 16. (D) The author says that the county airport was unable to pay its operating expenses, and blames the fact that it didn’t get as much money as it had expected from user fees. But the airport was attempting to cover its expenses only partly by charging user fees, which implies that money would be coming from some other source or sources as well. Therefore, if the airport couldn’t pay its expenses, it must also be true that it didn’t make enough money from these other source to offset the paltriness of the revenue from user fees. (A) is way out in left field; we have no grounds for deducing how far most citizens live from other airports (we don’t even know there are any other airports in the county). (B) goes outside the scope of the stimulus by discussing the will of private aircraft owners; all we know is that they haven’t paid as much in user fees as expected, but we have no idea why they haven’t. (C) involves a major scope shift: The stimulus discusses the airport’s operating expenses, but tells us nothing about the airport’s construction expenses. (E) Another left-field choice; we’ve no evidence for concluding what will happen in the future. • On a short, clear stimulus like this, picking the correct choice often turns out to be a simple case of sticking within the limits, or scope, of the passage. Don’t read anything into the stimulus. You only know “the airport failed to meet operating expenses”; nothing about what will happen (E), why it happened (A) and (B), or how other expenses were paid (C).

© K A PL A N

31


17. (C) The consumer activist complains that deregulating major airlines has worked to the disadvantage of everyone who doesn’t have easy access to a major airport. The industry representative counters that, on the contrary, thanks to regional airlines, there are now more regular flights out of most small airports than there used to be. Do you see the problem, in the form of the scope shift? The activist is talking about “disadvantage” and the representative is talking about “number of flights.” We need something to connect those ideas, and we find it in (C). (A) is too strong. The representative doesn’t have to make such an absolute claim in order to rebut the activist’s claim that everyone without access to a major airport has suffered. (B) sounds like the evidence from the consumer activist’s argument (or at least something that’s implied by this evidence), but is not crucial to the validity of the industry representative’s point. (D) The representative refutes the activist’s claim of “disadvantage” by pointing out the increased number of flights. “Cost” is outside the scope, and so certainly isn’t relied upon in the representative’s argument. (E) is too general; the representative needn’t assume that an increase in competitors is always a long-term advantage. Moreover, it’s not even clear that there has been any increase in the total number of airlines. • When dealing with an argument/counter-argument, keep an eye on the terms used in the two arguments. If the counter-argument uses new terms (which usually indicates a scope shift), it must connect its terms to those of the argument. If it doesn’t, chances are the counter-argument is making some hidden assumptions concerning the connections between the terms. • Some correct answers may seem oddly worded. You may have wondered about the precise meaning of the rather vague claim that policies that increase the number of flights available “generally” don’t work to the disadvantage of consumers. Still, (C) is the only choice to connect the ideas of “more flights” and “no disadvantage.” • Decode the question stem—essentially, in a roundabout way, we’re asked for an assumption on the part of the industry representative. 18. (D) The consumer activist claims that deregulation worked to the disadvantage of everyone without access to a major airport. Why? Because the removal of government regulations allowed major airlines to abandon unprofitable routes “as they promptly did.” That means, as (D) points out, that the regulations had been to some degree responsible for the fact that the airlines were maintaining their less profitable routes. Use the denial test; if the regulations weren’t partly responsible, then their removal wouldn’t have caused a wholesale abandonment of the unprofitable routes.

32

© K A PL A N


(A) The activist claims that deregulation created new disadvantages for those without access to major airports, but needn’t assume that before deregulation there were no disadvantages for those without such access. (B) The activist needn’t assume anything about what should be done, since he never addresses that concern in his argument; moreover (B)’s claim about “any sizable group of consumers” is clearly too general in scope. (C) is also too general; the activist says that in this case deregulation created disadvantages, but needn’t assume that regulation “almost always” is advantageous. (E) The activist’s argument never mentioned “regional airlines” so you can be pretty sure he’s not assuming anything about them. Moreover, the argument doesn’t discuss “quality of service” but concentrates on access to service. • The “Denial Test” is one of the most useful tools you have. It often comes in handy as a quick test to confirm that the answer choice you were leaning towards is indeed the correct answer. • Scope is an important consideration in assumption questions. When the subject of an argument is quite specific (about airlines), beware of choices that claim the author must be making assumptions beyond that subject (about consumers in general), as do (B) and (C) above. Also beware of choices that introduce terms and ideas the argument never uses, as does (E) above. 19. (E) The author takes issue with the report’s conclusion that nitrogen deposited by air pollution is good for North America’s eastern forests. He points out that European scientists have found that when too much nitrogen is deposited, trees begin to die. He says that this probably applies to North America’s eastern forests also, which are already suffering from excess nitrogen. The point is stated in (E): The report’s conclusion is wrong, and the nitrogen in air pollution, far from benefiting trees in North America’s eastern forests, will probably cause them to die. (A) The author disagrees with the report’s conclusion, so his “main point” can hardly be simply to state that conclusion. (B) The author never says anything to suggest that the capacity of forests to absorb nitrogen increases as the forest becomes nitrate-saturated—quite the opposite! (C) Au-contraire—the author states that “this finding is likely to apply to forests everywhere.” (D) makes a false comparison not based on the argument; the author never contrasts eastern North American forests to other North American forests.

© K A PL A N

33


• Grab those keywords! The whole passage hinges on the word “however,” and the conclusion is signaled by “since.” Once you see that the author’s disagreeing with the report, the answer becomes obvious. Also, note the elegance of the word “however,” a contrast keyword, leading towards a correct answer choice that begins with the phrase “contrary to.” 20. (B) The spokesperson concludes that, despite the reduction in subsidy, the railroad’s service has remained satisfactory. What’s the evidence? The number of passengers has increased. The conclusion and the evidence use different terms: “service” and “number of passengers.” The assumption must connect those terms; it must show that the number of passengers reflects the quality of service. (B) does the job: the spokesperson is assuming that unsatisfactory service would cause some people to refuse to travel by train. Otherwise, no matter how bad the service was, the number of passengers would be unaffected. (A) Taxpayer wishes play no part in the argument. (C) Another scope shift: The spokesperson merely concludes that the service has remained satisfactory; she needn’t assume the much stronger statement that the service improved. (D) The spokesperson said that it’s difficult to maintain quality of service when there’s subsidy reduction, not that it’s impossible. Even so, notwithstanding that difference in degree, this is still just a restatement of the author’s evidence. (E) goes outside the scope by venturing into the future, which the spokesperson never discusses; moreover, the spokesperson’s argument needn’t assume anything about revenue produced by the passengers. • Always be on the lookout for obvious differences between the terms of the evidence and those of the conclusion. Noticing these “scope shifts” will help you answer many kinds of Logical Reasoning questions, including assumption questions. 21. (A) The author concludes that the risks of the elective surgeries performed before the fiveweek period were unnecessary. To weaken this conclusion, we’ll need to find a choice that makes elective surgery seem more necessary, and (A) does just that. If elective surgery prevents a condition from worsening into a life-threatening, thus necessitating even riskier surgery, then the conclusion that the elective surgery was performed unnecessarily is weakened significantly. (B) Whether or not the patients of the elective surgery were informed of the risks does nothing to weaken the conclusion that the risks of performing elective surgery were unnecessary. It’s an irrelevant consideration. (C) Irrelevant comparison: The rate of surgery in this area as opposed to “elsewhere” has no bearing on the argument’s validity.

34

© K A PL A N


(D) The conclusion is that the risk of elective surgeries were incurred unnecessarily. A statement that shows that such surgeries are generally less risky overall than emergency surgeries doesn’t show that the risks were necessary. If anything, it leans in the other direction. Moreover, the reason why elective surgery is generally less risky than emergency surgery, choice (D), doesn’t get at the issue of the need for the elective surgeries; it’s another irrelevant side issue. (E) The reason that some patients die (infection) doesn’t weaken the conclusion. This choice doesn’t even specify which type of surgery we’re talking about, so it’s too vague to weaken the argument.

• Be on the lookout for irrelevant facts and considerations that are thrown into answer choices. To weaken a conclusion, a choice must counter what the conclusion is asserting, not some extraneous issue or fact. • Some arguments are weakened by challenging the author’s central assumption. Others, like this one, can be weakened by a statement that simply supports the opposite of the conclusion. So the author says the elective surgeries were unnecessary? Choice (A) makes them seem very necessary. 22. (D) Evidence: A painting that is similar to van Gogh’s work in several ways, but is not in any catalog of his work. Conclusion: On the sole basis of these similarities, it is “virtually certain” that this is a new, never-before catalogued van Gogh. The flaw should seem fairly obvious; the owner doesn’t consider other possible explanations, such as the most obvious: Another artist could paint just like van Gogh. In typical wordy LSAT style, that’s essentially what we get in (D). (A) The author doesn’t seek “general agreement.” If she did, maybe someone would point out the error of her ways. (B) The author has no logical obligation to substantiate her evidence regarding the subject matter with an expert authority. We have to find how the path between evidence and conclusion (i.e., the reasoning) is flawed, not ways in which the author failed to prove his or her evidence. (C) This choice mistakenly plays off the last few words. That fact that the author believes that the painting is “a bargain at its price” does not by itself imply that the owner is assuming that the only reason to buy art is to make a profit. (E) No; there’s no indication of self-interest at work here.

© K A PL A N

35


• Failing to substantiate evidence is not a logical flaw; don’t fault the author for failing to do something that he or she is not logically required to do. Remember, we’re not asked to evaluate the evidence, but rather the reasoning, which is the way in which the evidence gets to the conclusion. If the author says that “the subject is one he painted often,” and uses this statement as evidence, then so be it. This need not be verified by an expert (see wrong choice (B)). If, on the other hand, this statement were the conclusion, then we’d be justified in looking for ways to break it down. • Pay close attention to extreme-sounding language. “Only” and “anyone” in choice (C) doesn’t fit the tone of the stimulus, which is a good clue that (C) is probably wrong. 23. (E) This passage discusses government-subsidized insurance which makes it feasible for people to buy houses in hurricane zones by allowing them to recoup a high percentage of losses in the event of a major storm. In light of this, the government bill that shouldn’t be supported is found in choice (E): Why would anyone pay for government-subsidized insurance if there existed a contingency fund that protects the owners of uninsured houses? An argument against the proposal in (E) is that its redundant with the existing insurance structure and would result in a loss of government revenue. (A), (B), and (C) all deal with ways to improve hurricane-stricken areas. Nothing in the passage allows us to argue against any of these. These may or may not be good proposals, but we have no way of telling from the information in the passage. Therefore, the passage doesn’t support an argument against these proposals. (D) First of all, “coastal lands” is way too broad for the scope of this stimulus. Secondly, (D) doesn’t go against the thrust of the passage in any way, so there are no grounds for an argument against this proposal. • Read the question stem carefully, and translate it into a workable framework. Here, we’re looking for a bill that shouldn’t be supported based on the information in the stimulus; in other words, a bill that somehow goes against the passage. • We’re usually asked to strengthen, weaken, or generally evaluate arguments. This question is slightly odd in that we’re asked instead to identify the choice containing the proposal that’s most vulnerable to a counter-argument, but we’re not specifically asked what that counter-argument is.

36

© K A PL A N


24. (D) The conclusion here is that prohibition actually had the opposite of its intended effect: Since the death rate went up during this period, prohibition made people use more alcohol than they would have without the ban. To weaken the argument, look for something that provides an alternative explanation for the increase in the death rate. If something else was responsible for the death rate increase, then the conclusion that prohibition led to more drinking (an attempt to explain the mortality statistics) would be weakened. (D) is the only choice that doesn’t weaken the argument. How the alcohol that contributed to the alcoholrelated deaths between 1951 and 1963 is produced, and the fact that it’s imported, are irrelevant to the claim that prohibition fosters more drinking. All of the wrong choices sever the connection between the evidence (fatalities) and the conclusion (prohibition makes people want to drink more). They do this by providing alternative explanations for the fatalities: (A) shows that the fatalities recorded during the five year period could have been the result of alcohol abuse before prohibition went into effect. (B) brings up the possibility that the fatalities may not even be alcohol-related. (C) If the increase in the death rate during the stated period is simply part of a larger trend, then the ban on alcohol may have nothing to do with people’s desire to drink. (E) If this is true, then the death rate may have gone up due to a decline in life-saving medical attention for alcohol users, rather than an increase in drinking. • Don’t get careless and miss the word EXCEPT when it appears in question stems. It’s put there in capital letters, so there’s no excuse to miss out on this point because you were looking for a weakener as the correct choice. All the weakeners are wrong and should be crossed off. • In a “weaken EXCEPT” question, don’t expect the answer choice to necessarily be a strengthener, although it could be—chances are it will be a statement that simply has no effect on the argument. • Providing an alternative explanation for the evidence is a perfectly valid way to weaken an argument. Notice that this differs from attempting to discount the evidence itself (see bullet point for question 22). In this one, we can’t attempt to refute the fact that the death rate due to alcohol consumption went up during the period in question, but we can weaken the argument by showing that this increase does not necessarily lead to the stated conclusion.

© K A PL A N

37


25. (E) The editor concludes that the odds are overwhelming (19 to 1) that the letter was written by a man. Why does the editor think so? Because fewer than 5% of the professors at such schools are women. If the editor had no other information, this might seem to be a logical conclusion. However, there is another piece of info that certainly may sway the odds—the doctor’s name is Shirley!! Taking this into account, the editor’s reasoning seems flawed; it’s much more likely that the letter was written by a woman (it’s not 100%, because theoretically, there could be a man named Shirley, although it’s not very likely). This flawed reasoning is mirrored in (E). Since 19 out of 20 animals are mammals, and fewer than 1 out of 20 are birds, it is concluded that the odds are overwhelming (95%) that the animal Emily saw is a mammal. This totally disregards the fact that the animal was flying, which sways the prediction heavily in the other direction, much like the name “Shirley” did in the original. (A) interprets statistics a little too strictly, but doesn’t have the element we’re looking for; a factor that sways the normal odds associated with a prediction. (B) deals with not having the numbers of the evidence (15 with 1 in 20 evidence) which is not parallel with the stimulus. (C) The hypothetical “if he had graduated,” along with “a likely result” throw this choice off track. (D) contains an out and out statistical flaw, but this flaw doesn’t mirror the one perpetrated by the editor. In the stimulus and correct answer (E), probabilities are used to predict the nature of one specific thing, whereas in (D), the stats are used (erroneously) to formulate a conclusion about an entire group. • In Parallel Reasoning questions, try to abstract from the situation, and put the stimulus into very general terms: “The stats alone seem to support the prediction, but the extra information (Shirley) throws the prediction out of whack.” Then it’s much easier to spot correct choice (E) and eliminate the others.

38

© K A PL A N

SECTION III: READING COMPREHENSION

© K A PL A N

39

LSAT PREP ______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test XIV Explained: Section III

PASSAGE 1 — Earth’s Magnetic Field (Q. 1-6) Topic and Scope: Earth’s magnetic field; specifically, reversals in the magnetic field’s polarity. Purpose and Main Idea: The author’s purpose is to discuss the process that results in reversals of the magnetic field’s polarity, as well as two distinct hypotheses that try to explain these reversals; since this text is essentially descriptive, there really isn’t a specific main idea, though the author does say (in the last ¶) that the “heat-transfer hypothesis” offers a better explanation than the “asteroid-impact hypothesis.” Paragraph Structure: ¶1 introduces the topic and scope of the passage. The rest of this ¶ and all of ¶2 provide a lot of scientific factology about the Earth’s magnetic field, particularly facts about what is known (not much) about the process of polarity reversal. ¶3 outlines both the “heat-transfer hypothesis” and the “asteroid-impact hypothesis” of polarity reversal. In ¶4, on the other hand, the author asserts that the “heat-transfer hypothesis” is a more compelling explanation of polarity reversal. The Big Picture: • A good grasp of the passage doesn’t mean assimilating all of the details (they can be looked up should this become necessary). Rather, it means comprehending what the author’s doing in the text—in this case, describing a scientific process and two hypotheses that purport to explain it. • Although this isn’t a very difficult science passage, it’s still not a good place to begin work on the section. Why? Because the author’s purpose isn’t entirely clear until late in the passage. Passages that begin with a mass of facts—instead of a clear statement of authorial intent—are generally best left for later in the section. Moreover, a brief scan of the question set suggests that it’s not going to be an especially easy one. • Note, however, that this passage conforms to a structure that’s common in science passages: a scientific process is described and competing explanations of it are then evaluated. The Questions: 1. (C) This choice is a nice paraphrase of lines 16-21, which state that the Earth’s magnetic field is generated by the movement of free electrons in the hot metallic fluid that constitutes the Earth’s outer core. (A) distorts the “asteroid-impact hypothesis.” According to this hypothesis, “heat circulation in the outer core” is affected by changes in the polar ice caps, not the other way around.

40

© K A PL A N


(B) combines elements of both the “heat-transfer hypothesis” and the “asteroid-impact hypothesis” into a statement that has no support in the text. (D) is part of the “asteroid-impact hypothesis”—a hypothesis that may or may not turn out to be correct. (E) also distorts information in the text, which says that reversals in magnetic field polarity may be related to changes in “the heat circulation pattern of the outer core fluid...” (lines 2728). • When working on inference questions, be on the lookout for choices that distort information in the passage. 2. (E) In lines 59-63, the author’s objection to the “asteroid-impact hypothesis” is that it depends on an “extraterrestrial intervention,” which he finds less compelling than explanations that rest on terrestrial (or earthly) events. Of the choices, only (E) presents an extraterrestrial explanation—cometary impact—for the extinction of the dinosaurs. Choices (A)-(D) each present an “earthly” reason for the disappearance of the dinosaurs— the type of reason that the author favors when it comes to explaining earthly events, whether magnetic field reversals or species extinction. • This question is similar to an “all/EXCEPT” question in the sense that you’re asked to find the choice that is different in a fundamental way from the other choices. 3. (A) The author mentions hotter and cooler blobs in the context of describing the “heat-transfer hypothesis.” This hypothesis suggests that heat circulation patterns in the outer core are affected by the way in which heat is vented from the outer core. (B) distorts information in the text, which makes it clear that magnetic field reversal is thought to be caused by a disturbance in heat circulation patterns in the outer core (lines 26-28). (C) is too vague. The author mentions the blobs only in the context of laying out a specific hypothesis about magnetic field reversal. (C) is also beyond the passage’s scope: the text dwells on the Earth’s interior, not its exterior. (D) focuses on the substance of the detail, rather than why the author included it in the text. (E) also distorts information in the text. According to lines 16-18, it is an accepted fact that the magnetic field itself is produced by the movement of free electrons in the outer core’s fluid. • In logic questions, always keep the author’s purpose in mind.

© K A PL A N

41


4. (B) Lines 8-9 say that geological evidence demonstrates that magnetic field reversals have been occurring with greater frequency in the recent past. (A) Lines 1-3 state that “[i]t is a fundamental tenet of geophysics that the Earth’s magnetic field can exist in either of two polarity states...” A fundamental tenet is something that is agreed upon by everyone in the discipline. Besides, there’s no sense in the text that any geophysicists contest this fact. (C) is beyond the scope of the text. This passage is about the “underlying causes” (lines 1415) of magnetic field reversals, not about how fast they occur. The only point made about the speed of these reversals is that they occur over a period of thousands of years. (D) The “heat-transfer hypothesis” is simply one possible explanation that geophysicists have come up with to account for a process that they don’t fully understand. To say that it has enhanced their knowledge of magnetic field reversal is an overstatement. (E) Magnetic field reversal is thought to result from changes in heat circulation patterns in the outer core, not from friction along the boundary of inner and outer cores. • “Pre-phrasing” is often a very useful technique for focusing your search among the answer choices. In this case, you might have given some thought to what the passage says about magnetic field polarity before shopping among the choices. 5. (D) Although this passage discusses just two hypotheses about magnetic field reversal, we’re told that others exist. The last sentence of the text explicitly refers to “theories that depend on extraterrestrial intervention” and “theories like the first” (i.e., “earthly” theories). (A) is beyond the scope of the text. We’re not told what geophysicists in general think about these hypotheses, let alone whether “they have sharply divided the scientific community.” All we can infer from the text is that there is some support for both hypotheses. (B) These two hypotheses were formulated to address the “underlying causes” of magnetic field reversal. That they might also address the issue of reversal frequency is simply a byproduct of their primary function. (C) is a “half-right, half-wrong” choice. True, no firm conclusions about either hypothesis have yet been reached; but there’s no information about the extent to which the two have been explored. (E) is beyond the scope of the text. We aren’t told precisely when either hypothesis was formulated. Moreover, both hypotheses have at least some support among geophysicists. • Choices are often wrong for subtle reasons. As you move through them, be sure to read each one carefully and completely.

42

© K A PL A N


6. (D) Changes in oceanic circulation patterns aren’t mentioned anywhere in the text as possible contributors to magnetic field reversals. The “asteroid-impact hypothesis” does speak of temperature drops in and redistribution of seawater, but these events are different from changes in oceanic circulation patterns. (A) Geophysicists think that change in heat circulation in outer core fluid is the basic cause of magnetic field reversals. They part company, however, over what causes the change in heat circulation. (B) and (E) are components of the “asteroid-impact hypothesis.” (C) is part of the “heat-transfer hypothesis.” • In “all/EXCEPT” questions, your task is to find the choice that isn’t true.

© K A PL A N

43


PASSAGE 2 — Deconstruction (Q. 7-13) Topic and Scope: the literary philosophy of deconstruction; specifically, the connection between its terminology and its methods. Purpose and Main Idea: The author’s purpose is to demonstrate that links exist between deconstruction’s terminology and its methods; the author argues that deconstructionist terminology provides clear insights into deconstruction’s methods. Paragraph Structure: ¶s 1 and 2 essentially point out that deconstructionist terminology reflects the philosophy’s methods. The words—along with their prior meanings—that deconstructionists have “borrowed or adapted from stock” to define their philosophy imply certain things about that philosophy. ¶3 is the heart of the text. This ¶ discusses the specific ways in which the term deconstruction sheds light on deconstructionist methods. Basically, this term, which is taken from the construction industry, highlights deconstructionist efforts to demolish, rather than simply criticize, literary works. The Big Picture: • Many of you may have found this a difficult passage because of its rather abstract nature. Don’t worry if you don’t understand all of the points made by the author— you’re not going to be asked about most of them. The most important thing to pick up on in a passage like this one is the author’s critical tone—that’s what’ll really help you to answer questions. • Since this passage isn’t easy, a savvy test taker might well have left it for last. On test day, begin work on the reading comprehension section with a more “concrete” passage.

44

© K A PL A N


The Questions: 7. (A) This choice nicely captures the topic, scope, and purpose of the passage. (B) These literary terms didn’t pre-date deconstruction; rather, deconstructionists turned these words into literary terms. Besides, this is a mere detail in ¶2; it’s certainly not the text’s main idea. (C) also plays on a detail in ¶2. (D) focuses on a detail in ¶3. Moreover, this choice reflects the author’s opinion of deconstruction, which isn’t necessarily what deconstructionists think of deconstruction. (E) This choice contradicts the author’s critical attitude toward evaluating literature in light of “borrowed or adapted” terminology. • The correct answer to global questions must be broad enough to encompass the contents of the entire passage. Avoid choices—like (B), (C), and (D) here—that blow up details into “main ideas.” 8. (E) This choice is a good paraphrase of lines 15-18. (A) The author never claims that deconstruction would have been impossible without the use of these terms. He refers to them simply to highlight an aspect of deconstructionist philosophy. (B) is an au contraire choice. Lines 12-15 indicate that deconstructionists have chosen neologisms for very specific reasons. (C) The author never says that deconstruction “contains inherent contradictions.” What he says is that deconstructionists are on the lookout for contradictions in the work of others. (D) is another au contraire choice. Deconstructionists are interested enough “in the relationship between words and their referents” that they’ve developed terminology to illustrate this relationship. • The best approach to explicit text questions is to go back to the passage and reread. Don’t answer based on a hunch or a vague recollection of the text.

© K A PL A N

45


9. (C) The author’s belief about innovation in language (lines 1-6) is that it consists of giving new meanings to existing words. (C) expresses precisely the same relationship—existing components “are made to function in new ways.” None of the other choices reflects the author’s fundamental idea about “borrowing or adapting” something that already exists to serve a new end. • Don’t nitpick over wrong choices. Being concerned about their exact meaning will slow your progress greatly. Only one choice is categorically correct. Once you’ve found that choice, discard the rest quickly. 10. (B) In lines 44-46, the author sets up a contrast between deconstruction and criticism. In lines 4656, he fleshes out this contrast by defining criticism and showing how it differs from deconstruction. (A) Lines 46-56 do contain an example of sorts—the example of the building. This example, however, is in the text because it supports the contrast that the author makes. (C), (D), and (E) are beyond the scope of the text. If anything, the author makes an argument in lines 46-56; he doesn’t undermine one (C). Nor does he “codify a system” (D) or “dismiss an objection” (E): What system? What objection? • Questions often ask about the why of a detail, a paragraph, or a set of lines—that’s one reason why you’ve got to read for what the author’s thinking and doing, not for what he or she’s saying. 11. (C) In ¶1, the author argues that the old meaning of words doesn’t disappear when people use these words in new ways. In ¶2, the author provides an example of this phenomenon by showing that the word “signify” conjures up a certain idea, even though deconstructionists don’t have this idea in mind when they use this word. (A),(B) ¶2 neither “introduces a hypothesis” (A) nor “qualifies a claim” (B). It simply backs up an abstract argument made in ¶1 with a concrete example. (D) distorts a detail in the last sentence of ¶2. (E) ¶3 “presents a contrasting view”—a view that takes issue with deconstruction. • If you read for a sense of how the text is structured, the answer should have snapped into place.

46

© K A PL A N


12. (B) In ¶3, the author’s disapproval of deconstruction, which he thinks “has no overtones of skill or wisdom,” is evident. Equally apparent is his approval of criticism, which is based on “skill and insight.” (A) Deconstructionists—not the author—think that it’s important to “demonstrate false assumptions and inherent contradictions.” (C) The author has problems with deconstructionist philosophy, not with the number of deconstructionists (or, for that matter, other critics) who may analyze a work. (D) is a metaphor for an analytic process favored by deconstructionists. The author is critical of this analytic process. (E) distorts a detail in lines 32-34. The author doesn’t make any judgements about text structures; he makes a judgement about differing modes of literary criticism. • This is an excellent example of a question that could be readily answered if you picked up on the author’s critical tone toward deconstruction. 13. (D) This choice both reflects the author’s generally negative attitude toward deconstruction, and echoes his comment in lines 28-30. (A),(B),(C) The author isn’t “guardedly optimistic” (A) or “enthusiastic” (C) about deconstruction. Nor does he “endorse” it in any respect (B). Indeed, he’s critical of deconstruction’s search for authorial bias, as well as the way it uses words and neologisms. (E) is too strongly negative in tone. Besides, according to the author, deconstructionists don’t think of literary criticism as a “creative act.” Just the opposite; it’s a repetitive, “mechanical” process. • Grasping the author’s tone immediately allowed you to eliminate (A), (B), and (C). Then, all you had to do was choose between (D) and (E), and (E) was wrong for a couple of reasons.

© K A PL A N

47


PASSAGE 3 — Stolen Art (Q. 14-20) Topic and Scope: Stolen art; specifically, legislation intended to protect “good-faith” purchasers of stolen art. Purpose and Main Idea: The author’s purpose is to argue against such legislation; the author’s specific main idea is that such legislation is not only unnecessary to protect goodfaith purchasers, but is also unfair to those who seek to reclaim stolen art. Paragraph Structure: ¶1 describes the new legislation designed to protect good-faith purchasers of allegedly stolen art, essentially saying that the burden of proof lies entirely with those who want to recover the art, and restricting the amount of time that they have to do so. ¶2 discusses the rationale behind the legislation, making the point that without such a law any individual or organization that has made a good-faith purchase of art is in jeopardy of losing it. The Keyword “however” at the beginning of ¶3 signals that we’re about to get the author’s opinion. He argues against the legislation on two grounds: (1) it’s unnecessary because there haven’t been many “reclamation suits” and (2) it’s unfair to those who seek to recover stolen art because its stipulations make it virtually impossible for them to press a claim. In ¶4, the author goes on to argue that a different type of legislation is necessary—legislation that makes it easier for the rightful owners of stolen art to find and reclaim their property. The Big Picture: • This passage is a pretty good place to begin work on the reading comprehension section. Why? The subject matter is very accessible, and the author’s voice is plainly evident from line 25 on. Moreover, even before you get to line 25, it’s predictable that the first two ¶s are simply a set up for an authorial counterargument. • Don’t worry about taking in all of the author’s various reasons (in ¶3) for arguing that the intended legislation is unfair to those who want to recover stolen property— you can always look them up if the questions demand it. The Questions: 14. (C) This choice neatly encompasses the author’s topic, scope, and purpose. (A) is an au contraire choice. In lines 25-26, the author contends that reclamation suits haven’t been a problem; therefore, he argues, legislation to “clarify” the rights of museums isn’t necessary. Moreover, this choice is too narrow in focus—the author looks at more than simply “the legal position of museums...”

48

© K A PL A N


(B) is beyond the scope of the text. According to the text, James Burke, a museum director, supports the new legislation; but that’s quite different from saying that museum directors in general urged it on the government. In fact, the passage doesn’t say anything about the attitudes of museum directors in general. (D) is also beyond the scope of the text. First, the passage doesn’t refer to “clashes” between “museum professionals” and “members of the academic community.” Second, the passage is about a specific piece of legislation concerning stolen art, not about arts-related legislation in general. (E), too, is beyond the scope. The passage doesn’t discuss any alleged “desire of some governments to use legislation and litigation to recover cultural property.” Moreover, the author’s attitude toward the recovery of stolen art is such that he would be unlikely to speak of legal “abuses” by governments that actually sought to reclaim art. • In global questions, the correct choice will always be consistent with the text’s scope. Choices that are too general in nature or that refer to issues that the author never tackles will always be wrong. 15. (B) Lines 3-5 make it abundantly clear that the “uncertainty” referred to in line 2 concerns “the ownership of art,” specifically legal challenges to the current owners by those who claim that the art was previously stolen. The rest of the passage takes up this very theme. (A) is beyond the scope of the text. The passage deals with the legal issue of ownership of allegedly stolen art; it doesn’t discuss the moral issues involved in ownership of “great art.” (C) If anyone has got questions about the origins of art works, it’s the people who’d like to reclaim them. (D) is also beyond the scope of the text. The passage doesn’t discuss “disputes” between “cultural institutions vying for the opportunity to purchase” a piece of art. (E) Current art owners aren’t worried about damage or theft, but rather legal challenges to their ownership. • When a question stem provides a line reference, the correct answer can be found by reading the lines around that reference—i.e., by getting a sense of the context in which the relevant term or detail appears.

© K A PL A N

49


16. (C) In the absence of a statute of limitations on the recovery of art, Burke is afraid that any country might pass a law at any time to the effect that all art works produced within its territory are “cultural property” that rightfully belong to it. Such a legal decision, he goes on to argue, could involve museums that possess art works from such a country in “ruinous” court battles. Choice (C) reflects precisely the sort of scenario that Burke fears. (A) Burke is worried about art works currently held by museums, not those that they might be prevented from buying in the future. (B),(E) Burke is concerned about possible national, not international, legal developments. (D) There’s nothing in the passage to indicate that Burke thinks that private collectors pose a threat to museums. • Summing up the gist of paragraphs really helps with questions like this one. Burke provides one defense of the intended legislation. If you understood that defense, choice (C) should have jumped right off the page. 17. (C) In ¶2, Burke refers to foreign governments as potential adversaries of his nation’s museums. (A),(D),(E) Burke never even mentions commercial art dealers (A), private art collectors (D), or other countries’ museums (E). (B) If anything, Burke views law enforcement officials in his own country as potential allies. He does, after all, praise his country’s new legislation. • The answer to one question is often closely related to the answer to another question in the set. In this case, the answers to questions 16 and 17 play on exactly the same idea in the passage. When possible, use the answer to the easier question to help you with the more difficult one. 18. (A) This choice is a nice paraphrase of lines 25-26, where the author, on the basis of past history, disputes Burke’s fears (expressed in the previous ¶) that widespread reclamation suits could do serious harm to current art holders. (B),(E) The author explicitly states that reclamation suits haven’t yet become a problem. And certainly not as a result of supportive legislation (B), which isn’t on the government’s agenda, or a growth in theft (E), which isn’t even mentioned in the text. (C) is an au contraire choice. The author says that reclamation suits haven’t been a problem up to this point in time.

50

© K A PL A N


(D) How could the author believe that lawsuits are a sign of frustration, legitimate or otherwise, when he suggests that they’ve been a very infrequent occurrence? • In inference questions, the correct answer won’t stray too far from the text. Therefore, you shouldn’t go through a lot of mental gymnastics to justify a choice. 19. (D) ¶s 3 and 4 clearly demonstrate that the author opposes the proposed legislation with a series of careful arguments. His attitude, in other words, is best described as one of “reasoned opposition.” (A),(B),(E) These choices wrongly suggest that the author supports—with greater or lesser enthusiasm—the proposed legislation. As a matter of fact, in ¶4, he proposes counterlegislation. (C) The author opposes the legislation on the grounds that it is unnecessary to protect good-faith purchasers, as well as unfair to those who are legitimately trying to reclaim stolen art. This type of opposition certainly doesn’t qualify as “fearful apprehension.” • When a question asks about an attitude, watch out for choices that are either the opposite of the attitude in question or too extreme in tone. 20. (E) In ¶4, the author advocates legislation that would make it easier for rightful owners of art to recover stolen property. A law that mandated the collection and distribution of information about art thefts would certainly make it easier for rightful owners to recover their property. (A) In lines 35-37, the author contends that museum publications aren’t a solution to publicizing and locating stolen art. (B) Who should hold onto art that is the subject of litigation isn’t an issue that the author delves into. (C) The author favors those who want to reclaim stolen property, not museums that would like to keep it. (D) The author’s concerned with the reclamation of stolen art, not with museum-tomuseum sales of it. • Always keep an eye out for choices that aren’t true to the spirit of the passage—like choices (A) and (C) here.

© K A PL A N

51


PASSAGE 4 — Russian Serfdom, US Slavery (Q. 21-27) Topic and Scope: Kolchin’s comparative study of serfdom in Russia and slavery in the United States; specifically, Kolchin’s identification of important differences between the two systems. Purpose and Main Idea: Author wants to outline Kochin’s findings, “especially with regard to the different kinds of rebellion exhibited by slaves and serfs.” Paragraph Structure: ¶1 explains that very few historians have compared slavery and serfdom, with the final sentence introducing Kolchin’s book. ¶2 notes key differences in the number and population size of slave- or serf-owing estates in Russia and the US. ¶3 explains that these demographic differences “partly explain differences in the kinds of resistance that slaves and serfs practiced in their respective countries.” Resistance was common in both countries, but large, organized, armed rebellions were more common in Russia. Conflicts between US owners and slaves were frequent but less collective, mostly because there were fewer workers on each estate in the US. The Big Picture: • This history passage focuses on a book. That’s common. What’s unusual is that the author gives no direct critical assessment of Kolchin’s ideas. The author just lays out Kolchin’s findings, implying that his work is satisfactory. • The academic lingo is long-winded, but the paragraphs organize things nicely— certainly a dividend for the pressured test taker. ¶1: a long intro to Kolchin; ¶2: the key demographics; ¶3: differences in forms of rebellion. The Questions: 21. (A) (A) captures the gist of the key final sentence of ¶1, and it echoes the thrust of ¶3. Plus it echoes the content of ¶2, which supplies the demographic facts that explain the differences in forms of slave and serf resistance. (B) contradicts the passage. Kolchin has now written such a study—and the implication is that it’s at least “adequate.” (C) refers to a detail in ¶3. It entirely leaves out the companion issue of slave resistance in the US.

52

© K A PL A N


(D) distorts the passage, which never suggests that Kolchin is skeptical of comparative studies. On the contrary—he’s written one! (E) De Toqueville is a passing detail in ¶1. • It’s often a good idea to tackle global questions first, but given the length of these choices, you might have saved this question for last. Be flexible, though: Here, correct choice (A) is waiting at the head of the pack for the bright-eyed. 22. (B) (B) paraphrases the first 2-3 sentences. It’s as simple as that. (A) contradicts the opening sentence: “Until recently, few historians were interested in analyzing the similarities and differences between” serfdom and slavery. (C) distorts the passage, which never suggests any “inability” on de Toqueville’s part—he simply never addressed the issue of abolition in the two countries. (D) Like (A), (D) contradicts the first sentence. (E) Half-right, half-wrong. De Toqueville “recognized the significant comparability of the two nations...” but his commonality with other historians was that he never compared slavery and serfdom. • Explicit Text questions are often the easiest points in reading comprehension. Don’t hesitate to grab them first. 23. (C) (C) is consistent with key info in ¶s 2-3. Organized rebellions were common in Russia because most serfs lived on large estates, which encouraged collective forms of resistance. A parallel idea would be that any organized rebellions occurring in the US would, like those in Russia, have occurred on large estates. (A) would weaken Kolchin’s theme. His idea is that Russian conditions tended to encourage hugely explosive revolts, not merely “smaller collective acts of defiance”—the volnenie. (B) picks up on info in the second sentence of ¶3: Much of the rebelliousness in both countries—which took the form of silent sabotage—escaped the historical record. Kolchin’s major point, however, is that demographics accounted for differences in the occurrence of overt armed rebellion, not silent sabotage. Plus, if there were armed revolts in the US that escaped the historical record, then that would raise questions about, not strengthen, Kolchin’s findings. (D) goes on at length without saying anything especially relevant.

© K A PL A N

53


(E) would undercut Kolchin, who points to a revealing correlation between the likelihood of serf revolt and the fact that most Russian estates were managed by intermediaries. • A long and wordy stem, followed by long and wordy choices—great reasons to pass this question by, unless you’ve already bagged other points. • Take control of tricky stems. This one’s just a gussied-up Inference question—you want a choice that’s consistent with (that would reinforce) major passage info. 24. (C) (C) paraphrases the passage. The author’s surprised that the coincidence of abolition in Russia and the US “failed to arouse the interest of scholars.” As (C) says, that coincidence should have prompted comparative study of the two institutions. (A) The passage never explains what led to abolition in either country. (B) The passage never suggests that de Toqueville missed something he should have noticed. (D) No criticism of Kolchin’s book is ever made. (E) is inconsistent with the passage, which stresses key differences between slavery and serfdom. • Another easy point to pick up early on, before spending time with tougher questions. 25. (A) This choice repeats info in the last sentence of ¶1: “...historians might have been put off by the forbidding political differences between nineteenth-century Russia and the United States.” None of the other choices are suggested. • Once you’ve found (A), go through the remaining choices if time permits and if you want total insurance that you’re right. But if time is short, move to the next point.

54

© K A PL A N


26. (D) (D) is a simple paraphrase of the point made in the last sentence of ¶2: “In Russia most serfs rarely saw their owners....” (A) Never suggested. The only action attributed to the nobles was their relying on intermediaries to manage their estates. (B) Ditto. Never suggested. (C) Never suggested. (E) Never suggested. • Cut quickly through ultra-long wrong choices. Every one of these sounds suspicious in its opening words: The passage says zilch about nobles agreeing to the abolition of serfdom...(A), becoming more directly involved in estate management...(B), commonly agreeing to any demands...(C), or hastening the abolition of serfdom...(E). 27. (D) (D) is pretty directly stated in the last sentence of ¶2, the same material that provided the answer to question 26. (A) The passage never says that any estate owner—Russian or US—was “prepared for collective protest.” (B) Au contraire. Most southern planters—98% of them, implies ¶2—owned fewer than 100 slaves. (C) Tempting, since most Russian estates were managed by intermediaries, but not clearly implied. (D) is far better. (E) Au contraire, according to ¶2. • Your work with question 26 should have made (D) here a fast, easy point.

© K A PL A N

55

SECTION IV: LOGICAL REASONING

56

© K A PL A N

LSAT PREP ______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test XIV Explained: Section IV

1. (E) We’re asked to explain why measuring the cholesterol levels of their blood apparently enabled participants who were given kits to lower their cholesterol levels more than those who weren’t given kits. As (E) has it, people who had kits and could therefore measure their levels were more motivated to lower these levels. In other words, they worked harder at it than the participants who didn’t get kits. (A) is too vague. It implies that the readings of the people who got kits were inaccurate, but that could mean that the people with kits actually lowered their levels by even more than 15 percent, which would only worsen the discrepancy, so (A) is no help. (B) rules out a possible alternative explanation. If participants with the kits ate lots of foods that lower cholesterol levels, that might explain why their levels were lower, but (B) says they avoided such foods, which only makes things even more mysterious. (C) is irrelevant. How could using the kit more frequently during the first two months explain why people with kits ended up with lower cholesterol levels? (D) provides useless background information. So what if everyone lowered their cholesterol levels somewhat, or if this was achieved in the first three months? That doesn’t resolve the discrepancy between the cholesterol levels of those with kits and those without ‘em. • The key to a paradox/discrepancy question is finding a reasonable alternative explanation for the situation described in the stimulus; therefore, any choice that rules out a possible explanation, such as (B) here, should be discarded immediately. • You must read choices carefully; one word can make a difference between a right and wrong answer. If (B) said “raise” instead of “lower,” or “eat” instead of “avoid,” it would be a viable choice. 2. (D) To match the principle given, we need a situation in which someone either doesn’t praise a seemingly generous act because he or she believes it was done for selfish reasons, or doesn’t condemn an apparently selfish act because he or she believes it was not done for selfish reasons. We get the former in (D): Margaret offered to share her house with the French family not because she wanted to be generous but because she wanted to use their apartment—a clearly selfish motive, so Daniel was correct not to praise her. (A), (C), (E) All of these choices fail one the same basic count: The principle involves withholding praise or condemnation, and the correct choice must adhere to this element. The principle also concerns people’s motives in performing certain actions, but we don’t even know Monica’s motives for offering to help Caroline (A), and William doesn’t have any apparent motive for not staying in touch with Enrique—he’s simply an airhead (C). (B) would work if it told us that Michael’s motives for donating to charity were selfish, but instead it tells us that his motives for telling Sarah he donates to charity are selfish.

© K A PL A N

57


• In a principle question, make sure you pick a choice that clearly demonstrates the principle in the stimulus. Offshoots of the principle are no good, and many choices that stray beyond the principle itself can be eliminated for the same reasons. 3. (C) We’re asked to explain why, after widespread publicity about a study that showed that bottled water is generally less safe to drink than tap water, sales of bottled water continued to go up. The key phrase here is “in many cases.” This implies that not all the bottled water is worse than tap water, which allows the possibility of choice (C): While bottled water overall may not be safe, if some popular brands of it are even safer than tap water, then these brands could account for the increase in sales. (A) provides useless detail about why bottled water is less safe than drinking water, but we want to know why, given that this is so, people are buying more bottled water than ever. (B) and (E) rule out possible alternative explanations. In (B), if consumers preferred the taste of bottled water to tap water, that might explain why they continue drinking it when they know it isn’t safe, but (B) says they can’t distinguish between the two, so it’s no help. In (E), if frequent government warnings caused consumers to ignore the study, that too could explain the increased sales, but (E) instead says that frequent warnings make consumers even more leery of unsafe foods, which only reinforces the paradox. (D) implies that the study has caused increases in bottled-water sales to slow somewhat. So what? The point is that sales continue to increase, and (D) doesn’t explain why this is so. • When asked to resolve an apparent discrepancy or paradox, look for an alternative explanation that doesn’t contradict the evidence provided. • Reject answer choices that, like (B) and (E) above, rule out possible alternative explanations. 4. (C) Evidence: There are nonrenewable, economically useful raw materials on Earth. Conclusion: If these materials can’t be found somewhere else besides Earth, people will no longer be able to achieve what they now achieve using the materials. You may have been able to pre-phrase an answer to this one: Maybe they can use other materials that are renewable to accomplish what is currently accomplished with the original materials. The author has assumed this is not an option, and (C), by breaking down this assumption, undermines the argument. (A) is beyond the scope. Evidence and conclusion deal with economically useful resources that are nonrenewable; renewable resources are irrelevant. (B) is irrelevant. The author never claims that it’ll be easy to find raw materials in outer space, so denying that it’s easy doesn’t affect her reasoning.

58

© K A PL A N


(D) involves a scope shift. The issue is whether or not people will be able to accomplish what they now accomplish with certain resources, not whether or not the things they accomplish are worth accomplishing. (E) provides useless background information. The author specifically uses the word “eventually,” so who cares how long it will take for these nonrenewable resources to be depleted? A few hundred years, or a few thousand years, it makes no difference—we’re interested in whether or not people will be able to accomplish what they now accomplish using those resources, and (E) doesn’t address this. • Most of the wrong answer choices on weaken the argument questions address issues that aren’t essential to the argument. Learn to eliminate these “beyond the scope” choices quickly so you can concentrate on finding the right answer. • Don’t forget about the “Can vs. Should” scope shift: If an argument centers around what’s possible given a certain set of circumstances, issues such as whether it should be done, or is easy to do, are irrelevant. 5. (B) In the first experiment, levels of naturally occurring salicylic acid in the resistant plants went way up when those plants were infected with tobacco mosaic virus; this didn’t happen in the nonresistant plants. In the second experiment, the nonresistant plants that were injected with salicylic acid didn’t become infected when exposed to the virus, while the ones that didn’t get injections fell victim to the disease. We definitely have a pattern developing here. It appears that salicylic acid production has something to do with the way that tobacco plants protect themselves from the disease caused by tobacco mosaic virus. (A) Scope shift: Neither experiment dealt with curing plants that were already diseased, so we can’t infer that injections of salicylic acid can accomplish this. (C) Read carefully! In the first experiment, levels of naturally occurring salicylic acid didn’t increase in the nonresistant plants infected with the virus, implying that, contrary to (C), these plants do produce some salicylic acid, just not as much as the resistant plants do. (D) is beyond the scope. The stimulus never discusses how to test whether an uninfected tobacco plant is resistant to the mosaic virus, so we have no idea how this would be done. (E) too is beyond the scope. We don’t know if it’s possible to increase salicylic acid production in nonresistant tobacco plants, since the stimulus never dealt with this issue. All we know is that injecting these plants with salicylic acid helped fight off the virus. • It’s common for wrong choices in inference and conclusion questions to draw too broad a conclusion from a stimulus that’s narrow in scope. Notice how tentatively correct choice (B) is worded: “Producing salicylic acid is at least part of the mechanism. . . . “

© K A PL A N

59


• Notice the qualified wording of the correct conclusion: “at least in part;” “some tobacco plants.” Many of the wrong choices lack this qualified nature, and thus go too far. Pay attention to other signals of qualified statements: “probably,” “usually,” etc. Often, qualified statements fit as a desired inference or conclusion better than their more definite and stricter counterparts. 6. (A) The big assumption in this argument is that we can gauge the level of heroin use solely by the number of number of hospital emergency room visits by heroin users. But notice that we’re not even told that these heroin users showed up in the emergency room for heroinrelated incidents. The number of heroin users that showed up in emergency rooms in the 80s could have increased while the use of heroin didn’t if more heroin users went to the emergency room for other reasons than they did in the past. (A)’s increase in the use of automatic weapons and thus in the risk of injury to heroin users makes it possible that there were more emergency room visits because of increased gunshot wounds among heroin users, not because of any increase in heroin usage. (B) wouldn’t account for the author’s evidence. If users are less likely to get infected by smoking this new form of heroin, then it would seem there should have been fewer, not more, emergency room visits by heroin users. (C) doesn’t satisfy the first requirement in the stem: The ability to accommodate the increase in heroin users does nothing to explain why that increase happened in the first place. (D)’s the au contraire choice; it claims that heroin use did increase. But we’re looking for a scenario where emergency room visits went up while heroin use didn’t, so (D)’s no good. (E) provides useless background information. Knowing what types of heroin-related ailments caused heroin users to visit emergency rooms is no help in our effort to show that emergency room visits went up while heroin use didn’t. • When the argument seems incomplete (i.e., the evidence doesn’t seem to lead all the way to the conclusion), it’s a good bet that the author is relying on a central assumption. Often, the author assumes a connection that’s not explicitly stated, and recognizing this can help you answer the question. 7. (C) As mentioned above, the author assumes that there’s a connection between the number of emergency room visits by heroin users and the incidence of heroin usage. To use the Denial Test, if there were no correlation between the two, the author’s argument would make no sense, so (C) must be assumed. (A) is beyond the scope. The author deals with emergency room visits by heroin users; nothing is assumed about when or why heroin users seek medical care. To use the Denial Test again, it wouldn’t affect the argument at all if, contrary to (A), heroin users typically seek medical care in the early stages of addiction.

60

© K A PL A N


(B), since it would weaken the argument, can’t be assumed. If heroin users visit emergency rooms repeatedly, then it’s possible that the number of emergency room visits has gone up because of repeat visits and not because of any increase in heroin use. (D) is reminiscent of choice (B) in Question 6. If the new methods of using heroin are less dangerous, shouldn’t the number emergency room visits have declined rather than increased? (D) makes no sense, so it can’t be assumed. (E) It’s not necessary to the argument that the heroin users who go to emergency rooms identify themselves as such, just that the hospital is aware that they are heroin users (otherwise, there’d be no way to tell that the number of visits by heroin users has increased). To use the Denial Test again, it wouldn’t affect the argument if heroin users did not identify themselves as such when they visited emergency rooms. • Avoid skipping stimuli that come with two questions. Once you’ve invested time in answering one of the questions, the other often comes easily. • Keep working on your command of the Denial Test for assumption questions. It’s your best insurance against falling for wrong answers. 8. (E) In the stimulus, we get a correlation between two phenomena (sunspot activity and popular uprisings); then a connection linking the two: Sunspot activity causes more positive ions, which cause greater anxiety and irritability. The argument then concludes with an assertion of causation: Sunspot activity must be at least partly responsible for popular uprisings. So we can abstract the logical thrust of the argument: Correlation between two things; a supposed connection; therefore, causality. We get this in (E): correlation (between offices with lots of windows and high productivity); the connection (more exposure to natural light increases alertness); therefore, causation (the greater number of windows is at least partly responsible for certain people’s higher productivity). (A), unlike the stimulus, doesn’t argue that the correlation between the birds’ flight patterns and certain events shows that the first caused the second; instead, it claims that the flight patterns were the result of some other factor that “also” helped cause the events. (B) argues for a correlation between Ridgeview’s academic worth and the success of its graduates, but it doesn’t contain any kind of long causal chain; moreover, it’s completely unlike the stimulus argument in that it argues against another claim: Ridgeview’s poor academic reputation. (C)’s correlation-to-causation argument is similar to that in the stimulus, but it also contains another element—an argument from past (last winter) to future (next winter). This hypothetical future event (“if prices are high next winter”) plays no part in the original. (D) correlates a diet high in vegetables with good health, but rather than argue, as the stimulus and (E) do, that the first causes the second, (D) instead concludes with a recommendation: everyone should eat vegetables. No recommendations are found in the stimulus, so (D)’s not parallel.

© K A PL A N

61


• A quick way to eliminate choices in Parallel Reasoning is to focus in on the conclusion: The original ends, in general terms, stating that “it’s likely that X has been a factor in causing Y.” This is not the same as “a third factor influences two other factors” (A); “if X happens, it will be the result of Y” (C); or “since X is known to help Y, everyone should do X” (D). 9. (D) A bit of disguised formal logic here: In order to be elected, one cannot support the new plan. Everyone that understands economics doesn’t support the tax plan. Therefore, only someone who understands economics can be elected. You should be able to pre-phrase the problem with this reasoning: People who understand economics aren’t necessarily the only people who don’t support the new tax plan. There could easily be people who don’t support the plan, don’t understand economics, and yet can still be elected. (A) isn’t a possibility that’s overlooked; in fact, it’s the crux of the second premise in the argument. (B) There could be people who truly understand economics yet have no chance of being elected due to other reasons; this doesn’t undermine the conclusion that understanding economics is necessary to be elected. So even though the author doesn’t acknowledge the group in (B), the existence of this group doesn’t show why the argument is flawed. (C) Same as (B): In order to be elected, one can’t support the tax plan. Non-support is therefore necessary to being elected. That doesn’t mean that it’s sufficient—nothing requires that every non-supporter is eligible for election. Again, one could be against the tax plan and still fall short for other reasons. So, like (B), the possibility that this group exists doesn’t show why the argument is flawed. (E) Since (E)’s claim is about people who aren’t electable, it has no bearing on the author’s conclusion. We’ve already established in the other answer choices that there can be a whole host of reasons that people aren’t electable other than the lack of an understanding of economics. • Recognize formal logic when it appears, if for no other reason than to skip it if it’s one of your problem areas. Some test-takers would have been best off saving this one until the end rather than slave over the choices. • Pre-phrasing the answer in this one was crucial—most test-takers who went to the answer choices with nothing in mind got buried by the complex wording and double negatives. As confusing as this argument and the choices may appear, the flaw can be weeded out using simple common sense. • Make sure you’re adept at working with necessary and sufficient conditions. An “only” statement denotes necessity—the author claims that it’s necessary to understand economics in order to be elected. That doesn’t mean that understanding economics will guarantee that one is electable; there could be other factors that come into play as well.

62

© K A PL A N


10. (A) In responding to the interviewer’s objection that some insomniacs don’t respond to treatment, the therapist claims that their failure to respond merely proves that these people didn’t rigorously adhere to their treatment. The problem with this reply is that it doesn’t allow for the therapist to be wrong; no matter what evidence anyone produces that some insomniacs failed to respond to the therapist’s treatment, the therapist can simply argue that these people didn’t try hard enough. In other words, the therapist is always right, or, as (A) rather pompously puts it, his reply “precludes the possibility of disconfirming evidence.” (B) There’s no ambiguity about the term “treatment”; the therapist uses it to refer to the same thing as the interviewer does: treatment for insomnia. (C) is irrelevant. Neither the interviewer nor the therapist discusses the reasons for patients’ insomnia; they’re interested in cures, plain and simple. (D) There’s no need for statistics because the therapist doesn’t argue on the basis of statistics. Rather, he makes the sweeping claim that anyone who doesn’t respond to his treatment just isn’t trying hard enough. (E) is beyond the scope. Insomniacs who would improve on their own, without treatment, aren’t part of the argument. The argument concerns insomniacs who don’t respond to any treatment, not those who do respond to a lack of treatment. • Reading the question stem first, while helpful with all Logical Reasoning questions, works especially well with flaw questions. You save time by knowing at the outset that there’s something wrong with the reasoning in the stimulus. • As you go through the answer choices for flaw questions, ask yourself whether fixing the “flaw” listed in each choice will repair the argument. If there’s still a problem with the reasoning, look for a different choice. 11. (E) The conservative argues that history is not inevitable, despite the fact that socialist arguments begin with an analysis of history and claim to locate trends therein that lead ineluctably to socialism. The socialist replies that if socialists thought history was inevitable, they wouldn’t attempt to transform capitalist institutions, and that socialists analyze history in order to understand these institutions and thereby transform them. Thus the source of the dispute is why socialists analyze history: to argue that socialism is inevitable, as the conservative believes, or to understand capitalist institutions in order to transform them, as the socialist claims. (A) Both the socialist and the conservative agree that socialism is not inevitable, so this can’t be the source of their disagreement. (B) is beyond the scope of the dispute. The socialist evidently thinks capitalist institutions need transforming, but the conservative never discusses them, so we don’t know whether he disagrees with the socialist on this point.

© K A PL A N

63


(C) Again, as the socialist points out, socialists don’t think socialism is inevitable, so this can’t be the source of the disagreement. (D) is a point both agree on. The socialist obviously believes people can affect the course of history—she argues that socialists analyze history in order to work to transform capitalist institutions and thereby bring about socialism. And the conservative claims history occurs through “individual struggle,” among other things, so apparently, he too thinks people can affect the course of history. • In dialogues, be sure to isolate the argument each person is making. Read the second argument with respect to its relation to the first. • The correct answer to a “point at issue” question like this must involve an issue that’s part of both arguments. There will often be one or two choices that are outside the scope of one of the arguments, and there’s also likely to be a choice containing an issue that’s agreed upon by both parties. 12. (E) To recap, the conservative’s view of history is that it occurs through accident, contingency, and individual struggle. The socialist, meanwhile, believes that people can work to bring about socialism by transforming the institutions of capitalist society. So far, no disagreement—both hold that individuals can affect the course of history. But if, as (E) has it, the conservative also thinks that history is mostly the result of accident and that it’s therefore impossible for people to bring about large-scale social changes, then he must disagree with the socialist’s statements. (A) is beyond the scope. Neither the socialist nor the conservative discusses the possibility of predicting present forms of capitalism, so this is irrelevant. (B) This is precisely what the conservative argues: that history only appears inevitable in retrospect. But since the socialist doesn’t think history is inevitable either, they don’t disagree on this point. (C) is beyond the scope. Neither radical changes in social structures nor the results of those changes are mentioned, so we don’t know the socialist’s or the conservative’s opinions about them. (D)’s also beyond the scope. The socialist never discusses the role of accident or contingency in bringing about socialism, so it’s possible she would agree with the conservative’s belief that socialism arises purely from individual struggle. • Try not to skip two-question stimuli! Again, once you’ve taken the time to answer one of the questions, the other is often quite manageable.

64

© K A PL A N


13. (C) The author uses evidence that dependence on and abuse of a drug needn’t go hand in hand in order to conclude that the definition of “addiction” must be incorrect. In so arguing, she assumes that the cancer patients who, she claims, depend on but do not abuse morphine, are actually addicted to morphine. This assumption is so simple you might have missed it, but look at it this way: If those cancer patients were not addicted to morphine, the author couldn’t use them as evidence that the definition of “addiction” is incorrect. (A) is tricky, but it’s not assumed. Strictly speaking, it’s possible that, contrary to (A), the cancer patients who depend on morphine do occasionally abuse it—that wouldn’t affect the author’s claim that dependence and abuse don’t “always” go hand in hand. (B) No; the author states that cancer patients can become addicted to morphine, and then goes on to use this case to show that this doesn’t always lead to abuse. Nothing is assumed about whether cancer patients “often” become dependent on morphine; even if it’s a rare occurrence, that wouldn’t affect the stream of logic. (D) is a misreading. The author argues that cancer patients can be dependent on morphine without abusing it; there’s no assumption about cancer patients who do abuse drugs, since they’re not part of her argument. (E) As Descartes would declare, “Au contraire!” If the author assumed that cancer patients can’t depend on morphine without abusing it, that would destroy her argument that abuse and dependency don’t necessarily go together. • Keep the topic and scope of the argument in mind. This whole argument centers around a definition of “addiction.” So when asked about the relevance of the cancer example, you should notice that it deals with certain elements (“dependence,” “abuse”), but fails to make the connection to the primary topic, addiction. 14. (D) The argument is basically one from whole to part, with a past-to-present element: Since the panel that resolved the Amlec dispute was reasonable and fair, the argument goes, Judge Khalid, who was on that panel, is reasonable and fair as well. Similarly, (D) erroneously asserts that because a certain real estate company sold fewer houses last year than it had the year before, Ula Borg, an agent employed by that company, must have sold fewer houses last year than she had the previous year. Both arguments attribute a characteristic of a group to a member of that group, and both contain a similar time element—the stimulus moves from past to present; (D) goes from two years ago to last year. (A)’s flawed, but not in the same way as the stimulus: It asserts that since, by definition, only an elected member of the school board can serve as its representative, and since Marcia Barthes represented the board before the principal, she must therefore have been recently elected to the board—not necessarily so. (B) The main hook in the original is that an individual was part of a group in which something happened, and therefore the same will hold true for the individual. In (B), Candalf, who’s decided to become a pediatrician, is yet to be part of the larger group.

© K A PL A N

65


(C) Here, the erroneous conclusion is that Diaz must be part of the larger group. In the original, however, the individual is already a member of a larger group and the erroneous conclusion is that what holds for the group must necessarily hold for the individual. (E) claims that George must have voted to make the city hall a landmark, when we’re not even told the society’s vote on that issue. The original, and the correct choice, involve an individual following suit from a group’s action, but following along the same lines. Here, city hall is an entirely different issue from the bank. • Recognizing classic argumentative techniques, such as arguing from whole to part, will help you considerably in Parallel Reasoning. • In a Parallel Reasoning question, if there’s a time element in the original, there will most likely be a time element in the correct choice. 15. (C) The author reasons that because the commissioner’s new proposals are identical to the ones issued by Tsarque, Inc., which has engaged in heavy polluting, they must therefore be worthless. As (C) points out, this amounts to dismissing the proposals because of their source rather than their content. Indeed, the fact that the proposals may have come from Tsarque is irrelevant; they could still be worthwhile, despite Tsarque’s environmental record. (A) The argument doesn’t assume this “without any justification”; as it points out, Tsarque’s chief and the commissioner are good friends. (B) The author doesn’t give any version of the proposals, let alone a distorted one. (D) Although the author rather sarcastically suggests that the commissioner couldn’t have come up with “fresh thinking” on the environment, the argument doesn’t appeal to emotion, as (D) implies; it rejects the proposals because of where they’re from rather than what they say. (E) There’s no appeal to authority here; the author mentions Tsarque’s chief solely in order to claim that Tsarque is the ultimate source of the proposals. • Flaw questions illustrate the wisdom of reading the question stem first. Right away you know your job is to locate the error in the reasoning. • Read critically and try to put arguments into real-world situations. If someone gave you the argument made in this question, would you buy it, or would you ask, “How does the fact that the proposals came from Tsarque, Inc. prove that they’re worthless?”

66

© K A PL A N


16. (A) The argument concludes (in the first sentence) that the definition of “natural foods” should include all plants, including plants grown with the application of synthetic chemicals. To justify this conclusion, the author redefines the term “natural” as “part of nature.” (B) The argument recommends no specific action (except a redefining of terms), and in any case, no evidence is provided to show why this redefinition of terms is beneficial. (C) is a distortion. The argument uses some scientific language, but the key here is redefining the word “natural”; the author doesn’t directly appeal to the authority of scientific methods for this purpose. (D) The argument never questions the use of the term “organic.” It’s “natural” that concerns us. (E) The “position being rejected” is that “organic” foods are the only natural foods. Since no evidence is presented supporting this position, the author can’t possibly be “reinterpreting evidence presented as supporting…” • In Method of Argument questions, pay specific attention to the verbs used in each answer choice. Here, the argument’s main point/conclusion is essentially a redefinition of the term “natural foods.” Note that the correct choice (A) begins with the word “redefining,” and therefore should have been your leading candidate from the beginning. 17. (E) There are two courses that Angela needs to complete her psychology degree: experimental design and developmental psychology. Experimental design must be completed before taking developmental psych. “On completing both,” she’ll have earned her degree. So we can conclude that once Angela completes developmental psych, she will have also completed experimental design, and will therefore have earned her degree. (A) is contradicted by the argument. If developmental psych isn’t offered until next term, and Angela could still complete her degree in two terms, then this course must only take one term. (B) is beyond the scope. We have no information on which of the two courses is easier. (C) could be true, but it’s also possible that Angela has already completed the necessary prerequisites for the experimental design course. (D) is a scope shift. Our information is all about Angela; we have no definite information regarding the general university or departmental requirements. • On inference/conclusion questions, the correct choice is always supported by the evidence in the passage. Like any logically valid argument, you should be able to reason from evidence in the stimulus to the conclusion you’ve selected without making any major assumptions.

© K A PL A N

67


• Not all the information in a stimulus will be necessary to answer every question (although the “extra” information is often used to generate wrong choices). Here, the question of how many terms (as opposed to what courses) Angela needs to complete her degree has little bearing on the correct choice. 18. (D) In 75% of minor accidents involving small airplanes, voice-recorder tapes record the whistling of the pilot shortly before the accident. Thus, concludes the stimulus, pilotwhistling is a fairly reliable indicator of an impending accident. The assumption being made is that a whistling pilot is not a normal condition on small planes. After all, if 90% of small airplane pilots whistle from take-off to landing, it wouldn’t be much of a revelation that most of them are whistling shortly before minor accidents. Choice (D) highlights this assumption, exposing the major weakness in the argument. (A) Once again, as we’ve seen earlier on this test, we’re not trying to debate the validity of the evidence, but rather the reasoning that connects the evidence with the conclusion. In other words, it’s not the reliability of the statistics used in the evidence that’s important, but rather how that evidence is used to formulate a conclusion. (B) makes a useless distinction. If the safety precautions would help some passengers, then the recommendation is worthwhile, but only if it were true that pilot-whistling is a reliable predictor of minor accidents. (C) In this context, it’s not necessary to explicitly define “relatively minor”; this is simply a condition which limits the scope of the argument. It doesn’t affect the basic logical structure. (E) distorts the issue, and entirely omits the major element, whistling. Whether the percentage of small airplane flights that involve relatively minor accidents is ten or seventy, the basic logic of the argument stays the same. • Very often, much like in Weaken the Argument questions, finding the vulnerability in an argument involves identifying and highlighting the argument’s central assumption. • When a stimulus cites a “shocking” statistic as a central part of the argument, be sure there’s evidence to show that this statistic really is abnormal. It seems odd that pilots whistle before three quarters of minor accidents—maybe they just whistle all the time, which suggests that the finding isn’t as strange as it first appeared. 19. (A) You may not have immediately spotted this assumption, but it checks out nicely with the Denial Test. Since the permits govern the discharge of individual chemicals only, if relatively harmless chemicals (discharged under permit) do interact with each other in water to form harmful compounds, then the waterways would be endangered.

68

© K A PL A N


(B) Since the amount of water flowing through the waterway has already been taken into account in determining the amount of chemicals that may be discharged (second sentence), it’s not necessary to make any assumptions about how swiftly the water flows. (C) The argument’s conclusion is that the waterways are protected from harmful effects of chemicals discharged under permit. Whether there are chemicals which may not be discharged into the waterway under any circumstances is beyond the scope. (D) The argument claims that the maximum amount of chemical discharged as determined by the permits is not harmful to the waterway, so it’s not necessary to assume that permitholders sometimes discharge less than they are allowed. (E) is beyond the scope of the argument. The question is whether the permit system protects the waterway from adverse effects, as determined by the permit system. How those adverse effects are defined is a separate question. • Make the question stem work for you. Even if you can’t identify the assumption right away, you know there has to be one. Move to the answer choices and check each with the Denial Test. 20. (E) The key here is that Monroe concludes that it is solely due to Tip-Top’s hot peppers that he became ill. Perhaps there is some other factor he has overlooked, such as the fact that “despite his generally poor appetite” he ate 1) an extra-large pizza, 2) all-you-can-eat shrimp, and 3) two meatball sandwiches. The existence of such a plausible alternate explanation for his illness seriously weakens Monroe’s conclusion. (A) Monroe’s conclusion is limited in scope only to the three meals he actually ate at the Tip-Top, so it’s logically valid for him to use only those three meals as evidence. (B) is contradicted by the information in the passage; we’re specifically told that after each meal (the presumed cause), Monroe became ill (the presumed effect). (C) requires us to assume that Monroe does in fact desire to continue to eat at the Tip-Top. (D) contains a scope shift. Monroe’s logic never claims that Tip-Top’s hot peppers make everybody ill, only that they make him ill. • When an argument concludes that “X is the only reason for Y,” it is especially vulnerable to the criticism that it overlooks a plausible alternate explanation. When asked to weaken this type of argument, look for the choice that suggests such an alternate explanation. • On the LSAT, it’s perfectly valid for a conclusion to be based on a small sample of data, if the conclusion is limited in scope to that small sample.

© K A PL A N

69


• Don’t read too much into the passage. Avoid choices such as (C) above, which require you to make additional assumptions about an author’s (or character’s) motives. 21. (B) This is similar to a logic games question; we’re asked to consider the if-clause to be a statement of fact, and then draw a conclusion based on this new information. Reduced to formal logic, Monroe’s evidence and conclusion read thus: “If Monroe eats Tip-Top’s hot peppers, he becomes ill.” So we can logically conclude that if Monroe had eaten the chicken with hot peppers, he would have become ill. (A) and (C) can both be reduced in formal logic to “If Monroe does not eat Tip-Top’s hot peppers, he will not become ill.” Not only is this logically invalid (the fallacy of the converse), but it goes against common sense: The fact that hot peppers will make him ill doesn’t allow us to conclude that a lack of hot peppers will ensure that he won’t be ill— Monroe could become ill next time for any number of other reasons. (D) and (E) answer the wrong question. Each provides (limited) support for Monroe’s argument. Neither, however, is a conclusion which can be drawn from “If Monroe eats TipTop’s hot peppers, he becomes ill.” • Read the question stem carefully. Here, you needed to understand that, for the purposes of this question, Monroe’s argument was to be considered correct. • Formal logic straddles the boundary between Logical Reasoning and Logic Games. Use your skills from both sections to deal with formal logic statements no matter where they appear. 22. (A) The company will not be training more pilots because there will be no shortage of trained pilots in the foreseeable future. The evidence: Each of the six major companies (the author’s and the other five) have roughly 400 trained pilots on their waiting lists, and the projected requirement for pilots is only 100 per company. In other words, there are apparently 2400 trained pilots waiting for 600 future jobs. If, however, most of the trained pilots on one waiting list are also on the waiting list for the other five companies, then the number of unemployed trained pilots could, in fact, be lower than the projected demand, seriously undermining the author’s conclusion. (B) contains a scope shift. Even if pilot training will be necessary in the long run, that doesn’t affect the conclusion, which is about the foreseeable future. (C) doesn’t weaken the argument, because we have no reason (i.e. no evidence in the passage) to believe that an age imbalance in the pilot work force will cause a personnel shortage in the foreseeable future.

70

© K A PL A N


(D) is an au contraire choice. If the argument takes into account the current upswing in the aviation industry, that would only strengthen the evidence on which the conclusion is based. (E) is irrelevant background information. The policies of other companies with regard to pilot-training have no bearing on the industry need for trained pilots as outlined in the argument. • When an argument depends on statistical evidence, it’s often possible to weaken it by demonstrating a way in which the statistics may be faulty. • You may not have been able to pre-phrase this answer, but upon evaluating the choices, (A) should have seemed like a good weakener. Then, skimming the rest of the choices, and recognizing the many classic forms of wrong answer types, should have confirmed the choice. 23. (C) The author concludes that people with car alarms should deactivate them when parking in crowded city neighborhoods at night, on the grounds that “whatever the cause (presumably, including the possibility that a car is actually being stolen), the sleep of many people in the neighborhood is disturbed.” For this conclusion to be valid, the author must assume that allowing those people to sleep soundly is more important than preventing car theft. (A) is an au contraire choice. If the author placed neighborhood security over inconvenience, her argument would fall apart. (B) is tempting, but it’s not necessary for the author to assume that most, or even many times car alarms go off that they are false alarms. Her recommendation is based on “consideration for others,” and “whatever the cause,” the sound of car alarms wakes people up inconsiderately. (D) The author might believe this, but it’s not a necessary assumption. The author could believe that car alarm owners are considerate in every other respect; it wouldn’t affect the logic of her argument. (E) is a scope shift. The author’s recommendation deals only with the night-time use of car alarms. • Despite the extensive question stem, this is simply another variation on an assumption question. What does the author need to assume in order for her conclusion to be properly drawn? • On assumption questions, check possible answer choices with the Denial Test. Ask yourself, “If this choice were proven false, would the argument still be valid?” If the answer is no, you’ve got a necessary assumption. If the answer is yes, eliminate the choice and move on.

© K A PL A N

71


24. (C) The passage suggests two possible explanations for lines found in the Peruvian desert: 1) they were landing strips for alien spaceships, and 2) they were Inca roads. The investigator supports the first explanation by rhetorically questioning the plausibility of the second. (A) No direct counterevidence to the alien spaceship theory is mentioned. (B) The investigator presents no evidence to counter the Inca road interpretation; he simply questions its plausibility. (D) The investigator doesn’t challenge the methods of those who support the Inca road interpretation; in fact, he doesn’t mention the developers of this interpretation at all. (E) No attempt is made to reconcile the alien-spaceship interpretation with the Inca road interpretation. 25. (B) We’re asked to provide support to an interpretation of the lines as referring to astronomical phenomena. So we need a choice that suggests a plausible explanation for both the straight lines and the bird figure to have some astronomical referent. Choice (B) fills the bill. (A) and (D) both refer to Native American interest in astronomical phenomena, but neither mentions the patterns found in the Peruvian desert, so neither can be the correct choice. (C) addresses only the straight line pattern. It doesn’t mention the bird figure or astronomical phenomena. (E) makes a useless distinction; the relative ages of the two desert patterns neither supports nor weakens the claim that they both refer to astronomical phenomena. • Decode the question stem carefully. Here, we’re given a very specific point of view to support (one not mentioned in the passage). • Even if you got bogged down in this relatively complex question stem, you could still have weeded out the answer by noticing that choice (B) was the only choice that even mentioned both astronomical phenomena and the line patterns.

72

© K A PL A N

I.N. LL3109Rev.A Printed in the USA