Tüm alıştırma soruları

3960 soru

Soru 1081Soru →

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 Retaining these outdated structures inherently compromises a municipality's ability to provide sustainable and accessible public spaces.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?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

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

Cevap

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.

Adım Adım Çözüm

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.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Main Conclusions
Tahmini Süre:1m 45s
Soru 1082Soru →

According to university policy, a student cannot register for the advanced robotics seminar unless they have completed the introductory physics course. Furthermore, no student can complete the introductory physics course without receiving a passing grade on the physics final exam.

Which of the following logically follows from the statements above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any student who registers for the advanced robotics seminar has received a passing grade on the physics final exam.

Cevap

Any student who registers for the advanced robotics seminar has received a passing grade on the physics final exam.
The stimulus provides two conditional rules that can be logically chained. The first rule, using the 'unless' indicator, translates to: If a student registers for the advanced seminar, they must have completed the introductory course. The second rule, using 'no... without', translates to: If a student completes the introductory course, they must have passed the final exam. Linking these (Register -> Complete -> Pass) yields the valid deduction that anyone who registers must have passed the final exam.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the first sentence into formal logic.
Register for Advanced Seminar -> Complete Introductory Course
The word 'unless' introduces a necessary condition. 'Cannot [X] unless [Y]' translates to 'If [X], then [Y]'.
2
Translate the second sentence into formal logic.
Complete Introductory Course -> Pass Final Exam
The phrase 'no... without' means the second part is necessary for the first. 'No [X] without [Y]' translates to 'If [X], then [Y]'.
3
Chain the conditional statements together.
Register for Advanced Seminar -> Complete Introductory Course -> Pass Final Exam
Because the necessary condition of the first statement matches the sufficient condition of the second statement, they can be linked transitively.
4
Derive the logical inference.
Register for Advanced Seminar -> Pass Final Exam
The transitive property of conditionals allows skipping the middle term to form a new valid conditional.

Anahtar Kavram

Diagramming Conditional Statements
Soru 1083Soru →

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?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

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

Cevap

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.

Adım Adım Çözüm

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.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the main conclusion when it is stated at the beginning of an argument.
Soru 1084Soru →

According to the new city zoning regulations, a commercial development permit will be approved only if the proposed building features a public green space and adheres strictly to the district's height restrictions. Furthermore, a building cannot adhere to these height restrictions unless its architectural plans undergo a rigorous environmental review.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: If the architectural plans for a proposed building do not undergo a rigorous environmental review, then a commercial development permit will not be approved for it.

Cevap

If the architectural plans for a proposed building do not undergo a rigorous environmental review, then a commercial development permit will not be approved for it.
The correct answer accurately forms the contrapositive of the logical chain provided in the stimulus. By establishing that 'Permit Approved' requires 'Height Restrictions', and 'Height Restrictions' requires 'Environmental Review', we can logically conclude that 'Permit Approved' ultimately requires 'Environmental Review'. The contrapositive of this relationship is that without an environmental review, a permit cannot be approved.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Diagram the first sentence using the 'only if' indicator.
Permit Approved → Public Green Space AND Adheres to Height Restrictions.
The phrase 'only if' introduces necessary conditions, which go on the right side of the arrow.
2
Diagram the second sentence using the 'cannot... unless' indicator.
Adheres to Height Restrictions → Environmental Review.
The phrase 'unless' introduces a necessary condition. 'Cannot adhere' becomes positive 'Adheres' as the sufficient condition.
3
Link the conditional statements together into a transitive chain.
Permit Approved → Adheres to Height Restrictions → Environmental Review.
Because 'Adheres to Height Restrictions' is necessary for Approval and sufficient for Environmental Review, the chain connects them.
4
Form the contrapositive of the extended conditional chain.
NOT Environmental Review → NOT Permit Approved.
Reversing and negating the ends of the chain yields a valid deduction that matches the correct answer.

Anahtar Kavram

Chaining Conditional Statements and Contrapositives
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 1085Soru →

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.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

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).

Adım Adım Çözüm

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.

Anahtar Kavram

General Method of Reasoning
Soru 1086Soru →

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?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

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

Cevap

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.

Adım Adım Çözüm

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.

Anahtar Kavram

General Method of Reasoning
Soru 1087Soru →

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?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

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

Cevap

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.

Adım Adım Çözüm

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.

Anahtar Kavram

General Method of Reasoning
Tahmini Süre:1m 15s
Soru 1088Soru →

Arrange the following conditional statements in the correct logical sequence to form an unbroken deductive chain, starting from the initial trigger 'the new software is installed' and ending with the final outcome 'the quarterly budget is exceeded'.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct sequence connects each necessary condition to the next sufficient condition to form the chain: Software is installed -> Server downtime occurs -> Customer complaints increase -> IT department works overtime -> Quarterly budget is exceeded.
The correct sequence accurately translates all conditional indicators into a valid transitive chain. 'Whenever' introduces a sufficient condition (Software -> Downtime). 'Is sufficient to' introduces a sufficient condition (Downtime -> Complaints). 'Requires' introduces a necessary condition (Complaints -> Overtime). 'Only if' introduces a necessary condition (Overtime -> Budget). Connecting these end-to-end forms an unbroken logical path.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the starting trigger and the final outcome from the prompt.
Start: 'Software is installed'. End: 'Budget is exceeded'.
Establishing the endpoints of the deductive chain helps anchor the ordering process.
2
Translate each English statement into formal 'If -> Then' logic using the conditional indicators.
Link 1: Software -> Downtime. Link 2: Downtime -> Complaints. Link 3: Complaints -> Overtime. Link 4: Overtime -> Budget.
Translating indicators like 'whenever', 'sufficient', 'requires', and 'only if' reveals the underlying logical direction of each statement.
3
Connect the statements by matching the necessary condition (right side) of one to the sufficient condition (left side) of the next.
The chain perfectly aligns as: Software -> Downtime -> Complaints -> Overtime -> Budget.
A valid transitive deductive chain must link overlapping conditions in a continuous sequence without reversing any relationships.

Anahtar Kavram

Diagramming and linking conditional statements (Transitive Property)
Soru 1089Soru →

According to the newly published guidelines for the National Architectural Excellence Award, a commercial building is eligible for the highest tier of recognition only if it operates with a net-zero carbon footprint.

Based on the guidelines above, which one of the following statements must be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: If a commercial building does not operate with a net-zero carbon footprint, it is not eligible for the highest tier of recognition.

Cevap

The statement expressing that if a commercial building does not operate with a net-zero carbon footprint, it is not eligible for the highest tier of recognition.
The stimulus establishes a conditional relationship using the indicator 'only if'. 'Only if' introduces the necessary condition. Therefore, the logical structure is: Eligible for Highest Tier -> Net-Zero Carbon Footprint. The correct answer accurately represents the contrapositive of this relationship: if the necessary condition is not met (No Net-Zero), then the sufficient condition cannot occur (Not Eligible).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conditional indicator and translate the stimulus into formal logic.
The phrase 'only if' introduces a necessary condition. The relationship is: Eligible for highest tier -> Operates with net-zero carbon footprint.
Diagramming the baseline conditional relationship correctly is required to draw valid logical deductions.
2
Form the valid contrapositive of the diagrammed conditional statement.
Negate both sides and reverse the arrow: Does NOT operate with net-zero carbon footprint -> NOT eligible for highest tier.
The contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original statement and is a guaranteed true deduction.
3
Evaluate the answer choices against the valid contrapositive and original statement.
The correct option perfectly matches the contrapositive generated in Step 2.
Valid deductions in formal logic must be completely supported by the premises without assuming outside information or committing formal logical fallacies.

Anahtar Kavram

Translating conditional statements using 'only if' and applying the rule of contraposition.
Soru 1090Soru →

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

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

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.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

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.

Adım Adım Çözüm

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.

Anahtar Kavram

General Method of Reasoning
Soru 1091Soru →

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?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

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

Cevap

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.

Adım Adım Çözüm

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.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Soru 1092Soru →

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?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: 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.

Cevap

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.

Adım Adım Çözüm

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.

Anahtar Kavram

Abstract Analysis of Argumentative Strategy
Soru 1093Soru →

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.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

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.

Adım Adım Çözüm

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.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating abstract descriptions of causal counterexamples.
Soru 1094Soru →

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?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

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

Cevap

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.

Adım Adım Çözüm

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.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the main conclusion by analyzing the structural relationship between premises, intermediate conclusions, and the ultimate claim.
Soru 1095Soru →

According to a national museum's updated curation protocols, an artifact will be exhibited in the Main Gallery only if it undergoes a comprehensive structural restoration. Furthermore, a comprehensive structural restoration requires the direct supervision of the chief conservator. No artifact can be insured for its maximum appraised value unless it is exhibited in the Main Gallery. Finally, any artifact that lacks a verified historical provenance will not receive the direct supervision of the chief conservator. Based on the rules above, which one of the following statements must be true?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any artifact that is insured for its maximum appraised value must possess a verified historical provenance.

Cevap

The statement that any artifact insured for its maximum appraised value must possess a verified historical provenance.
The correct answer accurately synthesizes the conditional statements into a single transitive chain. The stimulus establishes that maximum insurance requires Main Gallery exhibition. Main Gallery exhibition requires restoration. Restoration requires the chief conservator's supervision. Finally, if an artifact lacks provenance, it cannot have supervision, which contraposes to: supervision requires provenance. Chaining these together proves that any artifact insured for maximum value must ultimately have a verified provenance.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Translate the first conditional statement ('only if').
Exhibited in Main Gallery -> Comprehensive Structural Restoration
The phrase 'only if' introduces a necessary condition.
2
Translate the second conditional statement ('requires').
Comprehensive Structural Restoration -> Direct Supervision of Chief Conservator
The word 'requires' introduces a necessary condition.
3
Translate the third conditional statement ('unless').
Insured for Maximum Value -> Exhibited in Main Gallery
The phrase 'No X unless Y' translates to 'If X, then Y' (or 'If not Y, then not X').
4
Translate and contrapose the final conditional statement.
Original: No Verified Provenance -> No Direct Supervision. Contrapositive: Direct Supervision -> Verified Provenance
To connect this statement to the others, we must take its contrapositive by negating and reversing both terms.
5
Synthesize the individual conditional statements into a single transitive chain.
Insured for Maximum Value -> Exhibited in Main Gallery -> Comprehensive Structural Restoration -> Direct Supervision -> Verified Provenance
Because the necessary condition of each rule matches the sufficient condition of the next, they form a continuous deductive chain.
6
Evaluate the options against the synthesized chain to find the valid inference.
The chain proves that 'Insured for Maximum Value -> Verified Provenance', which matches the correct answer.
In a valid conditional chain, the first sufficient condition guarantees the final necessary condition.

Anahtar Kavram

Conditional Logic Chaining and Contraposition
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 1096Soru →

City Planner: To alleviate traffic congestion on the downtown bridge, the city council should implement a dynamic toll system that charges higher fees during peak commuting hours. A recent trial of a similar dynamic toll system on the primary highway of the neighboring city of Oakville resulted in a 20% reduction in peak-hour traffic volume within three months. Thus, our implementation of this system will successfully reduce peak-hour traffic on the downtown bridge.

Which of the following statements are necessary assumptions upon which the city planner's argument depends? (Select all that apply)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The commuters who currently use the downtown bridge during peak hours have viable alternatives to paying the higher toll, such as different routes or adjusted travel schedules.; The reduction in peak-hour traffic on Oakville's primary highway was not primarily caused by an event independent of the toll system, such as a localized economic downturn.

Cevap

The necessary assumptions are that commuters have viable alternatives to paying the toll, and that Oakville's traffic reduction was not caused by an independent event.
The argument depends on two critical assumptions. First, it assumes that local commuters have the flexibility to avoid the toll (viable alternatives); otherwise, they would simply pay the fee and traffic would remain identical. Second, because the argument relies on Oakville as its sole causal evidence, it must assume that Oakville's traffic reduction was actually caused by the toll, not by an independent factor like an economic downturn.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core components of the argument.
Premise: Oakville reduced traffic by 20% after implementing a dynamic toll. Conclusion: A similar toll will reduce traffic on the downtown bridge.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to spot logical gaps.
2
Determine the logical gaps in the reasoning.
The argument assumes the two cities are analogous (commuters can change habits) and that the toll actually caused the reduction in Oakville.
Identifying missing links reveals potential necessary assumptions.
3
Apply the Negation Test to evaluate the options.
Negating the statement about viable alternatives means commuters must drive anyway, preventing traffic reduction. Negating the statement about Oakville's independent event severs the causal link in the premise.
A statement is a necessary assumption if its negation destroys the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Necessary Assumptions (Defender and Supporter)
Soru 1097Soru →

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?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: 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

Cevap

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.

Adım Adım Çözüm

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.

Anahtar Kavram

General Method of Reasoning
Tahmini Süre:1m 45s
Soru 1098Soru →

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?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

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

Cevap

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.

Adım Adım Çözüm

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.

Anahtar Kavram

General Method of Reasoning
Soru 1099Soru →

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.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

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.

Adım Adım Çözüm

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.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying basic premises, intermediate conclusions, and main conclusions to evaluate logical flow.
Soru 1100Soru →

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?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

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

Cevap

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.

Adım Adım Çözüm

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.

Anahtar Kavram

Argument by Analogy
ÖncekiSayfa 55 / 198Sonraki
Tüm alıştırma soruları — LSAT | Examkin