Argument Evaluation

289 questions

Question 201Question →

Medical Researcher: The experimental drug Lexicon has demonstrated a remarkable ability to neutralize the synthetic pathogen V-7 in laboratory settings. Based on this, several public health officials are lobbying for its immediate mass production. This enthusiasm is unwarranted. Historical data reveals that of all the experimental drugs that successfully neutralized synthetic pathogens in laboratories over the past twenty years, fewer than ten percent were ultimately approved as safe for public consumption. Consequently, there is a greater than ninety percent probability that Lexicon will fail to neutralize V-7 in human patients.

The reasoning in the medical researcher's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument does which one of the following?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: overlooks the possibility that a drug can successfully neutralize a pathogen in human patients even if it is not ultimately approved as safe for public consumption

Answer

The correct answer is the option that points out the author's failure to recognize that a drug might successfully neutralize a pathogen but still be deemed unsafe for public consumption.
The correct answer accurately describes the severe vulnerability in the argument. The researcher's evidence establishes that over 90 percent of similar drugs were not 'approved as safe for public consumption.' From this statistic, the researcher concludes there is a 90 percent chance Lexicon will 'fail to neutralize V-7 in human patients.' This illicitly equates a lack of overall safety approval with a specific failure to neutralize the pathogen. It is entirely possible for a drug to successfully eradicate a virus in humans but still be rejected for public use because it causes severe side effects. By ignoring this possibility, the argument commits a fatal scope shift flaw.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
Lexicon has a greater than 90 percent probability of failing to neutralize V-7 in human patients.
This is the final claim the author is trying to prove, marked by the indicator word 'Consequently'.
2
Identify the premise supporting this conclusion.
Fewer than 10 percent of experimental drugs that succeed in the lab are ultimately approved as safe for public consumption (meaning over 90 percent are not approved as safe).
This is the statistical evidence provided to justify the conclusion.
3
Compare the language in the premise to the language in the conclusion to spot the gap.
The premise discusses drugs not being 'approved as safe,' while the conclusion discusses drugs failing to 'neutralize' the pathogen.
Logical reasoning flaws frequently involve a subtle shift in terminology or scope between the evidence and the conclusion.
4
Formulate the flaw based on this gap.
The author assumes that failing to be approved as safe is identical to failing to neutralize the pathogen, overlooking the possibility that a drug could neutralize the pathogen but fail safety approval due to severe side effects.
Identifying this unstated, flawed assumption directly leads to the correct description of the argument's vulnerability.

Key Concept

Scope Shift / Unstated Assumptions
Question 202Question →

Match each flawed or incomplete argument regarding the restoration of the Fresco of Verano to the sufficient assumption that, if true, logically guarantees its conclusion.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

The Fresco of Verano will be restored using the newly developed laser-ablation technique. Therefore, the fresco's delicate original pigmentation will not be damaged during the restoration process.
If the restoration team applies chemical solvents to the Fresco of Verano, they will damage its original pigmentation. Since the team has decided not to apply chemical solvents, the original pigmentation will remain completely intact.
To successfully preserve the original pigmentation of the Fresco of Verano, the restoration team must completely avoid abrasive scrubbing. Because the team's protocol strictly avoids abrasive scrubbing, the original pigmentation will be successfully preserved.
The Fresco of Verano will be successfully restored only if the mural is permanently relocated to a climate-controlled museum facility. Therefore, it is inevitable that the Fresco of Verano will not be successfully restored.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Argument 1 requires the assumption that laser-ablation leaves pigmentation undamaged. Argument 2 requires the assumption that pigmentation is damaged only if chemical solvents are applied. Argument 3 requires the assumption that avoiding abrasive scrubbing is sufficient to preserve the pigmentation. Argument 4 requires the assumption that the mural will not be relocated to a climate-controlled facility.
Each correct assumption provides the exact logical bridge needed to make its corresponding argument formally valid. For the first argument, it connects the premise directly to the conclusion. For the second and third, it converts flawed conditional deductions (negation and reversal) into valid ones by providing the missing direction of the conditional relationship. For the fourth, it provides the missing factual premise to trigger modus tollens.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the logical structure and identify the gap in the first argument.
Premise: Laser-ablation is used. Conclusion: Pigmentation is not damaged. The missing link is 'If laser-ablation is used, pigmentation is not damaged.'
To guarantee the conclusion, we need a conditional statement linking the new premise directly to the new conclusion.
2
Analyze the logical structure and identify the gap in the second argument.
Premise: Solvents -> Damage. Premise: No Solvents. Conclusion: No Damage. This is an illegal negation. We need the assumption 'Damage -> Solvents' so that 'No Solvents -> No Damage' follows.
Translating 'only if' to a necessary condition fixes the illegal negation by allowing a valid contrapositive deduction.
3
Analyze the logical structure and identify the gap in the third argument.
Premise: Preserve -> Avoid Scrubbing. Premise: Avoid Scrubbing. Conclusion: Preserve. This is an illegal reversal. We need the assumption 'Avoid Scrubbing -> Preserve'.
Making the necessary condition sufficient guarantees the conclusion.
4
Analyze the logical structure and identify the gap in the fourth argument.
Premise: Restored -> Relocated. Conclusion: Not Restored. We need the premise 'Not Relocated' to complete the modus tollens deduction.
Denying the necessary condition is required to validly deny the sufficient condition.

Key Concept

Sufficient assumptions must provide 100% logical certainty to the conclusion when added to the premises. This often involves completing conditional chains or fixing flawed conditional reasoning (like illegal reversals or negations).
Question 203Question →

Read the following argument:

Any synthetic chemical compound that bonds effectively with the Z-receptor will inhibit the replication of the delta-virus. The newly synthesized compound, Brivanex, was designed specifically to target the Z-receptor. Therefore, Brivanex will successfully cure patients infected with the delta-virus.

Is the following statement true or false?

The assumption 'Any compound that inhibits the replication of the delta-virus will successfully cure patients infected with it' is sufficient to logically guarantee the argument's conclusion.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: False

Answer

False
The correct evaluation is False. A sufficient assumption must leave no logical gaps. While the proposed statement bridges the gap between inhibiting the virus and curing patients, it completely ignores the gap between Brivanex being 'designed to target' the receptor and actually 'bonding effectively' with it. Without bridging both gaps, the conclusion remains unproven.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the premises and the conclusion of the argument.
Premise 1: Bonds effectively with Z-receptor → Inhibits replication. Premise 2: Brivanex was designed to target the Z-receptor. Conclusion: Brivanex → Cures patients.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to map out the existing logical chain and locate missing links.
2
Analyze the proposed assumption to determine its conditional structure.
The proposed assumption translates to: Inhibits replication → Cures patients.
We must understand exactly what logical bridge the assumption provides.
3
Apply the assumption to the premises to test for deductive validity.
Combining Premise 1 and the assumption yields: Bonds effectively → Inhibits replication → Cures patients. However, Premise 2 only states Brivanex was 'designed to target' the receptor.
A sufficient assumption must leave zero ambiguity and force the conclusion to be 100% true based on the premises.
4
Determine if the conclusion is fully guaranteed.
Because 'designed to target' does not deductively guarantee 'bonds effectively,' the chain is broken. The conclusion that Brivanex cures patients is not guaranteed.
If any logical gap remains, the assumption is not sufficient.

Key Concept

Identifying all deductive gaps in an argument to evaluate whether a proposed assumption is truly sufficient.
Question 204Question →

Consider the following argument:

A terrestrial organism can survive prolonged exposure to atmospheric argon only if its cellular membranes contain cryptobiotic proteins. The newly discovered deep-cave lichen *Verrucaria argonensis* contains cryptobiotic proteins in its cellular membranes. Thus, *Verrucaria argonensis* can survive prolonged exposure to atmospheric argon.

The assumption "No terrestrial organism's cellular membranes contain cryptobiotic proteins unless that organism can survive prolonged exposure to atmospheric argon" logically guarantees the argument's conclusion.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: True

Answer

The statement is True.
The proposed assumption properly translates to "If an organism has cryptobiotic proteins, then it can survive prolonged exposure to atmospheric argon." When this conditional statement is added to the premise that the lichen possesses cryptobiotic proteins, it deductively guarantees the conclusion that the lichen can survive the argon exposure. It perfectly patches the illegal reversal flaw present in the original argument.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Translate the first premise into formal conditional logic.
Survive Argon →\rightarrow Cryptobiotic Proteins.
The phrase "only if" introduces a necessary condition, placing Cryptobiotic Proteins on the right side of the conditional arrow.
2
Translate the second premise and the argument's conclusion.
Premise 2: *Verrucaria argonensis* has Cryptobiotic Proteins. Conclusion: *Verrucaria argonensis* Survives Argon.
This identifies the explicit facts provided and the ultimate claim the author is trying to prove.
3
Identify the logical gap in the argument.
The argument commits a reversal flaw. It assumes that satisfying the necessary condition (Cryptobiotic Proteins) guarantees the sufficient condition (Survive Argon). To fix this, we need an assumption stating: Cryptobiotic Proteins →\rightarrow Survive Argon.
A sufficient assumption must completely bridge the gap between the provided premises and the conclusion to guarantee the conclusion with 100% certainty.
4
Translate the proposed assumption into formal logic.
"No X unless Y" translates to "If X then Y." Thus, the assumption means: Cryptobiotic Proteins →\rightarrow Survive Argon.
Proper conditional translation of the word "unless" is required to see if the assumption matches our required logical bridge.
5
Evaluate if the translated assumption guarantees the conclusion.
Yes. Applying "Cryptobiotic Proteins →\rightarrow Survive Argon" to the established fact that "*Verrucaria argonensis* has Cryptobiotic Proteins" deductively guarantees that "*Verrucaria argonensis* Survives Argon."
The assumption provides the exact logical bridge needed to make the argument deductively valid.

Key Concept

Conditional Logic Translation and Sufficient Assumptions
Question 205Question →

Match each of the following brief arguments to the abstract description that most accurately identifies its logical flaw.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Senator Vance's proposed legislation to strictly regulate artificial intelligence development should be dismissed outright. As a former executive at a traditional software company that lost market share to AI startups, Vance clearly harbors a grudge against the new industry. His arguments about data privacy are just a smokescreen for his desire to stifle competitors.
We are currently facing an unprecedented budget deficit. Therefore, we must either completely eliminate our lunar colonization program or immediately double the income tax rate for all citizens. Since the public will absolutely not tolerate a massive tax hike, we have no choice but to shut down the lunar program.
The new fusion restaurant downtown is guaranteed to be an extraordinary dining establishment. They have hired Chef Antoine, who is world-renowned for his sauces, Chef Bella, who has won international awards for her pastry, and Chef Carlos, a master of seafood. With such exceptional individual talent in the kitchen, the restaurant as a whole will be flawless.
Over the last three decades, the cost of extracting fossil fuels in the northern territories has steadily decreased year over year due to advancing drilling technology. Consequently, we can rely on these extraction operations to become even cheaper over the next decade, ensuring affordable energy for the region.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Stimulus 1 matches the Ad Hominem flaw, Stimulus 2 matches the False Dilemma flaw, Stimulus 3 matches the Composition flaw, and Stimulus 4 matches the Time Shift flaw.
Each stimulus exhibits a classic LSAT logical fallacy. By isolating the premises and conclusion of each short argument, the structural gap can be mapped perfectly to the abstract phrasing provided in the correct flaw description.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Stimulus 1 to isolate its premise and conclusion.
Premise: Vance has a grudge and a vested interest. Conclusion: His legislation should be dismissed.
Identifying the structural gap reveals that the author attacks the person's motive rather than the argument.
2
Analyze Stimulus 2 to isolate its premise and conclusion.
Premise: We must do extreme action A or extreme action B. Action B is impossible. Conclusion: We must do action A.
This exposes the assumption that no other options exist (False Dilemma).
3
Analyze Stimulus 3 to isolate its premise and conclusion.
Premise: Individual parts (chefs) are excellent. Conclusion: The whole (restaurant) will be flawless.
This highlights the part-to-whole logical leap (Composition).
4
Analyze Stimulus 4 to isolate its premise and conclusion.
Premise: Costs decreased in the past. Conclusion: Costs will decrease in the future.
This demonstrates the unwarranted assumption that past trends guarantee future outcomes (Time Shift).

Key Concept

Identifying abstract descriptions of common logical fallacies.
Question 206Question →

Biologist: A localized ecosystem can successfully recover from the abrupt loss of its apex predator only if the population of its primary consumers is actively restricted and the habitat's foundational flora remains largely intact. In the Veridian Valley ecosystem, a viral pathogen recently eradicated the native cougar population, which served as the sole apex predator. Although state wildlife officials have implemented an aggressive culling program that is successfully restricting the population of primary consumers, the Veridian Valley ecosystem will nevertheless fail to recover from the loss of the cougars.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the biologist's conclusion to be properly drawn?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: In any ecosystem where aggressive culling programs are utilized to restrict primary consumers, the foundational flora does not remain largely intact.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that in any ecosystem where aggressive culling programs are utilized, the foundational flora does not remain largely intact.
The argument concludes that the ecosystem will not recover. According to the first sentence, recovery requires TWO things: restricting primary consumers AND keeping foundational flora intact. The stimulus tells us the first condition (restricting consumers) is being met through an aggressive culling program. Therefore, the only way to guarantee the ecosystem will NOT recover is to establish that the second condition (intact flora) is failing. The correct option links a known fact about Veridian Valley (it uses an aggressive culling program) to the exact outcome we need (the flora does not remain largely intact). If this option is true, Veridian Valley fails a necessary condition, proving definitively that it will not recover.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Map the formal logic in the biologist's first sentence.
Recover -> (Primary Consumers Restricted AND Flora Intact). Contrapositive: (NOT Primary Consumers Restricted) OR (NOT Flora Intact) -> NOT Recover.
Identifying the conditional relationships is essential when 'only if' introduces necessary conditions for an outcome.
2
Analyze the specific facts provided about the Veridian Valley.
Fact 1: Lost apex predator. Fact 2: Primary Consumers ARE restricted (via an aggressive culling program).
We must determine which parts of the conditional chain are currently met or unmet by the given scenario.
3
Identify the conclusion and determine the logical gap.
Conclusion: Will NOT recover. Since the first necessary condition (Restricted Consumers) is MET, the only way to mathematically guarantee the conclusion (NOT Recover) via the contrapositive is to prove that the second necessary condition (Flora Intact) FAILS.
A sufficient assumption must mathematically force the conclusion to be true based on the established rules.
4
Find an assumption that forces the required failure condition.
We need an assumption proving Veridian Valley's flora is NOT intact. An assumption linking the known fact ('aggressive culling program') to the required outcome ('flora NOT intact') bridges the gap perfectly.
Connecting an established premise to the missing piece completes the logical chain.

Key Concept

Sufficient Assumption in formal logic involving compound necessary conditions (AND/OR). To force the failure of a sufficient condition, one must trigger the contrapositive by ensuring at least one necessary condition is not met.
Question 207Question →

Below are four distinct arguments, each relying on an unstated bridging rule. Pair each specific argument with the general principle that, if valid, would logically guarantee the argument's conclusion.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

The government canceled the construction of a revolutionary deep-space observatory to reallocate the budget toward a vaccination program for a newly emerged pathogen. Therefore, the government's decision to halt the observatory project was correct.
A prestigious gallery realized that a landscape painting they previously sold to a client is actually a highly convincing forgery. Although the client loves the piece and is completely unaware of its true origin, the gallery ought to offer the client a full refund.
A software firm delivered a custom application to a client three weeks late strictly because an unprecedented, city-wide electrical grid failure halted all their operations. The client should not enforce the contract's late-delivery financial penalty against the firm.
A corporate board of directors dismissed a manager whose department had just achieved record-breaking quarterly earnings. The board's action was fully justified because the manager had explicitly ordered employees to bypass mandatory equipment checks to accelerate production.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The observatory scenario pairs with the biological crisis principle; the forged painting scenario pairs with the restitution principle; the late software scenario pairs with the infrastructural disruption principle; and the dismissed manager scenario pairs with the risk-management principle.
Each correct principle functions as a sufficient assumption in the form of a general rule. By translating the specific facts of each scenario into the abstract categories of the principles (e.g., 'deep-space observatory' becomes 'endeavor dedicated to expanding theoretical knowledge'), the principles formally entail the conclusions of their respective scenarios.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the observatory scenario to identify its premises and conclusion.
Premises: canceled an observatory (theoretical knowledge) to fund a vaccination program (biological crisis). Conclusion: the decision was correct.
Identifying the exact gap between premises and conclusion is necessary to find the principle that bridges them.
2
Find the principle that acts as a sufficient conditional rule for the first scenario.
The principle stating that canceling a theoretical endeavor to address a biological crisis warrants the cancellation provides the necessary conceptual match.
A justifying principle must guarantee the conclusion when the premises are true.
3
Analyze the forged painting scenario and find its corresponding principle.
Premises: gallery sold a forgery (non-genuine good), client is unaware and loves it. Conclusion: gallery must refund (restitution). The principle regarding a vendor issuing restitution for a non-genuine good provides this exact rule.
The principle must account for the specific concessions made in the argument, such as the buyer being satisfied.
4
Analyze the late software scenario and find its corresponding principle.
Premises: software late due to grid failure (infrastructural disruption). Conclusion: penalty should not be enforced (exempt from damages). The principle exempting a contracted entity from damages under these conditions matches this.
The principle must connect the exact cause of the delay to the exemption from the penalty.
5
Analyze the dismissed manager scenario and find its corresponding principle.
Premises: manager bypassed safety checks (risk-management) despite record earnings. Conclusion: dismissal justified. The principle justifying the termination of a leader who violates risk-management protocols matches this.
The principle must establish that the safety violation outweighs the financial success to justify the dismissal.

Key Concept

In Principle-Justify questions, the correct answer provides a broad, conditional rule (If Premises -> Then Conclusion) that guarantees the argument's conclusion when applied to the specific facts.
Question 208Question →

Match each flawed argument stimulus to the abstract description that most accurately identifies its logical error.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Art Historian: An artistic movement cannot be considered truly revolutionary unless it initially faces widespread institutional rejection. The Neo-Constructivist movement has been denied exhibition space by every major gallery in the country this year. We can confidently conclude, therefore, that Neo-Constructivism is a revolutionary movement.
Company Spokesperson: Our critics assert that our new chemical extraction process is not sustainable. But this is demonstrably false. Our corporation has sustained this exact extraction method for over a decade without any disruption to our supply chain or reduction in our profit margins.
Epidemiologist: In the county of Westbridge, the prevalence rate of severe dietary deficiencies among senior citizens is 15 percent, whereas in the neighboring county of Northridge, the rate is merely 5 percent. Therefore, despite Westbridge's recent nutritional outreach programs, there are currently more senior citizens suffering from dietary deficiencies in Westbridge than in Northridge.
Educational Researcher: Our longitudinal data reveals a striking trend: university students who regularly utilize the campus academic tutoring center have, on average, significantly lower final grades than students who never visit the center. Therefore, to improve their academic performance, students should avoid utilizing the tutoring center.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The Art Historian argument matches with the necessary/sufficient confusion; the Company Spokesperson matches with the shifting meaning of a term (equivocation); the Epidemiologist matches with the proportions versus quantities error; and the Educational Researcher matches with the reverse causation description.
Each argument stimulus perfectly illustrates a distinct, classic logical fallacy. The Art Historian commits an illegal reversal by treating a necessary requirement as a guarantee. The Company Spokesperson commits equivocation by altering the definition of a pivotal word mid-argument. The Epidemiologist commits a numerical proportion flaw by treating a rate as an absolute quantity. The Educational Researcher commits a causal direction error by ignoring reverse causation.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the Art Historian stimulus to identify its formal logic flaw.
The argument affirms the necessary condition (institutional rejection) to falsely conclude that the sufficient condition (revolutionary movement) has been met.
Mapping the conditional statement 'cannot be X unless Y' yields 'If X -> Y'. The premise states Y is true, and the conclusion illegitimately claims X must be true.
2
Analyze the Company Spokesperson stimulus to locate the logical disconnect.
The spokesperson answers a criticism about ecological sustainability with evidence about business continuity.
The word 'sustainable' is used in two completely different senses, invalidating the conclusion.
3
Analyze the Epidemiologist stimulus for mathematical reasoning errors.
The argument jumps from comparing prevalence rates (15% vs 5%) to comparing absolute numbers ('more senior citizens').
Absolute numbers cannot be derived from percentages without knowing the total baseline populations of the two groups being compared.
4
Analyze the Educational Researcher stimulus for causal reasoning flaws.
The argument takes a correlation (tutoring center use and low grades) and infers a flawed causal direction.
It fails to consider that the low grades are the cause that drives students to use the tutoring center, rather than the tutoring center being the cause of the low grades.

Key Concept

Identifying abstract logical flaws (Equivocation, Conditional Reversals, Numerical Errors, Causal Flaws)
Estimated Time:2m 30s
Question 209Question →

Sociologist: Sustaining rapid economic growth requires a society to foster a culture of widespread technological innovation. However, a society will fail to cultivate such a culture if it does not possess a robust and accessible educational system. Observers note that several developing nations are currently investing heavily to overhaul and expand their educational infrastructure. Therefore, it is inevitable that these nations will soon experience sustained rapid economic growth.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the sociologist's reasoning?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: It treats a condition that is logically necessary for a society to experience sustained economic growth as a condition that is sufficient to guarantee that growth.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument treats a condition that is logically necessary for sustained economic growth as a condition that is sufficient to guarantee it.
The correct answer accurately identifies the logical gap in the argument. The premises establish that economic growth requires technological innovation, which in turn requires a robust educational system. By chaining these statements, we know an educational system is absolutely necessary for economic growth. However, the conclusion claims that establishing an educational system will 'inevitably' result in economic growth, thereby falsely treating a necessary condition as a sufficient one.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the conditional logic in the first premise.
Economic Growth -> Technological Innovation
The word 'requires' indicates that technological innovation is a necessary condition for economic growth.
2
Analyze the conditional logic in the second premise.
Technological Innovation -> Educational System
The phrase 'will fail... if it does not possess' translates to 'No Educational System -> No Technological Innovation'. The contrapositive of this is 'Technological Innovation -> Educational System'.
3
Combine the conditional statements to find the complete relationship.
Economic Growth -> Educational System
Chaining the two premises shows that an educational system is a logically necessary requirement for economic growth.
4
Evaluate the argument's conclusion against the established chain.
The conclusion states: Educational System -> Economic Growth.
The phrase 'inevitable that these nations will soon experience' treats the new educational infrastructure as a sufficient trigger for economic growth.
5
Identify the gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument confuses a necessary condition with a sufficient condition.
Having established that an educational system is necessary, the author falsely assumes that fulfilling this requirement guarantees the end result.

Key Concept

Flaw in the Reasoning: Necessary vs. Sufficient
Question 210Question →

Read the following argument and evaluate the statement below it.

Archaeologist: Historical records show that whenever an ancient empire rapidly expanded its territory, it subsequently suffered a severe economic depression due to overextended supply lines. Recent analysis of the ancient Valerian Empire reveals that it suffered a catastrophic economic depression in its final decades. Therefore, the Valerian Empire must have rapidly expanded its territory shortly before its fall.

Statement: The archaeologist's argument is vulnerable to criticism because it draws a broad conclusion about ancient empires based on a single, potentially unrepresentative historical example.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: False

Answer

False. The statement inaccurately describes the logical flaw committed in the stimulus.
The correct evaluation is False. The provided statement inaccurately describes the argument's logical error. The archaeologist reasons from a broad rule to a specific conclusion, whereas the statement alleges that the archaeologist reasons from a specific example to a broad conclusion. The actual vulnerability is that the argument treats an outcome (economic depression) that is necessary for rapid expansion to have occurred as though it were sufficient to prove that rapid expansion occurred.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the structure and direction of the archaeologist's argument.
The argument moves from a general historical rule (whenever an empire expands rapidly, it suffers depression) to a specific conclusion about a single entity (the Valerian Empire expanded rapidly).
Understanding the direction of reasoning is necessary to evaluate abstract descriptions of the argument's structure.
2
Identify the actual logical flaw committed in the argument.
The argument commits a conditional reasoning flaw (illegal reversal). It assumes that because the Valerian Empire experienced the result (depression), it must have experienced the trigger (rapid expansion), ignoring other potential causes of economic depression.
You must know what the true flaw is to determine if the provided statement describes it accurately.
3
Evaluate the provided statement against the argument's actual structure and flaw.
The statement claims the argument draws a broad conclusion from a single example. This is false, as the argument draws a specific conclusion from a broad rule.
This confirms the statement is an inaccurate description of the argument's vulnerability.

Key Concept

Accurately identifying and differentiating between specific logical flaws in reasoning.
Question 211Question →

Researcher: The hormone somatotropin stimulates growth in juvenile *Rana clamitans*. In a strictly controlled laboratory study, two groups of these frogs were observed for six months. Both groups were provided with identical diets and environmental conditions, differing only in the water's dissolved calcium concentration. The frogs in the high-calcium water exhibited growth rates 30 percent higher than those in the low-calcium water. Because both groups of frogs synthesized identical amounts of somatotropin over the study period, the dissolved calcium must directly enhance the sensitivity of the frogs' cellular growth receptors to this hormone.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the researcher's argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: High concentrations of dissolved calcium significantly inhibit the enzymes responsible for the natural breakdown of somatotropin in the bloodstream of *Rana clamitans*.

Answer

The statement indicating that high concentrations of dissolved calcium inhibit the enzymes responsible for the natural breakdown of somatotropin.
The argument concludes that calcium must make cellular receptors more sensitive to somatotropin because both groups synthesized identical amounts of the hormone but the high-calcium group grew more. However, this assumes that synthesis rate is the only factor determining how much hormone is available to the body. The correct answer introduces a crucial alternative mechanism: calcium prevents the biological breakdown of the hormone. If somatotropin degrades more slowly, its net concentration in the bloodstream remains higher over time. This higher sustained concentration perfectly explains the increased growth without requiring any change in receptor sensitivity, thereby destroying the argument's core assumption.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the argument's structure to identify the premises and conclusion.
Premises: High calcium leads to higher growth. Both groups synthesized identical amounts of somatotropin. Conclusion: Calcium directly enhances receptor sensitivity.
Understanding the logical core is necessary before evaluating structural weaknesses.
2
Identify the logical gap or assumption in the researcher's reasoning.
The researcher assumes that if the synthesis (production) amounts are identical, the only way for the hormone to have a greater effect is if the cellular receptors become more sensitive.
Identifying the unstated assumption reveals the argument's primary vulnerability.
3
Formulate a potential weakener based on the logical gap.
An effective weakener would provide an alternative reason why identical synthesis could lead to higher growth, such as the hormone lasting longer before degrading.
Pre-phrasing an answer helps accurately evaluate and eliminate the given options.
4
Evaluate the given options against the pre-phrased weakener.
The option regarding the inhibition of breakdown enzymes perfectly matches the alternative mechanism.
This confirms the correct option while ensuring distractors are dismissed logically.

Key Concept

Identifying Alternate Explanations and Unstated Assumptions
Question 212Question →

Epidemiologist: Proponents of the new hospital sanitation directive claim that it significantly reduces the rate of nosocomial (hospital-acquired) infections. They support this by pointing out that in the two years since the directive was issued at General Hospital, the number of nursing staff fully complying with the directive has steadily risen, which has in turn fostered a culture of heightened hygiene awareness. But the proponents' claim is entirely misguided. Over that exact same two-year period, the overall rate of nosocomial infections at General Hospital actually increased by 12 percent.

The epidemiologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...

Show answer & explanation

Answer: takes for granted that a net increase in the incidence of a problem precludes the possibility that a specific intervention had a mitigating effect on that problem

Answer

The correct answer describes how the argument assumes an overall increase in a problem means a specific measure failed to mitigate it, ignoring the possibility that the issue could have increased even more without the measure.
The argument concludes that a directive does not reduce infection rates simply because the overall infection rate went up. This reasoning is flawed because it ignores the possibility that the directive was indeed effective at suppressing infections, but other powerful, unrelated factors caused the overall rate to rise anyway. In other words, without the directive, the rate might have increased by much more than 12 percent. The correct option captures this by stating the argument takes for granted that a net increase in a problem precludes a mitigating effect.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the argument's conclusion.
The proponents' claim (that the sanitation directive significantly reduces the rate of infections) is entirely misguided.
This sets the target for the evaluation. The author is attempting to prove that the directive does not reduce the rate of infections.
2
Identify the premise supporting the conclusion.
Over the two-year period since the directive was issued, the overall rate of infections increased by 12 percent.
This is the sole piece of evidence the author uses to invalidate the proponents' claim.
3
Analyze the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion.
The author assumes that an actual increase in the infection rate proves the directive didn't work. However, the author fails to consider a counterfactual scenario: what if, without the directive, infections would have increased by 30 percent? If so, the directive DID reduce the rate from what it otherwise would have been.
Flaw questions require identifying exactly why the premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Here, the flaw is ignoring alternative baselines/counterfactuals.
4
Evaluate the answer choices to find the abstract description of this gap.
The correct choice accurately describes taking for granted that a net increase in a problem precludes the possibility of a mitigating effect.
The correct answer must precisely match the structural flaw identified in step 3 without introducing extraneous logical errors.

Key Concept

Causal Reasoning: Ignoring Counterfactuals
Question 213Question →

Match each flawed argument (which lacks a necessary premise to be logically valid) with the sufficient assumption that, if added to the premises, would allow its conclusion to be properly drawn.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Only candidates with a significant background in international relations were considered for the ambassadorial position. Ms. Vance was considered for the position. Thus, it is certain that Ms. Vance is fluent in at least three languages.
Several of the medieval manuscripts found in the northern monastery feature a unique dialect. This specific dialect was not written by any scribe native to the northern province. Hence, some of the manuscripts found in the northern monastery must have been transported there from outside the province.
If the regulatory bill passes, the cost of raw materials will rise. If the cost of raw materials rises, smaller production firms will be compelled to merge. Consequently, if the regulatory bill passes, there will inevitably be a subsequent drop in the sector's innovation metrics.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The correct matches pair the ambassadorial argument with the rule connecting international background to fluency, the manuscript argument with the rule about non-native dialects implying outside transportation, and the regulatory bill argument with the rule linking firm mergers to innovation drops.
Each correct pair successfully identifies the unstated premise that mathematically guarantees the truth of the conclusion when added to the existing premises. The ambassadorial argument requires a direct link from background to fluency. The manuscript argument requires a universal rule linking non-native origins to outside transportation. The regulatory argument requires the final link in a conditional chain from merging to an innovation drop.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the ambassadorial argument (Argument 1).
Premises: Vance was considered, and considered candidates have an international relations background. Conclusion: Vance is fluent in three languages.
To identify the deductive gap, which is the missing link between 'international relations background' and 'fluency in three languages'.
2
Match the logical gap for Argument 1.
The assumption 'All persons possessing a significant background in international relations are fluent in at least three languages' correctly bridges this gap.
It acts as the universal sufficient condition to logically guarantee the conclusion about Ms. Vance.
3
Analyze the manuscript argument (Argument 2).
Premises: Manuscripts feature a dialect not written by native scribes. Conclusion: Manuscripts were transported from outside the province.
To identify the deductive gap, which is the rule stating that possessing non-native dialects implies the document was transported from outside.
4
Match the logical gap for Argument 2.
The assumption 'Any document featuring a dialect not written by native scribes of a given region must have been transported there from outside that region' provides the required universal rule.
It perfectly bridges the premise's facts to the conclusion's categorical claim.
5
Analyze the regulatory bill argument (Argument 3).
Premises form a chain: Bill passes -> Costs rise -> Firms merge. Conclusion: Bill passes -> Innovation drops.
To isolate the missing final link in the logical chain, which is 'Firms merge -> Innovation drops'.
6
Match the logical gap for Argument 3.
The assumption 'Whenever smaller production firms are compelled to merge, there is a subsequent drop in the sector's innovation metrics' supplies the missing link.
It completes the conditional chain, mathematically guaranteeing the conclusion.

Key Concept

Sufficient Assumption (Identifying the missing logical bridge that makes a conclusion 100% valid)
Question 214Question →

Below are four distinct arguments that rely on unstated conditional rules. Pair each argument with the corresponding overarching principle that conclusively bridges the gap between its premises and its conclusion.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

The city council's decision to subsidize the new solar farm is unjustified. Although the solar farm will significantly reduce regional carbon emissions, it will neither create local jobs nor reduce energy costs for residents.
The university is ethically permitted to revoke the honorary degree it awarded to the billionaire. While the billionaire has committed no statutory violations, he recently engaged in a highly public smear campaign against a respected climate scientist.
The governor ought to veto the proposed infrastructure bill. It is true that the bill has widespread bipartisan support and would repair failing bridges across the state. However, it also includes a provision that would weaken environmental review standards for future projects.
The streaming service should not cancel the sci-fi series after its first season. Admittedly, the show's viewership numbers are far below the threshold typically required for renewal, and production costs are exorbitant. But the series has cultivated a small, intensely loyal fanbase that would likely cancel their subscriptions if the show is axed.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The solar farm subsidy scenario pairs with the principle on allocating public funds; the honorary degree scenario pairs with the principle on withdrawing prestige; the infrastructure bill scenario pairs with the principle on blocking legislation; and the streaming service scenario pairs with the principle on sustaining an unprofitable product line.
Each scenario presents an argument with a logical gap between its premises and its normative conclusion. To justify each conclusion, a universal principle must establish a sufficient formal condition that guarantees the outcome based strictly on the provided premises. The correct pairings align the specific factual situations with highly abstract conditional rules that logically demand those precise outcomes.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Deconstruct the solar farm argument to isolate the logical gap.
The premises state there are no local economic benefits, leading to the conclusion that the subsidy is unjustified. The required principle must connect a lack of local economic benefit to an illegitimate action.
Identifying the exact premise-to-conclusion flow is necessary before evaluating abstract principles.
2
Evaluate the principles to find a sufficient condition for the solar farm argument.
The principle stating that allocating public funds is illegitimate 'unless it provides tangible financial or occupational advantages' matches perfectly.
The 'unless' formulation means that if the advantages are NOT present, the allocation MUST be illegitimate, logically guaranteeing the conclusion.
3
Analyze the honorary degree and streaming service arguments.
The degree argument requires a rule that attacking an expert permits revoking an honor. The streaming argument requires a rule that causing loyal patrons to leave forbids cancellation.
Determining the directionality of the required rules prevents falling for illegal reversals.
4
Match the remaining arguments to their respective highly abstract principles.
The degree argument matches the rule on withdrawing a 'symbol of prestige' due to attacks on a 'professional reputation.' The streaming argument matches the rule on sustaining an 'unprofitable product line' to avoid losing a 'minority of consumers.' The infrastructure bill matches the rule on a leader blocking a 'legislative package.'
Mapping the specific vocabulary of the scenarios to the generalized categorical terms of the principles confirms the structural alignment.

Key Concept

Principle - Justify
Question 215Question →

Cardiologist: In a recent clinical trial, patients with mild hypertension who took a daily dose of compound X experienced a 10 percent greater reduction in blood pressure than patients who received a placebo. Compound X has virtually no side effects, whereas conventional blood pressure medications often cause persistent fatigue and dizziness. Therefore, to minimize patient discomfort while effectively managing their condition, doctors should prescribe compound X instead of conventional medications for patients with mild hypertension.

Which of the following would be most useful to know in order to evaluate the cardiologist's argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Whether conventional blood pressure medications typically yield a reduction in blood pressure that is substantially greater than the reduction achieved by compound X.

Answer

The option asking whether conventional medications yield a substantially greater reduction in blood pressure than compound X.
The argument concludes that compound X should replace conventional medications because it has fewer side effects and is more effective than a placebo. However, it never compares the efficacy of compound X to the efficacy of the conventional medications it is meant to replace. By asking whether conventional medications yield a substantially greater reduction in blood pressure, this option directly probes this unstated comparison. If the answer is 'yes,' the argument is severely weakened because patients would lose significant medical benefits by switching. If the answer is 'no,' the argument is strengthened.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
Doctors should prescribe compound X instead of conventional medications for mild hypertension.
This is the final recommendation the cardiologist is building towards.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
Compound X is 10 percent more effective than a placebo and has no side effects, whereas conventional medications cause fatigue and dizziness.
These are the facts provided to justify the recommendation.
3
Find the logical gap or flaw between the premises and the conclusion.
The premises compare compound X's efficacy to a placebo, but the conclusion recommends it over conventional medications. The argument assumes compound X is effective enough to replace conventional drugs without comparing their efficacies directly.
An argument cannot logically recommend replacing one treatment with another solely because the new treatment is better than nothing (a placebo) and has fewer side effects.
4
Apply the Variance Test to the answer choices to find the one that targets this gap.
Asking whether conventional medications are substantially more effective than compound X targets this exact gap. A 'Yes' weakens the argument (efficacy is sacrificed), while a 'No' strengthens it (efficacy is maintained without side effects).
The correct Evaluate the Argument answer must uniquely strengthen and weaken the conclusion when opposed polar responses are supplied.

Key Concept

Evaluate the Argument - Identifying Flawed Comparisons
Question 216Question →

Match each of the following argumentative scenarios with the universal principle that, if assumed to be valid, most strongly justifies its conclusion.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Dr. Vance adjusted the dosage timing in her clinical trial without notifying the oversight board. Therefore, the medical journal must refuse to publish her trial data.
Although the director sold his shares just days before the company collapsed, he was entirely unaware of the firm's financial distress. Thus, he should not be fined for illegal trading.
The new electric vehicle battery is manufactured using renewable energy, but its disposal leaks toxic heavy metals into soil. Consequently, eco-minded buyers should avoid purchasing it.
To meet the federal grant deadline, the mayor bypassed the required public comment period before signing the park renovation bill. Hence, the park renovation bill is legally void.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The correct pairings link each specific scenario to the broad conditional rule that connects its premises directly to its conclusion, ensuring the conclusion logically follows.
Each correct pair successfully provides a sufficient bridging principle. A 'justify the conclusion' question requires a rule that, when added to the premises, makes the conclusion 100% valid. The matched principles act as universal rules that logically guarantee the specific conclusions drawn in their respective scenarios.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze each scenario to identify the premise (the evidence) and the conclusion (the final claim).
Identified the logical gap in each argument (e.g., jumping from 'unnotified adjustment' to 'must refuse publication').
Understanding the gap is required to know what the missing bridging principle must look like.
2
Formulate a hypothetical 'If Premise, Then Conclusion' rule for each scenario.
Created generic bridging rules for scientific ethics, corporate penalties, environmental purchases, and legal validity.
A sufficient principle must cover the specific conditions in the premise and guarantee the outcome in the conclusion.
3
Match the formulated rules to the provided universal principles.
Successfully paired each scenario with the principle that acts as its logical bridge.
This confirms that the selected principle operates logically to justify the scenario's conclusion.

Key Concept

Principle - Justify
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Question 217Question →

Match each flawed argument stimulus to the abstract description of the logical error it commits.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

A recent industry survey revealed that tech companies that adopted open-plan offices over the last decade saw a 30 percent increase in overall employee productivity. Based on this data, it is clear that removing physical barriers like walls and cubicles directly causes employees to work more efficiently and collaborate better.
The city's updated zoning regulations clearly stipulate that any commercial building designed by a registered architect will be approved for construction in the downtown sector. The new community recreation center was approved for construction there last month, so we can be certain that it must have been designed by a registered architect.
During her campaign, the mayoral candidate emphatically promised to bring unprecedented transparency to the local city council and its operations. Since she has installed floor-to-ceiling transparent glass for all the walls in her new executive office, she has clearly fulfilled her primary campaign promise to the voters.
An industry report noted that our company's overall market share in the competitive organic beverage sector increased from 10 percent to 20 percent during the third quarter. Therefore, we must have sold exactly twice as many beverage units this quarter as we did in the previous quarter.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The open-plan office argument matches the correlation/causation flaw; the zoning regulation argument matches the sufficient/necessary flaw; the campaign promise argument matches the equivocation flaw; and the beverage market share argument matches the proportion/quantity flaw.
Each flawed argument exhibits a classic LSAT logical vulnerability. The open-plan office argument commits a causal flaw. The zoning law argument commits a conditional logic flaw. The political promise argument equivocates on a word's meaning. The beverage company argument confuses percentages with absolute numbers.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the first argument regarding open-plan offices.
Identifies that a simultaneous occurrence (open plans and increased productivity) is used to claim a direct cause.
This aligns with the classic flaw of confusing correlation with causation.
2
Analyze the second argument regarding building approval.
Identifies conditional logic where 'designed by architect (sufficient) -> approved' is reversed to 'approved -> designed by architect (necessary)'.
This represents treating a sufficient condition as a necessary one, an illegal reversal.
3
Analyze the third argument regarding political transparency.
Identifies that 'transparency' means political openness in the premise, but physical see-through material in the conclusion.
This matches the definition of equivocation, or shifting the meaning of a key term.
4
Analyze the fourth argument regarding market share.
Identifies that market share (a percentage) does not guarantee absolute sales volume (a number), since the total market size could have shrunk.
This demonstrates the flaw of confusing proportions with absolute quantities.

Key Concept

Identifying abstract patterns of flawed reasoning across different contexts
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Question 218Question →

Read the following argument, then evaluate the statement below it.

Political Commentator: In any robust democracy, the ruling party will inevitably face plummeting approval ratings during an economic recession. The ruling Coalition Party is currently facing plummeting approval ratings amidst a severe economic recession. Therefore, despite recent claims to the contrary by international observers, it is clear that our country remains a robust democracy.

Statement: The commentator's reasoning is flawed because it infers that a certain political condition is absent merely on the grounds that a condition sufficient to guarantee its presence is absent.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: False

Answer

The statement is False.
The statement is false because it describes the wrong logical fallacy. The statement describes an 'illegal negation' (inferring something is absent because a sufficient condition is absent). However, the argument explicitly concludes that a condition (robust democracy) is present. The argument actually commits an 'illegal reversal' by treating a necessary result (plummeting ratings) as sufficient evidence to prove the initial condition.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the conditional structure of the commentator's premise.
Premise: Robust Democracy (during an economic recession) -> Plummeting Ratings. Being a robust democracy is sufficient to guarantee plummeting ratings; plummeting ratings are a necessary consequence.
Identifying formal logic relationships is required to accurately evaluate the nature of the flaw.
2
Analyze the conclusion drawn by the commentator.
The author observes the necessary condition (Plummeting Ratings) and concludes that the sufficient condition (Robust Democracy) is present.
Comparing the conclusion to the premises reveals the exact logical leap being made.
3
Identify the logical error actually committed in the argument.
The argument affirms the consequent, committing an illegal reversal. It erroneously treats a necessary condition as a sufficient one to prove a condition is present.
Knowing the actual flaw allows us to judge the accuracy of the provided statement.
4
Evaluate the provided statement against the actual flaw.
The statement describes an argument that concludes a condition is absent (denying the antecedent / illegal negation). Since the stimulus argument concludes a condition is present, the statement's description is fundamentally inaccurate.
This determines whether the statement is true or false.

Key Concept

Distinguishing between descriptions of Illegal Reversals (Affirming the Consequent) and Illegal Negations (Denying the Antecedent) in conditional reasoning.
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Question 219Question →

Consider the following argument:

Public Health Official: Last year, the city launched a comprehensive campaign to encourage drivers to wear seatbelts. The campaign drastically changed behavior: surveys confirm that the proportion of drivers in the city who regularly wear seatbelts surged from 40 percent last year to 80 percent this year. However, recent traffic reports reveal that the total number of severe injuries resulting from car accidents in the city has actually increased by 15 percent compared to last year. Clearly, wearing a seatbelt does not actually reduce a driver's risk of suffering a severe injury in a car accident.

Statement: The official's argument is actively weakened by the new finding that the total number of car accidents in the city also increased by exactly 15 percent over the past year.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: False

Answer

False. The provided statement does not weaken the argument; rather, it actively strengthens it.
The correct answer is false because the proposed finding proves that the rate of severe injuries per accident remained identical to the previous year. If the severity rate remains static despite seatbelt usage doubling, this strongly corroborates the official's conclusion that seatbelts do not reduce the risk of severe injury. Since it strengthens the argument, the assertion that it weakens the argument is false.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the official's reasoning
The official concludes seatbelts are ineffective because absolute injury numbers rose despite increased seatbelt usage.
To identify the logical gap between the premise (absolute numbers) and the conclusion (individual risk or rate).
2
Evaluate the proposed new finding
The finding states that total accidents increased by the exact same percentage (15 percent) as total severe injuries.
To determine how this new contextual fact alters the relationship between the premises and the conclusion.
3
Calculate the impact on injury rates
A parallel 15 percent increase in both accidents and injuries means the proportion of accidents resulting in severe injury remained perfectly static.
To translate absolute numbers back into the risk/rate referenced in the conclusion.
4
Determine the logical effect on the argument
A static injury rate in a population where seatbelt usage doubled proves the seatbelts had no statistical impact, thereby supporting the official's claim.
To accurately conclude that the finding strengthens the argument, meaning the statement that it 'weakens' the argument is false.

Key Concept

Understanding the difference between absolute numerical totals and proportional rates, and recognizing how explaining a numerical increase can inadvertently strengthen an argument's conclusion.
Question 220Question →

Marine biologist: In a decisive effort to protect the endangered crested sea turtle, the regional government has recently enacted a comprehensive ban on all commercial net fishing within the Emerald Gulf. This legislative action was primarily justified by extensive ecological studies demonstrating that adult crested sea turtles frequently become fatally entangled in these commercial nets during their migratory patterns. Therefore, by eliminating this specific environmental hazard, the new ban will likely cause the overall crested sea turtle population to increase significantly over the course of the next decade.

Statement: Determining whether the commercial net fishing operations in the Emerald Gulf had been significantly depleting populations of predatory fish that feed heavily on crested sea turtle hatchlings is critical to evaluating the validity of the marine biologist's argument.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: True

Answer

True
The statement is true because the proposed question perfectly satisfies the Variance Test. Discovering that the fishing nets were acting as a protective barrier for hatchlings by suppressing predator populations would severely weaken the argument's causal prediction. Conversely, discovering they had no such effect would strengthen the prediction.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Deconstruct the marine biologist's argument to identify its core premise and conclusion.
Premise: Commercial nets kill adult turtles, so banning them removes this hazard. Conclusion: The overall turtle population will significantly increase.
Evaluating an argument requires isolating the exact causal mechanism the author relies upon to reach their conclusion.
2
Analyze the factual ambiguity presented in the evaluation statement.
The statement introduces a potential indirect effect: the fishing nets might have been keeping populations of hatchling predators artificially low.
This establishes the new variable that must be tested against the original argument.
3
Apply the Variance Test by answering the question with polar opposites ('Yes' and 'No') to see the impact on the conclusion.
A 'Yes' response introduces a new threat (more predators) that weakens the conclusion. A 'No' response confirms the ban only has positive effects, strengthening the conclusion.
If opposite answers to the question yield opposite effects on the validity of the conclusion, the question is critical for evaluation.

Key Concept

The Variance Test for Argument Evaluation
PreviousPage 11 / 15Next
Argument Evaluation Practice Questions — LSAT — Page 11 | Examkin