Tüm alıştırma soruları

3960 soru

Soru 461Soru →

An archaeologist argues: 'Pottery fragments from the ancient Zanthian culture found in coastal excavations are consistently much harder than those found at inland Zanthian sites. This proves that centuries of exposure to salty coastal air chemically strengthened the clay.'

To protect this causal argument from criticism, the archaeologist must assume several 'defender' statements that rule out alternate explanations. Match each alternate explanatory objection below to the specific defender assumption that logically neutralizes it.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The coastal Zanthians may have fired their pottery at much higher temperatures than inland Zanthians did.
The raw clay deposits available in the coastal region might have naturally contained more hardening silicates than inland deposits.
The harsh coastal climate may have completely destroyed all but the most durable pottery, whereas inland conditions preserved weaker pieces.
Coastal Zanthians might have deliberately designed their pottery to be substantially thicker to withstand rough ocean travel.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct matches pair each specific alternate causal explanation with the negative assumption that explicitly rules it out. The firing temperature objection matches the assumption about kiln heat; the raw clay objection matches the assumption about unworked geological materials; the climate destruction objection matches the assumption about environmental filtering; and the deliberate thickness objection matches the assumption about structural dimensions.
Each correct pair successfully matches a specific threat to the argument's causal conclusion with the negative assumption that neutralizes that precise threat. In Logical Reasoning, when an author argues that A causes B based on an observed difference, they necessarily assume that no other factor (C, D, or E) caused that difference. Mapping the specific alternate explanation to its corresponding negative assumption demonstrates mastery of how 'defender' assumptions operate.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the core argument.
The archaeologist concludes that salty air (cause) strengthened the coastal pottery (effect), based solely on the correlation that coastal pottery is harder than inland pottery.
Understanding the exact cause and effect relationship is necessary to identify vulnerabilities in the reasoning.
2
Identify the role of a defender assumption in a causal argument.
A defender assumption must protect the causal conclusion by eliminating a plausible alternate explanation (confounding variable) for the observed difference in pottery hardness.
This establishes the criteria for a correct match: the assumption must directly negate the specific alternate cause.
3
Evaluate the first objection (firing temperatures) and locate the matching assumption.
The objection regarding higher firing temperatures is neutralized by the assumption that there was no significant difference in the heat levels of the kilns used.
Ruling out a difference in manufacturing heat explicitly defends against the manufacturing alternate explanation.
4
Evaluate the second objection (raw clay composition) and locate the matching assumption.
The objection regarding natural hardening silicates is neutralized by the assumption that unworked geological materials were not inherently stronger on the coast.
Ruling out baseline material differences defends against the raw resources alternate explanation.
5
Evaluate the third objection (coastal climate destruction) and locate the matching assumption.
The objection regarding the destruction of weaker pottery is neutralized by the assumption that environmental erosion did not act as a disproportionate filter.
Ruling out survivorship bias defends against the sample selection alternate explanation.
6
Evaluate the fourth objection (thicker designs) and locate the matching assumption.
The objection regarding thicker design for ocean travel is neutralized by the assumption that the structural dimensions and thickness were essentially comparable.
Ruling out differences in physical design defends against the structural alternate explanation.

Anahtar Kavram

Defender Assumptions in Causal Reasoning (Ruling Out Alternate Explanations)
Soru 462Soru →

Arrange the following statements into a logical reasoning chain, starting from the foundational premise, progressing through the intermediate inferences, and ending with the ultimate main conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The logical sequence begins with the foundational premise about the zebra mussel introduction, moves through the causal chain of declining phytoplankton and baitfish, concludes intermediately with the starvation of apex predators, and ends with the main policy recommendation.
The logical chain is strictly ordered by causal dependency and referential phrasing. The sequence begins by establishing the initial, independent cause (phytoplankton reduction). The next statement builds upon this using the referential phrase 'This sudden reduction' to establish the effect on baitfish. The third statement uses the indicator word 'Consequently' to infer the resulting impact on apex predators. Finally, the argument utilizes the transitional phrase 'For this reason' to draw the ultimate policy recommendation based on the preceding ecological chain, serving as the main conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Locate the ultimate main conclusion of the argument.
The statement containing 'For this reason' and presenting a prescriptive policy recommendation ('must immediately authorize') acts as the ultimate main conclusion.
Main conclusions in LSAT arguments often contain prescriptive language and represent the final claim that relies on all other provided evidence.
2
Identify the foundational premise that requires no prior logical support.
The statement introducing the zebra mussel and the initial reduction in phytoplankton serves as the starting factual premise.
Foundational premises act as the starting point of a reasoning chain and do not utilize referential phrasing pointing to earlier claims.
3
Trace the intermediate causal steps linking the foundational premise to the main conclusion.
The reduction in phytoplankton causes the decline in baitfish, which subsequently causes the starvation of apex predators.
Referential phrases such as 'This sudden reduction' and 'Consequently, the declining baitfish' strictly dictate the chronological order of these intermediate causal inferences.

Anahtar Kavram

Tracing Causal Argument Chains and Identifying Main Conclusions
Soru 463Soru →

Analyze each of the following short arguments and match it to the abstract description of the method of reasoning it employs.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

To resolve the company's financial crisis, we must either declare bankruptcy or secure a buyout. Since our creditors have explicitly refused to allow bankruptcy proceedings, our only path forward is to secure a buyout.
You claim that lowering taxes always increases government revenue by stimulating growth. But if that principle were universally true, a business could achieve infinite profits simply by reducing its prices to zero, which is clearly impossible.
The hypothesis that the region's ancient civilization collapsed due to a single, sudden climatic shift is incorrect. Tree-ring data from that exact period shows that the climate changed gradually over a span of three hundred years.
Many reject the new dietary guidelines because the underlying study was conducted on rodents, which did not show improved health. However, rodents process these specific macronutrients through a completely different metabolic pathway than humans.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The financial crisis argument matches establishing a conclusion by eliminating an alternative. The tax policy argument matches rejecting a principle by showing an absurd result. The ancient civilization argument matches refuting a hypothesis with empirical data. The dietary guidelines argument matches undermining an argument via a relevant dissimilarity.
Each argument utilizes a distinct structural technique. The first uses process of elimination. The second uses an analogy to demonstrate absurdity. The third uses contradictory physical data. The fourth invalidates a comparison by showing the subjects are not suitably similar.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the financial crisis argument to identify its core rhetorical strategy.
The argument presents two options and eliminates one because creditors refuse it.
This structural analysis allows us to match it to 'Establishing a conclusion by demonstrating the impossibility of the only alternative option.'
2
Evaluate the tax policy argument's logical method.
The argument draws a parallel between government taxes and business prices, showing that the logic leads to the impossible claim of infinite profits.
This corresponds directly to 'Rejecting a general principle by showing that its application to an analogous situation leads to an absurd result.'
3
Examine the reasoning in the historical hypothesis argument.
It introduces tree-ring data (physical evidence) to show a sudden climatic shift did not occur.
This matches the definition of 'Refuting a proposed hypothesis by introducing empirical data that is incompatible with it.'
4
Determine the argumentative technique in the dietary guidelines argument.
It attacks a conclusion based on animal testing by pointing out that human and rodent metabolisms are completely different.
This perfectly aligns with 'Undermining an argument by pointing out a relevant dissimilarity that invalidates its underlying comparison.'

Anahtar Kavram

General Method of Reasoning
Soru 464Soru →

An advocacy group is constructing an argument in favor of new labor legislation. Place the following propositions in their correct structural sequence, tracing the argument from its initial empirical observations through its intermediate inferences, and culminating in its final stated thesis.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The logical progression flows from foundational evidence to an intermediate conclusion, ending with the ultimate policy claim: empirical observation, direct result of observation, additional benefit, synthesized intermediate conclusion, and finally the main conclusion.
The argument correctly builds from empirical observations (employees cutting inefficiencies and experiencing less burnout) to an intermediate conclusion (businesses maintaining output and saving money), which ultimately supports the broad normative conclusion (policymakers should recognize the mandate will not impair profitability).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the foundational premise.
The statement about recent 32-hour workweek trials eliminating redundant meetings is identified as the starting point.
It introduces the subject matter without relying on prior referents or conclusions.
2
Locate the immediate consequence of the foundational premise.
The statement beginning with 'By trimming these administrative inefficiencies...' logically follows the first statement.
The phrase 'these administrative inefficiencies' directly refers back to the 'redundant meetings and administrative inefficiencies' mentioned in the first statement.
3
Identify parallel supporting evidence.
The statement regarding decreased chronic burnout is placed next.
The transition word 'Furthermore' signals the addition of another independent benefit derived from the reduced hours.
4
Identify the intermediate conclusion that synthesizes the premises.
The statement starting with 'Consequently...' serves as the intermediate conclusion.
It explicitly combines the maintained output (established in step 2) and the financial savings from lowered turnover (established in step 3).
5
Locate the ultimate main conclusion.
The normative claim about what 'Policymakers must acknowledge...' is placed last.
This is the broadest claim in the argument, shifting from describing the results of a specific trial to making a generalized policy recommendation based on those results.

Anahtar Kavram

Logical progression from premises to intermediate and main conclusions
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 465Soru →

Review the following argumentative passages and pair each with the abstract description that most accurately characterizes its primary method of reasoning.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The sudden decline in the local bee population must be attributed to the new chemical pesticide introduced by farmers last month. The only other scientifically plausible causes for such a rapid collapse are viral disease, severe weather events, or abrupt habitat loss. However, local weather patterns have been uncharacteristically mild, no known pathogens were found in the tested hives, and the surrounding flora remains entirely undisturbed.
A prominent senator argues that the federal government should only fund art projects that are universally inoffensive. However, if we were to strictly adhere to this proposed standard, we would have to defund every single public gallery and museum in the country. This is because virtually any piece of art, ranging from abstract modern sculptures to classical historical portraits, has the potential to offend at least one individual.
Just as a responsible physician would never prescribe a drastic medical treatment without first thoroughly diagnosing the underlying illness of the patient, a corporate manager should not implement sweeping structural reforms without first identifying the specific operational inefficiencies causing the company's revenue decline. Therefore, we must conduct a comprehensive internal audit before we even consider reorganizing the administrative departments.
Many prominent economists assert that technological advancement invariably leads to an increase in overall employment over time by creating entirely new industries. However, this absolute claim is contradicted by the rapid adoption of automated agricultural harvesters in the 1930s, which permanently displaced millions of manual farm workers without creating any commensurate number of jobs in the manufacturing sector for those specific displaced individuals.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings match each specific argument to its abstract logical structure: the bee population argument uses elimination of alternatives, the art funding argument uses reductio ad absurdum, the corporate manager argument uses analogy, and the employment argument uses a counterexample.
Each passage employs a distinct method of reasoning that corresponds perfectly to one of the abstract descriptions provided. Analyzing the logical structure—how the premises relate to the conclusion—reveals the underlying strategy of each argument independently of its specific subject matter.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structural strategy of the first passage regarding the bee population.
The argument lists possible alternative causes for the decline and provides evidence to rule each one out.
This corresponds directly to the strategy of 'demonstrating the implausibility of all competing explanations'.
2
Analyze the structural strategy of the second passage regarding art funding.
The argument takes the senator's premise and shows it leads to the extreme and unworkable outcome of defunding all galleries.
This perfectly aligns with 'demonstrating that its logical extension yields an unacceptable or absurd outcome'.
3
Analyze the structural strategy of the third passage regarding corporate restructuring.
The argument compares a corporate manager's situation to a physician's diagnostic process to justify a recommended action.
This matches the description of 'illustrating a parallel to a structurally similar situation'.
4
Analyze the structural strategy of the fourth passage regarding technological advancement and employment.
The argument presents the 1930s harvester example to disprove the absolute claim that technology always increases employment.
This fits the description of 'refuting a universal generalization by highlighting a specific historical instance'.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying abstract patterns of logical reasoning and rhetorical strategies in diverse arguments.
Soru 466Soru →

Analyze the structural hierarchy of the argument provided. Arrange the following five statements to accurately reflect their logical progression, starting from the foundational empirical premises, moving through the intermediate subsidiary conclusions, and ending with the ultimate main conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical progression is: 1) Isotopic analyses of Greenland ice cores... 2) This specific stratigraphic timeline perfectly aligns... 3) It is highly probable that this anomalous methane surge... 4) Because an ecological catastrophe of this magnitude... 5) The long-held anthropological consensus...
The argument forms a strict, linear causal chain. It begins with raw data (methane in ice cores), adds a correlation (timeline aligns with an impact), draws a first inference (impact caused incineration resulting in methane), uses that inference to draw a second inference (incineration destroyed habitats, causing extinction), and finally uses that secondary inference to make a prescriptive claim (we must discard the old theory of human overhunting).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the foundational premises that require no prior justification within the text.
The statement regarding isotopic analyses of ice cores and the statement regarding the alignment of timelines form the empirical bedrock of the argument.
Arguments must begin with accepted facts or observations before drawing inferences.
2
Determine the first logical leap (subsidiary conclusion) derived directly from the foundational premises.
The author infers that the methane surge was caused by biomass incineration, linking the ice core data with the impact event.
This statement goes beyond the raw data to posit a specific physical cause, relying entirely on the prior two statements for support.
3
Identify the next logical leap built upon the first subsidiary conclusion.
The author uses the premise of massive biomass incineration to conclude that the impact caused the mass extinction of megafauna via habitat decimation.
This statement cannot logically precede the claim about incineration, as it explicitly relies on 'an ecological catastrophe of this magnitude' as its justification.
4
Locate the ultimate main conclusion that the entire structure aims to prove.
The argument culminates in the demand to discard the traditional anthropological consensus about human overhunting.
This is the broadest prescriptive claim. It relies on the extinction mechanism established in the prior step and provides no support for any other statement, making it the ultimate conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Tracing the hierarchy of logical dependence to distinguish between foundational premises, subsidiary conclusions, and the ultimate main conclusion.
Soru 467Soru →

Urban planner: Some residents oppose the proposed light rail system because of the high initial construction costs. However, maintaining our current fleet of aging diesel buses will require massive investments in parts and labor over the next decade. Furthermore, the light rail system will attract more daily commuters, increasing fare revenues. Thus, over a ten-year period, the light rail system will actually save the city money. Therefore, the city should proceed with building the light rail system.

The claim that over a ten-year period, the light rail system will actually save the city money plays which one of the following roles in the urban planner's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is an intermediate conclusion that supports the main conclusion that the city should proceed with the light rail system.

Cevap

The statement functions as an intermediate conclusion that is used to support the main conclusion of the argument.
The statement acts as a conclusion because it is logically supported by the evidence regarding diesel bus maintenance costs and increased fare revenues. It acts as an intermediate step because it is then used as evidence to support the final recommendation that the city should build the light rail system.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is that 'the city should proceed with building the light rail system.'
Finding the final endpoint helps determine the structural relationship of all other statements.
2
Analyze the target statement to see if it supports the main conclusion.
The claim that the system will save money provides direct logical support for the recommendation to build it.
This establishes that the statement acts as a premise for the main conclusion.
3
Determine if the target statement itself is supported by other evidence.
The statement is supported by previous claims about high bus maintenance costs and increased fare revenues.
Because it is supported by premises but also supports a further conclusion, its structural role is an intermediate conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Intermediate Conclusions
Soru 468Soru →

The legal framework of copyright must remain strictly limited to human creators. Traditional copyright doctrine was conceived to protect the economic interests of authors, ensuring they possess the necessary incentives to produce original creative works. Artificial intelligence systems, regardless of their generative sophistication, do not experience economic motivations and cannot legally hold property. Extending copyright protection to AI-generated outputs fails to serve the foundational purpose of the copyright system. While some legal theorists insist that we should grant such copyrights to encourage the tech companies that program these systems, these corporations already secure ample commercial incentives through patent law and trade secret protections for their underlying algorithms.

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

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Copyright doctrine should not be expanded to encompass works generated by non-human entities.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that copyright doctrine should not be expanded to encompass works generated by non-human entities.
The correct answer perfectly captures the ultimate point of the argument. The author's primary goal is to establish that copyright must be restricted to humans. Every piece of evidence provided—from the historical purpose of copyright to the lack of economic motivation in AI and the existing protections for tech companies—is deployed to support this singular, overarching rule.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the primary claim the author is attempting to prove.
The first sentence asserts a directive: 'The legal framework of copyright must remain strictly limited to human creators.'
Finding the main conclusion requires isolating the statement that is supported by the rest of the text but does not itself support any other statement.
2
Analyze the structural role of the remaining sentences to verify the main conclusion.
Sentences 2 and 3 provide foundational premises. Sentence 4 acts as a subsidiary (intermediate) conclusion derived from sentences 2 and 3. Sentence 5 dismisses a counterargument.
By confirming that all other statements are either premises, counter-premises, or intermediate conclusions supporting the first sentence, we verify that the first sentence is indeed the main conclusion.
3
Match the identified main conclusion with the answer choices.
The correct option paraphrases 'strictly limited to human creators' as 'should not be expanded to encompass works generated by non-human entities.'
LSAT questions frequently use synonymous phrasing rather than verbatim repetition to test true comprehension of the conclusion's meaning.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the Main Conclusion
Soru 469Soru →

According to the city's updated zoning laws, every new building constructed in the downtown district must include a green roof. Furthermore, any building that includes a green roof is automatically eligible for a municipal tax discount. The Apex Tower is a new building that was recently constructed in the downtown district.

Based on the information above, which of the following statements must be true? Select all that apply.

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The Apex Tower is eligible for a municipal tax discount.; Any new building constructed in the downtown district is eligible for a municipal tax discount.

Cevap

The statements that must be true are that the Apex Tower is eligible for a municipal tax discount, and that any new building constructed in the downtown district is eligible for a municipal tax discount.
The stimulus establishes a chain of conditional logic: New Downtown Building -> Green Roof -> Tax Discount. The correct statements perfectly track this logic by correctly linking the first condition to the last (any new downtown building gets the discount) and correctly applying it to the specific example of the Apex Tower.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first conditional premise.
If a building is new and in the downtown district, then it must include a green roof.
To establish the initial condition required by the zoning laws.
2
Analyze the second conditional premise and chain it to the first.
If a building includes a green roof, then it is eligible for a tax discount. Therefore, if a building is new and in the downtown district, it is eligible for a tax discount.
To form a logical chain that connects the building's location and age directly to the tax discount.
3
Apply the factual premise to the logical chain.
The Apex Tower is a new building in the downtown district, so it must have a green roof, meaning it is eligible for a tax discount.
To determine the necessary outcomes for the specific subject mentioned in the stimulus.

Anahtar Kavram

Logical chaining of conditional statements and application to specific cases.
Soru 470Soru →

The five statements below constitute a single, continuous logical argument. Reconstruct the precise logical flow of this argument by ordering the claims sequentially. Begin with the foundational empirical premise, proceed through the chain of intermediate conclusions, and end with the argument's final prescriptive conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical sequence progresses from the foundational physical premise (dredging creates plumes), to the biological impact (plumes suffocate organisms), to the ecological conclusion (surveying damages biodiversity), to the policy evaluation (the treaty is inadequate), and finally to the prescriptive main conclusion (coalitions must withhold endorsement).
The argument is structured as a strict causal and logical chain. It begins with the physical reality of dredging plumes. This physical reality causes a biological consequence (suffocation of benthic organisms). This biological consequence leads to a general ecological deduction: even non-commercial surveying is intrinsically damaging. Because surveying is damaging, the treaty's exemption for it makes the policy fundamentally inadequate (an intermediate conclusion evaluating a policy). Finally, because the policy is inadequate, the author arrives at the main conclusion: a prescriptive demand that environmental coalitions must withhold their endorsement.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the foundational factual premise that does not rely on prior evidence.
The statement about dredging generating sediment plumes acts as the unstated starting point.
It introduces the initial physical action and contains no logical inferences, making it the bedrock of the argument.
2
Follow demonstrative adjectives and logical cause-and-effect to find the next links.
The statement mentioning 'these artificial plumes' and their suffocating effect must immediately follow the foundational premise.
The reference to 'these artificial plumes' requires the prior establishment of the plumes, and it draws a biological inference from that physical fact.
3
Determine what the biological impact proves about surveying missions.
The statement concluding that 'surveying missions utilizing such dredging techniques inflict widespread... damage' logically follows the biological impact.
It synthesizes the mechanism (dredging) and the consequence (suffocation) into a broader intermediate conclusion about biodiversity damage.
4
Connect the ecological damage to the policy evaluation.
The statement evaluating the Oceanic Mining Treaty follows next, analyzing 'these ostensibly non-extractive surveying operations'.
The argument uses the established danger of the surveying operations to conclude that the treaty's exemption for them represents a failure to protect the ecosystem.
5
Identify the ultimate prescriptive claim as the main conclusion.
The statement demanding that coalitions 'must withhold their endorsement' is placed at the end.
This is a call to action justified entirely by the treaty's inadequacy established in the preceding step, and it does not support any further claims.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating the structural roles of statements in a complex argument, specifically distinguishing between foundational premises, chains of intermediate conclusions, and prescriptive main conclusions.

Alternatif Yöntem

You can solve this efficiently by working backward. First, identify the most prescriptive claim as the ultimate main conclusion (the call to withhold endorsement). Ask yourself: 'What justifies this action?' The answer is the treaty's inadequacy. Ask: 'What justifies the claim that the treaty is inadequate?' The answer is the ecological damage of surveying. Continue tracing the 'Why?' backward until you hit the foundational premise that requires no further justification within the scope of the argument.
Tahmini Süre:3m 0s
Soru 471Soru →

If a student takes Advanced Physics, they must have already completed Calculus. No student who has completed Calculus is eligible for the introductory math seminar. Julian is currently taking Advanced Physics.

Based on the information above, which one of the following cannot be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Julian is eligible for the introductory math seminar.

Cevap

The correct answer is the statement that Julian is eligible for the introductory math seminar.
The stimulus states that taking Advanced Physics guarantees that a student has completed Calculus, and completing Calculus guarantees that a student is not eligible for the introductory math seminar. Therefore, taking Advanced Physics guarantees ineligibility for the introductory math seminar. Since Julian is taking Advanced Physics, it is a proven fact that he is not eligible for the seminar. The correct option contradicts this proven fact, making it impossible to be true.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the first conditional relationship.
Taking Advanced Physics requires completing Calculus (Advanced Physics -> Calculus).
This establishes the necessary condition for taking Advanced Physics.
2
Identify the second conditional relationship.
Completing Calculus means a student is not eligible for the introductory math seminar (Calculus -> Not Eligible for Intro Math).
This establishes what happens once Calculus is completed.
3
Chain the conditionals together.
Advanced Physics -> Calculus -> Not Eligible for Intro Math.
Transitive logic allows us to connect the first and second statements.
4
Apply the rule to the specific case of Julian.
Because Julian is taking Advanced Physics, he must not be eligible for the introductory math seminar.
Julian triggers the sufficient condition of the chained conditionals.
5
Evaluate the options to find the one that contradicts the deduction.
The statement claiming Julian is eligible for the introductory math seminar is logically impossible.
A 'cannot be true' question asks for the option that directly violates the facts established in the stimulus.

Anahtar Kavram

Cannot Be True Questions
Soru 472Soru →

Policy Analyst: The mayor argues that implementing a strict 10 PM curfew for teenagers will reduce overall crime rates in our city. However, when neighboring Springfield implemented an identical curfew three years ago, the overall crime rate actually rose. This occurred because police resources were diverted from patrolling historically high-crime neighborhoods in order to enforce the curfew violations.

The policy analyst responds to the mayor's proposal by identifying a logical contradiction internal to the mayor's argument.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The statement incorrectly describes the analyst's argumentative strategy. The analyst does not point out any contradictory premises or logical impossibilities inherent in the mayor's claim. Instead, the analyst uses an argument by analogy, drawing on the historical example of Springfield to introduce a causal mechanism (resource diversion) that defeats the mayor's policy goal.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the mayor's original argument.
The mayor claims that a teenager curfew will cause a reduction in the city's overall crime rates.
Understanding the core claim is necessary to evaluate how the analyst structures the counterargument.
2
Determine the analyst's method of reasoning.
The analyst cites a similar past situation (Springfield) where the policy failed due to a specific causal mechanism (diverting police resources).
Identifying the structural role of the evidence provided is the primary task in a method of reasoning question.
3
Evaluate the provided statement against the identified method.
The statement claims the analyst finds a 'logical contradiction internal to the mayor's argument.' However, using an external analogy to show empirical failure is fundamentally different from pointing out internally contradictory premises.
Comparing the abstract description in the statement to the actual argumentative structure reveals that the characterization is inaccurate.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinguishing between challenging an argument using external empirical analogies and attacking its internal logical consistency.
Soru 473Soru →

An argument concerning the impact of urban noise on bird populations can be constructed from the five statements below. Arrange the statements in their logical order to form a continuous reasoning chain. Begin with the foundational empirical observations, progress through the intermediate inference, introduce the general ecological principle, and end with the argument's ultimate main conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical sequence begins with the two empirical observations about vocalizations and energy, followed by the intermediate conclusion about foraging, the general ecological principle, and ends with the ultimate conclusion about population decline.
The argument structurally flows from direct observations to a final predictive claim. First, the facts about urban noise and energy expenditure are established. These combine to support the intermediate conclusion that birds have less energy for foraging. The general ecological principle is then introduced to connect this reduction in foraging energy to the ultimate main conclusion: a decline in population density.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the foundational premises.
The initial observations are that urban noise causes higher-frequency singing, which in turn requires more metabolic energy.
These established facts serve as the empirical starting point for the argument's logic.
2
Identify the intermediate conclusion.
The claim that birds must allocate less energy to foraging.
This directly results from the first two premises but is used to support a further claim, making it a subsidiary conclusion.
3
Identify the general ecological principle.
The rule stating that reduced foraging energy suppresses population growth.
This serves as an independent premise that provides the logical bridge from the intermediate conclusion to the final outcome.
4
Identify the main conclusion.
The assertion that urban noise pollution will ultimately cause a decline in songbird population density.
This is the final, overarching claim that the entire chain of premises and sub-conclusions is designed to prove.

Anahtar Kavram

Tracing argument structure from foundational premises, through intermediate conclusions, to the ultimate main conclusion.
Soru 474Soru →

Carefully analyze the argument below. Match each excerpted statement from the stimulus to the precise structural role it plays in the author's reasoning.

Argument:
Critics of contemporary public arts funding contend that subsidizing avant-garde installations alienates the general populace, thereby undermining the democratic purpose of public grants. This objection, however, rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of democratic engagement. True democratic engagement requires challenging prevailing norms, not merely reflecting them. Subsidizing provocative art introduces cognitive friction into public discourse. Such friction invariably prompts citizens to reevaluate their tacit societal assumptions. Consequently, encountering avant-garde installations actively cultivates the critical thinking essential for a functioning democracy. Thus, funding these installations, far from undermining democratic purposes, directly fulfills them.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

subsidizing avant-garde installations alienates the general populace
True democratic engagement requires challenging prevailing norms, not merely reflecting them.
encountering avant-garde installations actively cultivates the critical thinking essential for a functioning democracy.
funding these installations, far from undermining democratic purposes, directly fulfills them.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct mapping pairs the alienation claim to the opponents' causal mechanism; the requirement for democratic engagement to a normative premise; the cultivation of critical thinking to a subsidiary conclusion; and the assertion that funding fulfills democratic purposes to the primary conclusion.
The argument's architecture relies on first establishing an opposing view and its reasoning (the critics' mechanism of alienation). The author immediately rejects this by offering a normative premise defining 'true democratic engagement.' The author then provides a causal chain—provocative art creates cognitive friction, which causes citizens to reevaluate assumptions. This chain yields a subsidiary conclusion: the art cultivates critical thinking. Finally, by combining the normative premise and the subsidiary conclusion, the author deduces the primary conclusion: funding these installations fulfills democratic purposes.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The final sentence ('Thus, funding these installations... directly fulfills them') is the main point the author wants to prove.
It represents the author's ultimate stance and is supported by all preceding evidence while directly refuting the critics introduced in the first sentence.
2
Analyze the opponent's viewpoint presented at the beginning.
The critics argue that the funding is bad because it 'alienates the general populace'.
Recognizing the opposing argument helps distinguish the author's premises from the background context being attacked.
3
Determine the structural role of the author's supporting statements.
The statement about 'True democratic engagement' acts as a foundational rule or principle (a premise).
It defines a central concept without being derived from any other statements in the text.
4
Evaluate the statement marked by 'Consequently'.
The statement that art 'cultivates critical thinking' is an intermediate conclusion.
It is supported by the premises about 'cognitive friction' and 'reevaluating assumptions', and it serves to support the main conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Dissecting complex arguments into main conclusions, subsidiary conclusions, contextual opposing views, and normative premises.
Soru 475Soru →

Financial Analyst: We are investigating the abrupt collapse of the nation's largest agricultural bank. Historically, such catastrophic banking failures in this region have stemmed from either systemic fraudulent lending practices or a sudden, devastating plunge in agricultural commodity prices. An exhaustive independent audit, however, has recently confirmed that the bank's lending practices strictly adhered to all regulatory standards and exhibited no signs of fraud. We can definitively conclude, therefore, that a precipitous drop in agricultural commodity prices is responsible for the bank's collapse.

The financial analyst's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It takes for granted that the set of historically established causes for a phenomenon constitutes an exhaustive list of plausible causes for a current instance of that phenomenon.

Cevap

The argument is flawed because it takes for granted that the historically established causes constitute an exhaustive list of plausible causes.
The analyst employs an argument by elimination, reasoning that since historically collapses stem from either fraud or price plunges, and fraud has been ruled out, a price plunge must be the cause. This reasoning contains a classic False Dilemma flaw: it assumes that past historical causes are the ONLY possible causes for a current event. By taking for granted that this historical list is exhaustive, the analyst improperly ignores other plausible modern explanations.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's structure and method of reasoning.
The argument states that historically, collapses are caused by A (fraud) or B (price plunge). It provides evidence to eliminate A. It concludes B must be the cause.
Identifying the method of reasoning (Argument by Elimination) is essential to finding its logical vulnerability.
2
Evaluate the logical validity of the elimination process.
The elimination would be valid IF A and B were the only possible causes. However, the premise only states they are 'historically' the causes.
An argument by elimination is only sound if the initial set of possibilities is exhaustive.
3
Identify the core flaw.
The flaw is a False Dilemma. The analyst assumes that because A and B were the only historical causes, they are the only possible causes today, ignoring new potential factors.
This bridges the gap between the premises provided and the definitive conclusion drawn.
4
Select the option that best describes this False Dilemma.
The correct option points out that the argument assumes the historical causes form an exhaustive list.
This abstractly and accurately describes the logical flaw in the argument's process of elimination.

Anahtar Kavram

Argument by Elimination / False Dilemma
Tahmini Süre:2m 30s
Soru 476Soru →

Neuroscientist: During REM sleep, the brain actively prunes synaptic connections formed during waking hours. This pruning process prevents the neural network from becoming oversaturated with trivial sensory data. Therefore, REM sleep is essential for maintaining long-term cognitive efficiency. Some researchers argue that slow-wave sleep is more critical than REM sleep because slow-wave sleep is directly responsible for memory consolidation. However, memory consolidation is ultimately ineffective if the brain's overall processing capacity is compromised by synaptic clutter. Thus, any comprehensive medical treatment for severe cognitive fatigue must prioritize the restoration of REM sleep cycles over deep, slow-wave sleep.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the neuroscientist's argument by the claim that REM sleep is essential for maintaining long-term cognitive efficiency?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is an intermediate conclusion that is derived from the observation about synaptic pruning and that, in turn, provides support for the argument's main conclusion.

Cevap

It is an intermediate conclusion that is derived from the observation about synaptic pruning and that, in turn, provides support for the argument's main conclusion.
The target statement acts as a logical bridge in the argument's structure. The indicator word 'Therefore' signals that it is a conclusion drawn from the preceding sentences regarding synaptic pruning and neural oversaturation. However, the argument does not stop there; it utilizes this established point about cognitive efficiency to counter an opposing view and ultimately justify its main conclusion regarding medical treatments for cognitive fatigue. Thus, it perfectly fits the definition of an intermediate conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structure of the stimulus to isolate the main conclusion.
The main conclusion is found in the final sentence: 'Thus, any comprehensive medical treatment for severe cognitive fatigue must prioritize the restoration of REM sleep cycles over deep, slow-wave sleep.'
Identifying the main conclusion provides the structural endpoint toward which all other supporting statements point.
2
Locate the target claim in the text and determine what supports it.
The target claim begins with 'Therefore'. It is directly supported by the first two sentences, which explain the mechanism of synaptic pruning during REM sleep.
If a claim is supported by other statements in the argument, it functions as a conclusion of some kind, ruling out the possibility that it is a foundational, unsupported premise.
3
Determine the relationship between the target claim and the main conclusion.
The target claim establishes why REM sleep is vital (maintaining cognitive efficiency), which is then used alongside the rebuttal about memory consolidation to prove the main conclusion (treatments must prioritize REM sleep).
Because the target claim is supported by premises and subsequently supports the final conclusion, its precise structural role is an intermediate (or subsidiary) conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Soru 477Soru →

Under the new municipal zoning code, any neighborhood designated as a Transit-Oriented District must allow for high-density residential development. Furthermore, a neighborhood cannot be designated as a Transit-Oriented District unless it currently contains at least one active light-rail station. The code also specifies that any neighborhood allowing for high-density residential development is required to allocate at least 15 percent of its new housing units for low-income residents. The Historic Southside neighborhood recently had its only active light-rail station permanently decommissioned.

Which of the following must be true on the basis of the statements above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any neighborhood that is not required to allocate at least 15 percent of its new housing units for low-income residents cannot be designated as a Transit-Oriented District.

Cevap

Any neighborhood that is not required to allocate at least 15 percent of its new housing units for low-income residents cannot be designated as a Transit-Oriented District.
The stimulus provides two key conditional statements that can be connected: 'Transit-Oriented District -> high-density residential' and 'high-density residential -> 15 percent low-income'. Linking these statements creates the deduction: 'Transit-Oriented District -> 15 percent low-income'. The correct answer is the logical contrapositive of this deduction: if a neighborhood is not required to allocate 15 percent for low-income housing, it cannot be a Transit-Oriented District.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Diagram the conditional statements provided in the stimulus.
1) TOD -> HDR
2) TOD -> ALRS (Contrapositive: ~ALRS -> ~TOD)
3) HDR -> 15% LI
4) Historic Southside -> ~ALRS
Translating text into formal logic makes it easier to track relationships and avoid traps.
2
Chain the conditional statements together where possible.
Combining premises 1 and 3 (TOD -> HDR and HDR -> 15% LI) yields the logical chain: TOD -> HDR -> 15% LI. Therefore, TOD -> 15% LI.
Connecting premises reveals hidden logical inferences that must be true.
3
Form the contrapositive of the new logical chain.
The contrapositive of (TOD -> 15% LI) is (~15% LI -> ~TOD).
Correct answers in 'Must Be True' questions are frequently the contrapositive of a chained inference.
4
Evaluate the information about the Historic Southside neighborhood.
Since Historic Southside has no active light-rail station (~ALRS), it cannot be a TOD (~TOD). No further valid deductions can be made about its high-density development or low-income housing.
This confirms that options making claims about Historic Southside's high-density development are likely testing illegal negation.

Anahtar Kavram

Conditional Logic Chaining and Contrapositives
Soru 478Soru →

The charter of the Global Botanical Society mandates that every researcher deployed to the Alpine Tundra biome complete advanced avalanche survival training. Furthermore, no individual who has completed advanced avalanche survival training is eligible to lead the primary basecamp logistics team. All scientists employed by the Northern Institute are currently deployed as researchers to the Alpine Tundra biome. Therefore, it is logically possible for a scientist employed by the Northern Institute to lead the primary basecamp logistics team.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The statement is false because it directly contradicts the logical deductions derived from the premises. Since all Northern Institute scientists are in the Alpine Tundra, they all must take avalanche training. Because anyone with avalanche training is barred from leading the logistics team, it is impossible for a Northern Institute scientist to hold that position.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the rules into formal conditional logic.
Northern Institute (NI) → Alpine Tundra (AT); AT → Avalanche Training (AST); AST → NOT Logistics Team (LT).
Formalizing the rules ensures no logical connections are missed and allows for accurate chaining.
2
Chain the conditional statements together.
NI → AT → AST → NOT LT.
Chaining reveals the necessary deductions that must logically follow from the premises.
3
Evaluate the target statement against the deductions.
The target statement claims it is logically possible for an NI scientist to be on the LT. However, the chain definitively proves that all NI scientists are NOT on the LT.
A statement claiming something is possible when the premises dictate it is strictly impossible cannot be true.

Anahtar Kavram

Cannot Be True Questions
Soru 479Soru →

The mind-body problem has plagued philosophers for centuries, generating countless theoretical models. According to Dr. Varma’s latest treatise on cognitive ontology, however, most of these models are fundamentally flawed. Varma argues that a philosophical framework can successfully resolve the mind-body problem only if it discards strict substance dualism and either embraces panpsychism or redefines consciousness as an emergent physical property.

Which one of the following statements logically follows from Dr. Varma’s claims?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: If a philosophical framework fails to discard strict substance dualism, or if it neither embraces panpsychism nor redefines consciousness as an emergent physical property, then it cannot successfully resolve the mind-body problem.

Cevap

The statement indicating that a framework cannot successfully resolve the problem if it fails to discard strict substance dualism, or if it neither embraces panpsychism nor redefines consciousness.
This statement correctly applies the contrapositive and De Morgan's laws to the stimulus. The original rule is: Resolve -> Discard Dualism AND (Panpsychism OR Emergent). The contrapositive negates and reverses this: If NOT Discard Dualism, OR if NOT (Panpsychism OR Emergent), then NOT Resolve. Negating 'Panpsychism OR Emergent' results in 'NOT Panpsychism AND NOT Emergent' (which is written as 'neither... nor...').

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the rule from the stimulus into formal logic.
Resolve Mind-Body (R) -> Discard Dualism (D) AND [Embrace Panpsychism (P) OR Redefine Consciousness (E)]
The phrase 'only if' introduces a necessary condition, which in this case is a compound condition requiring 'D' alongside at least one of 'P' or 'E'.
2
Determine the logical task required by the question stem.
Formulate the contrapositive of the identified conditional rule.
The question asks what logically follows from a definitive conditional statement. In this format, the correct answer almost always represents the valid contrapositive.
3
Apply De Morgan's laws to the primary conjunction (AND).
NOT D OR NOT [P OR E] -> NOT R
To negate an 'AND' statement when forming a contrapositive, you must negate both individual components and change the 'AND' to an 'OR'.
4
Apply De Morgan's laws a second time to the nested disjunction (OR).
NOT D OR [NOT P AND NOT E] -> NOT R (meaning: If NOT D, or if neither P nor E, then NOT R).
To negate the inner 'OR' statement, you must negate both 'P' and 'E' and change the 'OR' to an 'AND'. 'NOT P AND NOT E' translates smoothly to 'neither P nor E'.

Anahtar Kavram

Forming valid contrapositives using De Morgan's laws on complex, compound conditional statements.
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 480Soru →

A recent health survey showed that residents of Seaside town who regularly eat seafood report feeling stressed significantly less often than residents who rarely eat seafood. The authors of the survey concluded that the nutrients in seafood must have a direct calming effect on the human nervous system.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the survey authors' reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It fails to consider that a third factor, such as living a generally relaxed coastal lifestyle, might lead to both eating more seafood and experiencing less stress.

Cevap

The correct answer is the one pointing out that the authors failed to consider a third factor that could cause both the seafood consumption and the lower stress levels.
The correct answer accurately describes the classic correlation-to-causation fallacy. The argument observes two things happening together (eating seafood and low stress) and assumes one causes the other. The correct answer points out that a third factor (like a relaxed coastal lifestyle) could independently cause both, which destroys the author's causal claim.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the premises and conclusion of the argument.
Premise: Seafood eaters report less stress than non-seafood eaters (a correlation). Conclusion: Seafood nutrients directly calm the nervous system (a causal claim).
Identifying the structural gap between the evidence provided and the claim made is the first step in finding a logical flaw.
2
Identify the type of reasoning error.
The argument jumps from a correlation to a causal relationship.
Recognizing classic LSAT flaw categories quickly guides you to the correct answer choice.
3
Evaluate the options for a description of a causal flaw.
The correct option correctly points out that a third factor could be responsible for both elements of the correlation, breaking the assumed causal link.
A valid criticism of a causal conclusion drawn from a correlation is pointing out alternate explanations, such as a common third cause or reverse causality.

Anahtar Kavram

Correlation vs. Causation
ÖncekiSayfa 24 / 198Sonraki
Tüm alıştırma soruları — LSAT | Examkin