Evaluate the Argument

9 questions

Question 1Question →

Anthropologist: At the Korba archaeological site, the stone tools discovered are highly standardized in shape and size. In contrast, tools found at other hominin sites from the exact same era are highly varied and lack any uniform pattern. Creating highly standardized tools requires the application of precise, consistent manufacturing techniques. Therefore, the standardization of the Korba tools demonstrates that the Korba hominins possessed a more advanced system of communication than their contemporaries, which allowed them to instruct one another in these techniques.

Which one of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the anthropologist's argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Whether precise, consistent manufacturing techniques can be effectively transmitted between individuals through visual observation and physical imitation alone

Answer

The correct answer is the option asking whether precise, consistent manufacturing techniques can be transmitted through observation and imitation alone.
The correct answer directly targets the central assumption of the argument. The anthropologist assumes that teaching precise toolmaking techniques requires an advanced system of communication. By asking whether these techniques could instead be taught through simple visual observation and physical imitation, this option perfectly applies the Variance Test. If the answer is 'yes', the argument is severely weakened because the hominins wouldn't need advanced communication. If the answer is 'no', the argument is strengthened because it rules out the most plausible alternative method of teaching.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion and premises of the argument.
Conclusion: Korba hominins had a more advanced system of communication. Premises: Korba tools are standardized; standardized tools require precise, consistent techniques.
Understanding the structure of the argument is the critical first step in evaluating its logical soundness.
2
Locate the logical gap or unstated assumption in the anthropologist's reasoning.
The anthropologist assumes that 'instructing one another' in precise, consistent techniques necessarily requires an 'advanced system of communication.'
Identifying the unstated assumption reveals the vulnerability of the argument.
3
Apply the Variance Test to the answer choices.
The correct answer must uniquely strengthen the conclusion if answered one way, and weaken it if answered the opposite way.
The Variance Test is the definitive method for confirming the correct answer in 'Evaluate the Argument' questions.
4
Evaluate the correct option using the Variance Test.
If techniques CAN be transmitted by visual imitation alone (Yes), it weakens the claim that advanced communication was needed. If they CANNOT (No), it strengthens the claim that advanced communication was strictly necessary.
This confirms that resolving this specific factual ambiguity decisively impacts the validity of the argument.

Key Concept

Applying the Variance Test to identify the core assumption bridging the premises and the conclusion.
Question 2Question →

Read the argument below. Apply the Variance Test to evaluate the argument by matching the possible factual discoveries (left) to their logical impact on the agricultural economist's core conclusion (right).

Agricultural Economist: To combat declining yields of the traditional Zea corn crop, valley farmers are being encouraged to switch to a genetically modified variant, Zea-Max. Zea-Max is highly resistant to the region's most common pests, which routinely destroy a large portion of the harvest. Since pest damage is currently the primary cause of crop loss in the valley, adopting Zea-Max will undoubtedly lead to a significant increase in the farmers' overall annual profits.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Discovery: Zea-Max requires significantly more expensive fertilizers than the traditional corn.
Discovery: Zea-Max requires the exact same standard fertilizers as the traditional corn.
Discovery: Buyers pay significantly less per bushel for Zea-Max than for traditional corn.
Discovery: Buyers pay the exact same price per bushel for Zea-Max as for traditional corn.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The correct matching aligns discoveries that increase costs or decrease selling price with a weakening impact, and aligns discoveries that keep costs and prices stable with a strengthening impact.
A valid argument evaluation requires identifying the assumptions made to reach the core conclusion. Here, the agricultural economist concludes that higher crop yields (due to pest resistance) will inherently lead to higher profits. However, profit depends on both revenue and cost. Discoveries that increase costs (such as expensive fertilizers) or decrease revenue per unit (such as a lower market price) directly weaken the argument by attacking these unstated assumptions. Conversely, discoveries that confirm costs and prices remain stable strengthen the argument by shielding it from these potential vulnerabilities. Therefore, the discoveries match perfectly with their corresponding logical impacts.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the core conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that adopting Zea-Max will lead to a significant increase in the farmers' overall annual profits.
Understanding the precise conclusion is necessary to determine what information would strengthen or weaken it.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
Zea-Max is highly resistant to pests, and pest damage is currently the primary cause of crop loss.
The premises show the argument's logic: less pest damage means higher crop yield, which the author assumes automatically means higher profits.
3
Analyze the assumptions linking higher yield to higher profit.
The argument assumes that the costs of growing Zea-Max are not significantly higher, and the selling price is not significantly lower, than traditional corn.
Profit is calculated as Total Revenue minus Total Cost. If costs rise or revenue per unit drops, a higher crop yield might not result in higher profit.
4
Apply the Variance Test to the discoveries regarding fertilizer costs.
Expensive fertilizer introduces a new cost, weakening the profit claim. Conversely, standard fertilizer eliminates this cost risk, strengthening the claim.
This demonstrates how opposite factual outcomes to the evaluative question 'Does Zea-Max cost more to grow?' logically impact the argument.
5
Apply the Variance Test to the discoveries regarding market price.
A lower selling price reduces revenue per unit, weakening the profit claim. A stable selling price eliminates this revenue risk, strengthening the claim.
This demonstrates how opposite factual outcomes to the evaluative question 'Does Zea-Max sell for less?' logically impact the argument.

Key Concept

Variance Test in Evaluating Arguments
Question 3Question →

City Planner: In order to significantly reduce the severe traffic congestion in our downtown commercial district, the municipal government should construct a new high-capacity bypass highway on the western outskirts of the city. Recent engineering studies demonstrate that this proposed bypass highway is designed to handle up to 20,000 vehicles per day. This capacity perfectly matches the estimated volume of excess commuter traffic that is currently clogging the main downtown routes during peak hours.

Statement: To properly evaluate the city planner's argument, it is necessary to determine whether the commuters currently traveling through the downtown district would actually choose to alter their routes to use the new western bypass highway.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: True

Answer

True
The statement accurately identifies the crux of the argument. The city planner assumes that because the road can hold the cars, the cars will drive on it. Knowing whether commuters will actually change their driving habits is essential to evaluating if the plan to reduce congestion will succeed.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that building the western bypass highway will significantly reduce downtown traffic congestion.
Evaluating an argument requires first isolating the main claim or proposed plan.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
The premises state that the bypass can handle 20,000 vehicles daily, which equals the current excess downtown traffic volume.
Understanding the evidence is necessary to see how the author attempts to support the conclusion.
3
Identify the logical gap or assumption.
The argument assumes that having the capacity for 20,000 vehicles means 20,000 vehicles will actually use it instead of their current route.
Arguments often rely on unstated assumptions that bridge the gap between the evidence and the conclusion.
4
Apply the Variance Test to the provided statement.
If commuters do alter their routes (Yes), the argument is strengthened. If they refuse to alter their routes (No), the argument falls apart. Thus, the statement is true.
The Variance Test definitively identifies whether a piece of information is critical for evaluating the argument.

Key Concept

Applying the Variance Test to identify the core assumption of a proposed plan.
Question 4Question →

Recent excavations at the ancient city of Veridia have uncovered massive quantities of elaborate bronze weaponry. This cache was found concentrated entirely within a single ceremonial structure dating to the late period of the city's occupation. Because surviving historical texts indicate that Veridia underwent a significant cultural shift toward militarism during this era, archaeologists have concluded that the discovery of this weaponry proves Veridia must have maintained a massive, active standing army during its late period.

Which one of the following would be most useful to determine in order to evaluate the archaeologists' argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Whether the bronze weaponry exhibits damage and wear patterns characteristic of use in actual combat

Answer

The statement assessing whether the bronze weaponry exhibits damage and wear patterns characteristic of use in actual combat.
The correct answer isolates the central assumption of the argument. Applying the Variance Test: If the weapons do show combat wear (Yes), this supports the conclusion that they were actively used by a standing army. If the weapons do not show any wear (No), this heavily undermines the conclusion, suggesting the cache in the ceremonial structure was purely decorative or ritualistic.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the core conclusion of the argument.
The archaeologists conclude that Veridia maintained a massive, active standing army during its late period.
Understanding the exact claim being made is necessary to evaluate its validity.
2
Identify the primary premise supporting the conclusion.
The premise is the discovery of massive quantities of elaborate bronze weaponry concentrated in a ceremonial structure.
Identifying the evidence helps pinpoint the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion.
3
Pinpoint the logical gap (flaw) in the argument.
The argument assumes that the mere presence of weaponry, especially in a ceremonial context, equates to active military use rather than purely symbolic or ritualistic purposes.
Finding the assumption allows us to determine what information is needed to test it.
4
Apply the Variance Test to the answer choices.
The correct answer must yield different outcomes that respectively strengthen and weaken the conclusion when answered with opposite extremes (e.g., Yes vs. No).
The Variance Test is the definitive method for verifying the correct answer in 'Evaluate the Argument' questions.

Key Concept

Applying the Variance Test to evaluate a core assumption.
Question 5Question →

University administrator: Our alumni donation rate has dropped by 15% since we replaced our quarterly printed alumni magazine with a monthly email newsletter. Therefore, to restore our alumni donation rate to its previous level, we must immediately return to sending the printed magazine.

Statement: To logically evaluate the validity of the administrator's argument, it is necessary to determine whether there has been a general economic downturn affecting the disposable income of alumni since the switch to the email newsletter.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: True

Answer

The statement is True.
The statement correctly identifies a piece of information that is crucial for evaluating the argument. The administrator observes a correlation (the format changed, and donations dropped) and assumes a causal relationship (the format change caused the drop). In causal arguments, discovering an alternate cause weakens the conclusion, while eliminating an alternate cause strengthens it. By applying the Variance Test, if an economic downturn did occur (Yes), the drop in donations is likely due to alumni having less disposable income, which severely weakens the claim that returning to print will fix the issue. If an economic downturn did not occur (No), this alternate cause is eliminated, strengthening the administrator's causal claim. Because polar opposite answers to the question yield opposite logical effects on the argument's validity, the statement is a necessary point of evaluation.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the core argument, including the premises and the main conclusion.
Premise: Donation rates dropped 15% after switching from print to email. Conclusion: Returning to print will restore donation rates.
Evaluating an argument first requires isolating the causal relationship the author assumes.
2
Identify the flaw or assumption in the argument's reasoning.
The argument assumes that the change in publication format is the sole cause of the drop in donations, ignoring other potential factors (a correlation vs. causation flaw).
Recognizing causal assumptions is essential for determining what information would strengthen or weaken the conclusion.
3
Apply the Variance Test to the provided statement.
If 'Yes' (an economic downturn occurred), it provides an alternate cause for the drop, weakening the conclusion. If 'No' (no downturn occurred), it eliminates a potential alternate cause, strengthening the conclusion.
The Variance Test definitively proves whether a piece of information is logically necessary to evaluate an argument.

Key Concept

Evaluate the Argument (Variance Test on Alternate Causes)
Question 6Question →

Urban Planner: To reduce our municipality's soaring electricity expenses, we should replace all conventional streetlamps in the downtown district with genetically engineered bioluminescent flora. These plants emit a steady glow without drawing any power from the grid. Therefore, implementing this replacement will drastically lower the downtown district's overall operational budget while preserving the area's nighttime usability.

Evaluate the argument by applying the Variance Test. Match each hypothetical factual discovery about the bioluminescent flora (left) to its corresponding logical impact on the planner's conclusion (right).

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Yes, the flora require an expensive, specialized nutrient gel applied weekly to survive urban pollution.
No, the flora are entirely self-sustaining and require less physical upkeep than conventional streetlamps.
Yes, the light emitted by the flora meets or exceeds all current municipal standards for pedestrian and traffic visibility.
No, the flora emit a faint glow that cannot penetrate common urban fog or rain, making navigation hazardous.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The correct pairings accurately map each polar outcome to its precise logical effect on the two core claims of the argument: the reduction of the operational budget and the preservation of nighttime usability.
Applying the Variance Test requires determining how opposite answers to a question impact the argument. If a 'Yes' weakens and a 'No' strengthens (or vice versa), the issue is highly relevant. The correct matches successfully align each factual discovery with its logical impact on either the budget premise or the visibility premise.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the core argument structure
Conclusion: Replacing streetlamps with flora will lower the operational budget and preserve usability. Premise: Flora emit light without drawing grid power.
Identifying the two distinct sub-claims (budget reduction and usability preservation) is necessary to evaluate the argument.
2
Apply the Variance Test to the budget claim
The budget claim assumes no new hidden costs will offset the electricity savings.
Evaluating an argument requires identifying unstated assumptions that could make or break the conclusion.
3
Match budget-related discoveries
Paired the expensive nutrient gel discovery with weakening the budget claim, and self-sustaining flora with strengthening it.
A 'Yes' outcome to hidden costs weakens the financial conclusion, while a 'No' outcome strengthens it by removing a potential obstacle.
4
Match usability-related discoveries
Paired adequate visibility with strengthening the usability claim, and the faint glow in fog with weakening it.
A 'Yes' outcome to meeting standards strengthens the functional conclusion, while a 'No' outcome directly weakens it.

Key Concept

The Variance Test consists of supplying polar opposite responses (e.g., Yes/No) to an evaluation question and analyzing whether one response strengthens the argument while the other weakens it.
Question 7Question →

Industry Analyst: Over the past fiscal year, the average cost to manufacture an electric vehicle (EV) battery fell by 20 percent. During the same period, the retail prices of EVs remained stagnant, yet the average profit margin per vehicle for EV manufacturers declined. Given that the battery constitutes the single largest share of an EV's total component costs, the financial savings from the cheaper batteries must have been completely negated by a substantial surge in the procurement costs of the EVs' non-battery components.

Which of the following would it be most useful to know in order to evaluate the argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Whether EV manufacturers experienced a substantial increase in per-vehicle expenses that are unrelated to the physical components of the vehicles, such as assembly labor or marketing.

Answer

The option that asks whether EV manufacturers experienced a substantial increase in per-vehicle expenses unrelated to physical components, such as assembly labor or marketing.
The core logical flaw in the analyst's argument is a scope shift between 'total component costs' and overall per-vehicle expenses. The argument assumes that because a component cost (the battery) decreased, the offsetting increase must also come from another physical component. The correct answer applies the Variance Test perfectly: If EV manufacturers did experience a substantial increase in non-component expenses (like labor or marketing), this alternative explanation weakens the conclusion that non-battery components were responsible. Conversely, if they did not experience an increase in non-component expenses, this rules out the primary alternative, thereby strengthening the conclusion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the argument's premises and main conclusion.
Premises: Battery costs fell 20%; EV prices remained stagnant; per-vehicle profit margins declined; batteries are the largest component cost. Conclusion: The savings from cheaper batteries must have been negated by a surge in the costs of non-battery components.
Deconstructing the argument into structural parts is the essential first step to finding logical gaps.
2
Identify the core assumption and logical flaw.
The analyst assumes that physical components are the only expenses that factor into the profit margin. They ignore non-component expenses like labor, marketing, and administration.
An Evaluate question typically targets the central assumption bridging the premises to the conclusion.
3
Apply the Variance Test to the choices.
Testing the correct option: 'Yes' (non-component expenses surged) provides an alternative cause for the declining margin, weakening the conclusion. 'No' (non-component expenses did not surge) eliminates this alternative, strengthening the conclusion.
The Variance Test is the definitive method for confirming the correct answer in Evaluate questions.

Key Concept

Applying the Variance Test to identify scope shifts between specific categories (component costs) and broader categories (overall per-vehicle expenses).
Question 8Question →

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 9Question →

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
Evaluate the Argument Practice Questions — LSAT | Examkin