Argument Structure and Method

190 questions

Question 81Question →

Read the following argument carefully. Match each excerpt from the argument to its correct structural role.

Argument:
Some scholars contend that the ancient Minoan civilization collapsed primarily due to a massive volcanic eruption on the island of Thera. However, archaeological evidence indicates that the Thera eruption occurred at least a century before the widespread destruction of Minoan palaces. Consequently, the volcanic eruption could not have been the direct cause of the Minoan collapse. Instead, historical records of the era increasingly describe widespread naval conflicts and invasions from mainland powers. Thus, the Minoan civilization most likely fell due to foreign conquest.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

"Some scholars contend that the ancient Minoan civilization collapsed primarily due to a massive volcanic eruption..."
"archaeological evidence indicates that the Thera eruption occurred at least a century before the widespread destruction..."
"Consequently, the volcanic eruption could not have been the direct cause of the Minoan collapse."
"Thus, the Minoan civilization most likely fell due to foreign conquest."

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Excerpt 1 matches 'A claim that the argument as a whole is designed to refute'. Excerpt 2 matches 'A premise used to undermine an opposing view'. Excerpt 3 matches 'A subsidiary conclusion'. Excerpt 4 matches 'The main conclusion of the argument'.
In this argument, the author introduces an opposing viewpoint (Minoans fell due to a volcano) in order to refute it. The author uses a factual premise (the eruption timeline) to reach a subsidiary conclusion (the volcano wasn't the cause). Finally, using another premise about historical records, the author reaches the ultimate, main conclusion (foreign conquest was the cause).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the author's primary goal in the passage.
The author wants to prove that foreign conquest, not a volcanic eruption, ended the Minoan civilization.
This establishes the main conclusion ('Thus, the Minoan civilization most likely fell...').
2
Analyze the opening statement.
The opening statement presents a view ('Some scholars contend...') that the author argues against.
This identifies it as the opposing claim to be refuted.
3
Trace the logic used to defeat the opposing claim.
The author provides a fact (the eruption happened a century earlier) to deduce that the volcano wasn't the direct cause.
This separates the premise (the factual evidence) from the subsidiary conclusion (the deduction that the volcano wasn't the cause).

Key Concept

Identifying the structural roles of statements in a complex argument, including intermediate conclusions and main conclusions.
Question 82Question →

Business Analyst: Some executives argue that strictly monitoring employee internet usage increases productivity by eliminating distractions. However, recent data shows that companies with the strictest monitoring policies actually have lower output per employee than those with flexible policies. This is likely because intense monitoring creates a high-stress environment that reduces overall employee morale and creative problem-solving, which are crucial for our industry's output.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning used in the business analyst's argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: refuting a claim by presenting data that contradicts the claim's expected outcome and offering an explanation for that data

Answer

The correct answer accurately states that the analyst refutes a claim by presenting data that contradicts the expected outcome, and then offers an explanation for that data.
The correct answer accurately maps to the two distinct moves the analyst makes: first, citing data that companies with strict monitoring have lower output (presenting data that contradicts the expected outcome), and second, positing that this happens because of increased stress and lowered morale (offering an explanation for that data).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the opposing claim being addressed in the stimulus.
The claim is that strictly monitoring employee internet usage increases productivity.
Understanding the context of the argument is necessary to evaluate how the author responds to it.
2
Determine how the author challenges the opposing claim.
The author introduces 'recent data' showing that companies with strict monitoring actually have lower output per employee.
This establishes the first half of the argumentative method: presenting contradictory empirical evidence.
3
Analyze the final sentence to identify the argument's conclusion and supporting mechanism.
The author explains the data by stating that monitoring creates stress, which reduces morale and creative problem-solving.
This establishes the second half of the argumentative method: offering a causal explanation for the presented data.
4
Match the observed structure to the abstract descriptions in the answer choices.
The structure perfectly matches the option describing a refutation via contradictory data followed by an explanation.
This translates the specific details of the stimulus into the abstract structural language characteristic of Method of Reasoning questions.

Key Concept

General Method of Reasoning
Question 83Question →

Municipal governments ought to redirect current architectural preservation subsidies toward the construction of entirely new, purpose-built civic centers. The primary value of civic architecture lies in its functional utility to current residents, not in its historical footprint. Mid-century Brutalist buildings, which currently receive the bulk of these subsidies, are notoriously energy-inefficient and structurally resistant to modern accessibility retrofits. Retaining these outdated structures inherently compromises a municipality's ability to provide sustainable and accessible public spaces.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion drawn in the argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Municipalities should reallocate their architectural preservation funds toward constructing new civic buildings.

Answer

Municipalities should reallocate their architectural preservation funds toward constructing new civic buildings.
The correct answer accurately paraphrases the first sentence of the stimulus. In this argument, the author's primary goal is to advocate for a specific policy change: redirecting preservation subsidies toward building new civic centers. The rest of the passage is dedicated to proving why this change is necessary (because current buildings lack utility, are inefficient, and compromise public space). Since no other statement is supported by this first sentence, it is the main conclusion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the stimulus to separate facts and premises from normative claims and conclusions.
Identified that the passage contains a recommendation (redirect subsidies) and several supporting claims (utility over history, inefficiency of Brutalist buildings, compromised ability to provide public spaces).
Main conclusions in LSAT arguments are often recommendations or strong opinions supported by the surrounding evidence.
2
Determine the logical flow between the identified components.
The premises about utility and inefficiency support the claim that retaining Brutalist structures compromises public spaces. This claim, in turn, supports the opening recommendation to redirect funds to new buildings.
A main conclusion must be the ultimate point of the argument, supported by other statements but not supporting any other statement.
3
Select the option that best paraphrases the ultimate point of the argument.
The correct paraphrase matches the first sentence: Municipal governments ought to redirect preservation subsidies toward new civic centers.
This is the only statement in the stimulus that serves purely as the endpoint of the reasoning chain.

Key Concept

Identifying Main Conclusions
Estimated Time:1m 45s
Question 84Question →

The county council must implement an immediate ban on the use of neonicotinoid pesticides. The sudden decline in the local bee population strongly coincides with the widespread agricultural application of these chemicals in the region. Furthermore, laboratory tests consistently demonstrate that even low doses of neonicotinoids impair the navigational abilities of foraging bees. This strongly suggests that the region's current pesticide use is the primary cause of the diminishing bee colonies.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The county council should immediately prohibit the application of neonicotinoid pesticides.

Answer

The statement indicating that the county council should immediately prohibit the application of neonicotinoid pesticides.
The correct answer accurately paraphrases the first sentence of the stimulus. In this argument, the first sentence is the main conclusion (a prescriptive recommendation). The remaining sentences provide evidence (the coincidence of the decline and the lab tests) leading to an intermediate conclusion (the pesticides are the cause), which ultimately justifies the necessity of the proposed ban.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the structure of the argument to identify the core prescriptive or factual claim.
The first sentence makes a strong prescriptive recommendation: the council must ban the pesticides.
Arguments frequently state their main conclusion upfront, followed by the supporting evidence.
2
Evaluate the logical relationships between the remaining statements to confirm the main conclusion.
The subsequent sentences provide evidence (coincidence of the population decline and laboratory test results) that lead to an intermediate conclusion (pesticides are causing the decline). This intermediate conclusion logically supports the initial recommendation.
To verify that a statement is the main conclusion, all other claims in the stimulus must ultimately serve to support it.
3
Match the identified main conclusion with the provided answer choices.
The correct option perfectly paraphrases the first sentence about implementing an immediate ban.
The correct answer in a main conclusion question must capture the exact meaning of the argument's primary claim without adding outside information.

Key Concept

Identifying the main conclusion when it is stated at the beginning of an argument.
Question 85Question →

Read the following argument:

Biologist: The recent discovery of fossilized feathers on several dinosaur species has led some paleontologists to conclude that all dinosaurs were endothermic (warm-blooded). They argue that feathers evolved primarily for insulation, which is a trait closely associated with endothermic animals. However, this conclusion is premature. Feathers could have initially evolved for entirely different purposes, such as mating displays or species recognition, and only much later been adapted for thermal regulation. Furthermore, many modern ectothermic (cold-blooded) animals possess complex physical structures used solely for display.

Evaluate the following statement: The biologist's argument proceeds by demonstrating that the premises used to support a competing conclusion contradict one another.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: False

Answer

The statement is False because the author offers an alternative explanation for evidence, rather than pointing out a logical contradiction.
The statement incorrectly describes the argumentative method. The biologist does not show that the paleontologists' premises contradict each other; rather, the biologist weakens the connection between the premise (feathers) and the conclusion (warm-bloodedness) by offering an alternative explanation (feathers for display).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the opposing argument
Paleontologists argue that dinosaurs were endothermic because they had feathers, which evolved for insulation.
Understanding the target of the critique is necessary to evaluate the method of critique.
2
Analyze the biologist's counterargument
The biologist suggests feathers might have evolved for mating displays, not insulation.
This identifies the core argumentative strategy used by the author.
3
Evaluate the provided statement against the strategy
The statement claims the author points out a contradiction. The author actually provides an alternative explanation. Thus, the statement is false.
Comparing the actual method to the described method determines the truth value.

Key Concept

General Method of Reasoning
Question 86Question →

Philosopher: Psychological egoists claim that every human action is ultimately motivated by self-interest. If this were true, the concept of "selfishness" would lose all its descriptive utility. We rely on the term "selfish" precisely to distinguish certain actions—such as betraying a colleague for personal gain—from other actions, like anonymously donating to charity. If all actions are fundamentally selfish, this necessary distinction evaporates, rendering the term empty. Because the distinction between these behaviors is clearly meaningful, the egoists' universal claim cannot be correct.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning employed by the philosopher?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: rejecting a general claim by demonstrating that its acceptance would lead to the loss of a meaningful and established conceptual distinction

Answer

rejecting a general claim by demonstrating that its acceptance would lead to the loss of a meaningful and established conceptual distinction
The correct answer accurately captures the structural approach of the stimulus. The philosopher uses a form of 'reductio ad absurdum.' They hypothetically accept the egoists' general claim (all actions are selfish) to demonstrate that this leads to an unacceptable consequence (we can no longer conceptually distinguish between betraying a friend and donating to charity). Because losing this distinction is absurd, the philosopher rejects the initial claim.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the opponent's position.
The psychological egoists' claim is that 'every human action is ultimately motivated by self-interest.'
Identifying the target of the critique is necessary to understand how the author attacks it.
2
Determine how the author responds to this position.
The author explores what would happen 'If this were true.'
This indicates a reasoning method that traces the logical implications of a claim.
3
Identify the consequence presented by the author.
The consequence is that the concept of 'selfishness' would lose its descriptive utility, meaning we could no longer distinguish between truly selfish acts and charitable ones.
This is the core of the author's counter-argument: the outcome of the opponent's premise.
4
Abstract the method.
The author takes a theoretical claim, shows that it results in the destruction of a necessary practical distinction, and uses that absurdity to conclude the claim is false (reductio ad absurdum).
Abstracting the structural elements allows you to match the argument to the correct formal description in the options.

Key Concept

General Method of Reasoning
Question 87Question →

Professor: Some students argue that we should eliminate final exams because they cause unnecessary stress. But this is a flawed approach. After all, job interviews and professional presentations also cause stress, but we do not eliminate them. Instead, we learn to manage the pressure.

Which of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning used by the professor?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Arguing against a proposal by pointing out that its underlying rationale would apply equally to situations where such a proposal would be unacceptable.

Answer

Arguing against a proposal by pointing out that its underlying rationale would apply equally to situations where such a proposal would be unacceptable.
The correct answer accurately captures the professor's rhetorical strategy. The professor takes the rationale used by the students (if something causes stress, it should be eliminated) and applies it to a different situation (job interviews) where following that rationale would be clearly absurd. This is a classic method of arguing by analogy to show a flaw in a principle.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the students' proposal to eliminate final exams is a flawed approach.
Understanding the main point is necessary to see how the premises support it.
2
Analyze the premises used to support the conclusion.
The professor points out that job interviews also cause stress, but we do not eliminate them.
This shows the structural relationship between the evidence and the conclusion.
3
Abstract the specific details into a general logical description.
The professor is taking the students' principle (eliminate things that cause stress) and showing that applying it to other areas (job interviews) leads to an absurd or unacceptable result.
Method of reasoning questions require translating specific arguments into abstract logical terms.

Key Concept

General Method of Reasoning
Estimated Time:1m 15s
Question 88Question →

Match each argument excerpt with the logical method of reasoning it primarily employs.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Just as a gardener must prune dead branches for a tree to thrive, a manager must sometimes dismiss underperforming employees for a company to succeed.
If we ban all activities that carry a risk of injury, we would have to ban cooking, exercising, and even walking down the street, which is obviously unacceptable.
The strange engine noise must be caused by the alternator, the water pump, or the belt. We know the water pump and belt are brand new and functioning perfectly, so it must be the alternator.
The author claims that all successful leaders are extroverts. However, history is full of highly effective leaders, such as Abraham Lincoln, who were noted introverts.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The gardener comparison is an analogy, the ban on risky activities derives an absurd consequence, the engine diagnosis uses elimination, and the introverted leader provides a counterexample.
Each argument excerpt explicitly demonstrates a distinct formal method of reasoning. The gardener comparison uses analogy; the safety ban uses reductio ad absurdum (deriving an absurd consequence); the car diagnosis uses elimination by ruling out alternatives; and the historical leader example uses a direct counterexample to refute a universal claim.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the first excerpt regarding the gardener and the manager.
Identify that it compares two distinct domains to highlight a structural similarity.
This is the classic definition of an argument by analogy.
2
Analyze the second excerpt regarding banning risky activities.
Identify that it takes a proposed rule and shows it leads to ridiculous extremes like banning walking.
This matches the method of deriving an absurd consequence.
3
Analyze the third excerpt regarding the engine noise.
Identify that it lists three possible causes and rules out two of them to conclude the third.
This perfectly illustrates an argument by elimination.
4
Analyze the fourth excerpt regarding leaders and introversion.
Identify that it uses a specific case (Lincoln) to disprove a general rule.
Providing an exception that breaks a rule is the use of a counterexample.

Key Concept

General Method of Reasoning
Question 89Question →

The city council recently passed a law heavily restricting commercial development in the historic downtown area. Because the historic downtown area has traditionally been the primary source of new commercial growth in the city, the total number of new businesses opening in the city will decrease significantly next year. As a result, the city's overall commercial tax revenue will almost certainly decline.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that the total number of new businesses opening in the city will decrease significantly next year?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: It is a conclusion for which support is provided and which in turn is used to support the main conclusion of the argument.

Answer

The statement acts as a conclusion for which support is provided (by the first two claims) and which is in turn used to support the main conclusion (that tax revenue will decline).
The correct answer accurately describes an intermediate conclusion. The statement is supported by the facts about the new law and the historic district's role in commercial growth. It then serves as the reason for the final claim that tax revenue will decline.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is 'the city's overall commercial tax revenue will almost certainly decline.'
This is the final point the author is trying to prove, signaled by the conclusion indicator 'As a result'.
2
Analyze the statement in question to determine how it relates to the rest of the argument.
The statement is supported by the preceding text and is used to support the main conclusion.
The word 'Because' indicates that the previous claims are premises supporting this statement. In turn, this statement leads to the final 'As a result' claim.
3
Define the structural role based on the analysis.
The structural role is an intermediate (or subsidiary) conclusion.
Any claim that is both a conclusion of earlier premises and a premise for a later conclusion is an intermediate conclusion.

Key Concept

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Estimated Time:1m 0s
Question 90Question →

Epistemologist: Certain foundationalists argue that to prevent an infinite regress of justification, all knowledge must ultimately rest on basic beliefs that are self-evidently true and require no external justification. However, the process of determining whether any particular belief qualifies as 'self-evidently true' invariably relies upon the evaluation of an individual's prior conceptual framework, which itself consists of previously acquired beliefs. Consequently, identifying a purportedly basic belief demands an appeal to the very type of epistemic justification that foundationalism attempts to halt.

Which of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning used by the epistemologist's argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: It demonstrates that satisfying the necessary condition for a proposed theoretical solution inherently requires the exact process that the solution was explicitly designed to avoid.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument demonstrates that satisfying the condition for a proposed solution requires the very process it was designed to avoid.
The correct option perfectly mirrors the abstract structure of the epistemologist's critique. The foundationalist's 'solution' is the concept of a self-evident basic belief, designed explicitly to avoid the 'process' of external epistemic justification. The epistemologist counters by demonstrating that merely identifying such a belief requires evaluating prior beliefs—which is precisely the external justification process the solution was meant to bypass.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the opponent's proposed solution.
Foundationalists propose 'basic beliefs' that need no external justification as a solution to stop the infinite regress of justification.
Understanding the baseline theory is necessary to understand how the author critiques it.
2
Identify the author's core premise.
The author claims that determining if a belief is 'self-evidently true' requires evaluating one's prior conceptual framework, which is made of previously acquired beliefs.
This establishes the logical mechanism the author uses to attack the opponent's theory.
3
Synthesize the author's conclusion.
Identifying a basic belief demands the exact type of external epistemic justification (relying on other beliefs) that foundationalism tries to stop.
This connects the premise to the ultimate point of the critique.
4
Abstract the structural relationship between the critique and the original theory.
The argument rejects a theoretical solution by showing that the act of implementing it inherently necessitates the very problem it was supposed to eliminate.
Translating specific subject matter (epistemology) into abstract structural terms matches the language required by the answer choices.

Key Concept

Abstract Analysis of Argumentative Strategy
Question 91Question →

Historian: Traditional accounts claim that the rapid industrialization of Norvalia in the 19th century was primarily driven by the construction of the national railway system. However, this narrative is flawed. The neighboring region of Southam, which was integrated into the national railway system a full decade earlier, remained almost entirely agricultural until well into the 20th century.

Evaluate the following statement as True or False:
The historian's argument proceeds by challenging a causal explanation for a development by pointing to a case where that development occurred without the presence of the purported cause.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: False

Answer

False
The statement is False. The historian attacks the causal claim by presenting a case (Southam) where the purported cause (the railway system) was present, but the effect (industrialization) did not occur. The statement incorrectly describes this as a case where the development (the effect) occurred without the purported cause. This reversal of terms makes the statement an inaccurate description of the historian's method of reasoning.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the causal claim being challenged in the stimulus.
The traditional account claims that the railway (cause) drove industrialization (development).
Understanding the method of reasoning requires identifying the specific argument being targeted.
2
Analyze the counterexample provided by the historian.
Southam had the railway (the cause was present) but did not industrialize (the development was absent).
This determines exactly how the historian attempts to undermine the causal claim.
3
Evaluate the abstract description in the statement against the actual counterexample.
The statement describes a case where the development is present but the cause is absent, which contradicts the historian's counterexample where the cause is present but the development is absent.
This comparison reveals that the statement incorrectly characterizes the argumentative strategy.

Key Concept

Evaluating abstract descriptions of causal counterexamples.
Question 92Question →

For decades, marine biologists have maintained that unihemispheric sleep—resting one half of the brain at a time—is an absolute requirement for all cetaceans to avoid drowning. It is true that this unique sleep pattern allows species like dolphins to continuously maintain the motor control needed to surface for air. The necessity of unihemispheric sleep for marine mammal survival has, nevertheless, been fundamentally overstated. Recent field observations of sperm whales demonstrate that they regularly engage in periods of profound, bihemispheric sleep. The ability of these whales to safely suspend respiration and motor function during deep, total rest proves that other physiological adaptations can adequately compensate for the absence of constant conscious awareness.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The claim that marine mammals absolutely require unihemispheric sleep to survive is significantly exaggerated.

Answer

The claim that marine mammals absolutely require unihemispheric sleep to survive is significantly exaggerated.
The correct answer accurately paraphrases the sentence 'The necessity of unihemispheric sleep for marine mammal survival has, nevertheless, been fundamentally overstated.' This is the ultimate point the author is trying to prove using the evidence about sperm whales.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the primary topic and the different viewpoints presented in the stimulus.
The stimulus discusses the necessity of unihemispheric sleep in marine mammals, contrasting a traditional view with recent evidence.
Understanding the context is essential for breaking down the argument's structure.
2
Isolate the structural components of the argument, distinguishing between background, premises, and conclusions.
Background: Biologists say unihemispheric sleep is required. Premise: It helps dolphins surface. Claim: Its necessity is overstated. Premise: Sperm whales engage in bihemispheric sleep. Intermediate Conclusion: This proves other adaptations can compensate.
Separating these components reveals the logical flow and hierarchy of the statements.
3
Determine which conclusion is the ultimate point the author is trying to prove.
The intermediate conclusion about alternative adaptations is used to prove the broader claim that the necessity of unihemispheric sleep has been overstated. Therefore, the latter is the main conclusion.
The main conclusion must be supported by the other statements and must not support any other statement in the argument.

Key Concept

Identifying the main conclusion by analyzing the structural relationship between premises, intermediate conclusions, and the ultimate claim.
Question 93Question →

Policy Advisor: Proponents of the proposed universal basic income (UBI) argue that it will spur entrepreneurial innovation, reasoning that individuals will have the financial security to take business risks. However, this prediction is flawed. Entrepreneurial success requires not merely a financial safety net, but also access to significant capital investment, which a UBI does not provide. Furthermore, if the UBI is funded by significantly raising corporate taxes, as its proponents suggest, the overall pool of venture capital available for new startups will inevitably shrink. Thus, the UBI is unlikely to produce the promised surge in innovation.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning used in the policy advisor's argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: undermining a predicted outcome by arguing that a condition necessary for that outcome is not provided by the proposal, and that the proposal's implementation would generate effects detrimental to the outcome

Answer

The correct answer is the option that identifies both aspects of the critique: the absence of a necessary condition and the introduction of a detrimental effect.
The correct answer perfectly maps to the two distinct ways the advisor attacks the proponents' claim: first, by noting that UBI lacks a necessary ingredient for innovation (capital investment), and second, by arguing that the mechanism for funding UBI (corporate taxes) will actively reduce the capital available, thereby hindering the outcome.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the proponents' argument.
Proponents claim UBI leads to financial security, which will spur entrepreneurial innovation.
Understanding the target of the critique is necessary to evaluate how the critique functions.
2
Analyze the first part of the advisor's critique.
The advisor states that innovation requires capital investment (a necessary condition), which UBI does not provide.
This identifies the first argumentative strategy: pointing out an unfulfilled prerequisite.
3
Analyze the second part of the advisor's critique.
The advisor states that funding UBI via corporate taxes will shrink venture capital, actively harming startups.
This identifies the second argumentative strategy: pointing out a counterproductive consequence of the proposal.
4
Synthesize the two parts to determine the overall method of reasoning.
The argument proceeds by identifying a missing necessary condition and a detrimental side effect of the proposed policy.
A correct 'Method of Reasoning' description must encapsulate the entire primary structure of the argument.

Key Concept

General Method of Reasoning
Estimated Time:1m 45s
Question 94Question →

City Planner: Proponents of the new highway expansion project claim that increasing lane capacity will permanently resolve our city's traffic congestion. However, these proponents overlook the fact that increasing highway capacity makes driving significantly more convenient. This added convenience inevitably draws commuters away from public transit and onto the roads. Consequently, the expansion is unlikely to provide the long-term relief its supporters anticipate.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning used in the city planner's argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Pointing out that a proposed action will generate an effect that undermines the stated objective of that action.

Answer

The argument proceeds by pointing out that a proposed action will generate an effect that undermines the stated objective of that action.
The city planner counters the proponents' argument by demonstrating that their proposed solution (expanding the highway) will lead to an outcome (making driving more convenient and drawing commuters away from public transit) that directly exacerbates the original problem they are trying to solve (traffic congestion). Thus, the planner is pointing out that the proposed action inherently undermines its own primary objective.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the opposing position and its objective.
Proponents claim that expanding the highway (proposed action) will resolve traffic congestion (objective).
Understanding the context of the argument is essential to analyzing the author's response to it.
2
Analyze the author's counterargument.
The author argues that expanding the highway makes driving more convenient, which draws people away from public transit and back onto the roads.
This determines the structural mechanism the author uses to evaluate the opposing position.
3
Abstract the author's reasoning into logical terms.
The author is stating that the proposed solution (expansion) will cause a side effect (more drivers) that defeats the original goal (resolving congestion).
Method of Reasoning questions require matching the specific content of the argument to an abstract description of its structural technique.

Key Concept

General Method of Reasoning
Question 95Question →

Arrange the following argumentative statements into a logical sequence, starting with the primary factual evidence, moving through the intermediate conclusions, and ending with the final main conclusion.

Drag items to arrange them in the correct order

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The logical sequence begins with the primary factual evidence (the structural assessment), which leads to the first intermediate conclusion (the risk of collapse). This vulnerability leads to a second intermediate conclusion (the building being unsafe), which ultimately supports the main prescriptive conclusion (the requirement to close the library).
A complete logical argument flows from unsupported factual premises to intermediate conclusions, culminating in the main conclusion. The structural assessment provides the foundational fact (cracks exist). The argument infers a physical consequence from this (risk of collapse). It then infers a practical implication of that consequence (unsafe for public use). Finally, it provides the ultimate prescriptive recommendation (close the library), which is supported by the entire chain.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The statement requiring the city to close the library is the main conclusion.
It uses the conclusion indicator 'Thus' and prescribes an ultimate action that the rest of the argument is built to support.
2
Identify the primary factual evidence (basic premise).
The statement regarding the structural assessment is the primary premise.
It states an independent, observed fact (severe foundation cracks) that does not rely on any other claim to be proven.
3
Order the intermediate conclusions to bridge the premise to the main conclusion.
The remaining statements flow logically from physical cause to safety effect: assessment -> risk of collapse -> unsafe for public use.
The cracks directly cause the risk of collapse. In turn, the risk of collapse is precisely what makes the building unsafe. This seamlessly connects the initial observation to the final closure mandate.

Key Concept

Identifying basic premises, intermediate conclusions, and main conclusions to evaluate logical flow.
Question 96Question →

City X successfully reduced traffic congestion by implementing a toll for drivers entering the city center during rush hour. City Y, which is currently facing severe traffic congestion, should therefore also implement a downtown rush hour toll to solve its traffic problem.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Unlike City X, which has an extensive public transportation network, City Y currently lacks any viable public transit alternatives for commuters.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that City Y lacks public transit alternatives compared to City X.
The correct answer effectively weakens the analogy by pointing out a critical relevant difference (disanalogy) between the two cities. For a toll to successfully reduce traffic, drivers must have an alternative way to commute. Since City X had public transit and City Y does not, the toll is unlikely to produce the same result in City Y.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the argument's conclusion and premises.
Premise: City X reduced congestion with a toll. Conclusion: City Y should implement a toll to solve its congestion.
Understanding the structure is required to evaluate the argument properly.
2
Determine the method of reasoning.
The argument uses an analogy, comparing City Y's situation directly to City X's situation.
Identifying the argument type dictates how to accurately weaken it.
3
Formulate a strategy to weaken the argument.
Look for a relevant difference (a disanalogy) between City X and City Y that suggests the toll will not work in City Y.
An argument by analogy is most effectively weakened by showing that the two cases being compared are fundamentally different in a way that affects the predicted outcome.
4
Evaluate the options against the strategy.
The option stating City Y lacks public transit highlights a critical difference: without alternatives, commuters in City Y must still drive, rendering the toll ineffective at reducing traffic.
This directly attacks the assumption that the two cities are similar enough for the exact same solution to work.

Key Concept

Argument by Analogy
Question 97Question →

The rapid expansion of algorithmic high-frequency trading has prompted widespread calls among legislators for a novel regulatory framework specifically targeting autonomous market participants. Regulators must resist this pressure and instead apply existing antitrust jurisprudence to curb algorithmic market manipulation. The foundational principles of anti-competitive behavior, such as price collusion and quote stuffing, remain conceptually identical regardless of whether they are executed by human floor traders or autonomous software. Furthermore, drafting a bespoke regulatory regime specifically for algorithms necessitates rigidly defining computational boundaries, an endeavor that intrinsically lags behind technological development. Consequently, any newly engineered algorithmic code of conduct will inherently contain definitional loopholes that sophisticated financial entities can effortlessly exploit.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Existing antitrust laws, rather than new, bespoke regulatory frameworks, should be used by regulators to combat market manipulation by trading algorithms.

Answer

The statement asserting that regulators should use existing antitrust laws rather than creating new regulatory frameworks.
The correct answer perfectly captures the primary argument of the stimulus, which is located in the second sentence. The author introduces a popular demand for new regulations and immediately counters it by concluding that regulators must instead rely on existing antitrust laws. All subsequent statements—that anti-competitive principles are unchanged, and that new regulations will inevitably contain loopholes—are provided to justify this core recommendation.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the first sentence to identify its structural role.
The first sentence introduces a trend (calls for a novel regulatory framework) which serves as background context and sets up an opposing view.
Arguments often begin by stating a prevailing opinion that the author intends to challenge.
2
Locate the author's primary stance or response to the background context.
The second sentence states that regulators 'must resist this pressure and instead apply existing antitrust jurisprudence'.
Normative statements (using 'must', 'should') frequently indicate the author's main conclusion, especially when responding to an opposing view.
3
Evaluate the remaining sentences to determine if they support the second sentence or are supported by it.
The third sentence (principles are identical) directly supports applying existing laws. The fourth sentence (drafting new rules lags behind tech) supports the fifth sentence (new codes will have loopholes).
Understanding the direction of logical support is crucial for distinguishing premises from conclusions.
4
Analyze the final sentence, which begins with 'Consequently'.
Although 'Consequently' is a conclusion indicator, this statement (new rules will have loopholes) serves as an intermediate conclusion that ultimately supports why regulators should use existing laws.
A main conclusion must be the ultimate endpoint of the argument. If a conclusion is used to support another claim in the stimulus, it is merely an intermediate conclusion.

Key Concept

Identifying Main Conclusions
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Question 98Question →

Wild cereal grains naturally shatter upon ripening, a trait that makes them exceptionally difficult to harvest efficiently. Because of this, early human foragers instinctively concentrated their gathering efforts on the rare mutant plants that retained their seeds on the stalk. The prevailing theory that the initial domestication of these cereal crops was a deliberate agricultural innovation is fundamentally flawed; it was actually a purely accidental byproduct of basic foraging practices. After all, the successfully gathered seeds were the ones inadvertently scattered around settlements, meaning this selective harvesting inevitably increased the proportion of non-shattering mutants in the local populations over successive generations.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The early domestication of cereal crops occurred unintentionally through standard gathering behaviors, rather than through intentional agricultural planning.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that early domestication of cereal crops occurred unintentionally through standard gathering behaviors, rather than through intentional agricultural planning.
The correct answer accurately restates the author's primary thesis: that domestication was not a planned agricultural innovation (as the 'prevailing theory' suggests), but rather an 'accidental byproduct of basic foraging practices.' All other statements in the stimulus serve to explain how and why this accidental process occurred.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the structure of the argument to separate premises from conclusions.
Identified the first sentence as a foundational premise. Identified the second sentence as an intermediate conclusion supported by the first. Identified the final sentence as a premise supporting the third sentence.
Deconstructing the stimulus is required to map the logical flow and isolate the author's ultimate claim.
2
Locate the main conclusion by evaluating which statement is supported by the rest of the text but supports nothing else.
The third sentence ('The prevailing theory... is fundamentally flawed; it was actually a purely accidental byproduct of basic foraging practices.') is the main conclusion.
This statement represents the author's primary judgment and is supported by both the intermediate conclusion (foragers gathered mutant seeds) and the final premise (this gathering inevitably increased the mutant population).
3
Evaluate the answer choices to find the closest logical paraphrase of the identified main conclusion.
The option stating domestication occurred unintentionally rather than through intentional planning directly paraphrases the third sentence.
The correct answer in a Main Conclusion question must capture the exact meaning and scope of the argument's ultimate point.

Key Concept

Identifying Main Conclusions in arguments with complex structures, including intermediate conclusions and unmarked ultimate claims.
Question 99Question →

Philosopher: Psychological egoists claim that every human action is ultimately motivated by self-interest. They argue that even seemingly selfless acts, like donating anonymously to charity, are done to alleviate the donor's own feelings of guilt. But this explanation fails when applied to split-second acts of heroism. A bystander who instinctively dives in front of a moving train to save a child has no time to calculate emotional payoffs, proving that non-selfish motivations must exist.

Is the following statement regarding the argument true or false?

The philosopher's primary method of reasoning is to demonstrate that the psychological egoists' definition of self-interest is too broad to be logically meaningful.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: False

Answer

False
The statement is false. The philosopher does not argue that the egoists' definition of self-interest is too broad. Instead, the philosopher accepts the egoists' premise that self-interest operates via a calculation of emotional payoffs, but introduces a counterexample (a split-second action) where such a calculation is temporally impossible.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the opposing position and its supporting premise.
Psychological egoists claim all actions are motivated by self-interest, relying on the premise that people perform seemingly selfless acts through a mechanism of calculating emotional payoffs.
Understanding the precise nature of the opposing argument is essential to understanding how the philosopher attempts to dismantle it.
2
Analyze the philosopher's counter-argument.
The philosopher presents a scenario (split-second heroism) where there is 'no time to calculate emotional payoffs'.
This pinpoints the exact component of the opposing view that is being attacked.
3
Abstract the philosopher's rhetorical strategy.
The philosopher uses a specific counterexample to show that the opponent's proposed causal mechanism cannot physically or temporally operate in all situations.
Translating the specific details into abstract logical terminology is required for Method of Reasoning analysis.
4
Evaluate the provided statement against the abstracted strategy.
The statement claims the philosopher attacks the 'definition' of self-interest as being 'too broad'. However, the philosopher actually attacks the temporal possibility of the proposed mechanism. Therefore, the statement mischaracterizes the reasoning.
Comparing the actual argumentative method to the described method determines the truth value of the statement.

Key Concept

Identifying General Method of Reasoning - Using a counterexample to attack a causal mechanism
Question 100Question →

Political Theorist: Critics of the proposed democratic reform argue that it will inevitably lead to systemic instability. To support this, they point out that identical reforms in neighboring nations resulted in immediate legislative gridlock. However, these critics mistakenly assume that legislative gridlock is inherently destabilizing. In a society characterized by deeply entrenched factionalism, gridlock is frequently the very mechanism that prevents the volatile, radical policy swings that constitute true political instability. Thus, the phenomenon the critics cite as a danger might actually be what preserves order.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning employed by the political theorist?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: countering a prediction by arguing that the intermediate effect cited as proof of an ultimate negative outcome is actually a safeguard against that outcome

Answer

The political theorist's method is to counter a prediction by arguing that the intermediate effect cited as proof of an ultimate negative outcome is actually a safeguard against that outcome.
The correct answer accurately maps the abstract structural roles of the theorist's argument. The critics predict an 'ultimate negative outcome' (systemic instability) based on an 'intermediate effect' (legislative gridlock). The theorist counters this by stating that gridlock is actually the 'very mechanism that prevents' (a safeguard against) that exact instability.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Deconstruct the critics' argument.
The critics argue: Reform leads to gridlock (intermediate effect), and gridlock leads to systemic instability (ultimate negative outcome).
Identifying the opponent's structure is necessary to understand how the author attacks it.
2
Analyze the theorist's counter-argument.
The theorist argues that in factional societies, gridlock prevents volatile policy swings, meaning gridlock actually prevents true political instability.
We must map the theorist's premises to their logical function.
3
Synthesize the structural relationship between the two arguments.
The theorist does not deny the intermediate effect (gridlock) will happen. Instead, the theorist reverses its valence, arguing it prevents, rather than causes, the ultimate negative outcome.
Abstracting the specific topics (gridlock, instability) into logical roles allows us to find the correct generalized description.
4
Evaluate the abstract options against the synthesized structure.
The correct option correctly identifies 'gridlock' as the intermediate effect and states that it acts as a 'safeguard' against the ultimate negative outcome.
This guarantees a perfect match between the abstract language and the concrete stimulus.

Key Concept

General Method of Reasoning
PreviousPage 5 / 10Next
Argument Structure and Method Practice Questions — LSAT — Page 5 | Examkin