LSAT-Section-1-Logical-Reasoning Section One : Logical Reasoning - Practice Questions

Question 331

An antidote for chicken pox has been developed, but researchers warn that its widespread use could be dangerous, despite the fact that this drug has no serious side effects and is currently very effective at limiting the duration and severity of chicken pox.

Which one of the following, if true, helps most to reconcile the apparent discrepancy indicated above?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
The drug is extremely expensive and would be difficult to make widely available.
○
The drug has to be administered several times a day, so patient compliance is likely to be low.
○
The drug does not prevent the spread of chickenpox from one person to another, even when the drug eventually cures the disease in the first person.
○
When misused by taking larger-than-prescribed doses, the drug can be fatal.
○
Use of the drug contributes to the development of deadlier forms of chicken pox that are resistant to the drug.

Reference / correct answer:

Use of the drug contributes to the development of deadlier forms of chicken pox that are resistant to the drug.

“Apparent discrepancy” is LSAT lingo for Paradox, so let’s find the mystery and then the choice that best solves it. An antidote for chicken pox that works quite well against the disease and has no serious side effects is found nonetheless to be potentially dangerous if used widely. The mystery, in a nutshell, then, is why the researcher warning if the drug seems safe on these counts? Hopefully you sensed that this one had “alternative possibility” written all over it. A valid resolution will probably suggest that there’s some other danger inherent in the antidote, and that’s what we should be on the lookout for. This prephrase is more than enough to fire right through options [The drug is extremely expensive and…], [The drug has to be administered…], [The drug does not prevent the spread of…], as we’ll discuss below, but things get a bit trickier on the southern side of the choices, considering that both options [When misused by…] and [Use of the drug contributes to…] seem to introduce dangers of the antidote.

How to choose between them? Option [When misused by…] looks good at first glance, but a closer inspection reveals a scope shift: The researcher warning was in relation to widespread use, not misuse of the antidote. Technically, any misused drug can be dangerous, especially when the misuse involves taking too much; overdose is always a possibility. So option [When misused by…] really doesn’t explain why researchers feel that widespread use of the drug can be dangerous, since nothing in the argument suggests that it will be misused in this way. Option [Use of the drug contributes to…], on the other hand, squarely addresses the right issue: It basically says that using the drug will bring on a worse disease for which the drug is ineffective. If option [Use of the drug contributes to…] is true, then it’s far easier to understand the researchers’ warning despite the drug’s seeming advantages.

Question 332

The tendency toward overspecialization in the study of artifacts is unfortunate. Scholars can enhance their understanding of a certain artistic period by studying art from earlier periods that had a significant influence on it. For instance, because of its influence on Spanish artisans, a proper understanding of Arabic porcelain is indispensable for a proper understanding of Spanish porcelain.

Of the following, which one most closely conforms to the principle that the passage as a whole illustrates?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
To understand completely the major trends in research on aging, one must understand the influences these trends exert on society's view of aging.
○
To understand fully the historical events of this century, a historian must have an understanding of similar events in earlier centuries.
○
To appreciate fully the French language, one must understand the other languages that share its linguistic ancestry.
○
To understand properly any academic discipline, one must have at least a superficial acquaintance with the practices of the wider academic community.
○
To understand completely Aristotle's philosophy, one must be well acquainted with the philosophy of his intellectual mentor, Plato.

Question 333

Editorial: Medical schools spend one hour teaching preventive medicine for every ten hours spent teaching curative medicine, even though doctors' use of the techniques of preventive medicine cuts down medical costs greatly. Therefore, if their goal is to make medicine more cost-effective, medical schools spend insufficient time teaching preventive medicine.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the editorial's argument depends?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
Preventive medicine makes use of technologies that are lower in initial cost than the technologies used within the practice of curative medicine.
○
Every hour devoted to the teaching of preventive medicine reduces medical costs by 10 percent or more.
○
Medical schools could increase their total number teaching hours.
○
Improvements in doctors' use of the techniques of curative medicine would only increase overall medical costs.
○
The time required to teach preventive medicine thoroughly is greater than one hour for every ten that are now spent teaching curative medicine.

Reference / correct answer:

The time required to teach preventive medicine thoroughly is greater than one hour for every ten that are now spent teaching curative medicine.

When we see an Assumption question, we think “there’s something missing, and it’s required for this argument to work. “Let’s look for a gap between the evidence and conclusion. In medical school, learning how to cure medical problems outweighs learning how to prevent them 10 to 1, even though preventive medicine cuts down on medical costs. The editorial concludes that if the schools are interested in making medicine more cost-effective, then they’re not spending enough time on preventive medicine. But even though time spent teaching curative medicine outweighs preventive 10 to 1, where does the editorial establish that this ratio is not sufficient to adequately teach preventive medicine? It doesn’t. Sure, the 10 to 1 ratio sounds disproportionate, but maybe the subject of preventive medicine can be taught just fine in the time currently allotted. If so, then the editorialist would be wrong to argue that cost-conscious medical schools spend insufficient time teaching preventive medicine. E.

must therefore be assumed: In a fairly long-winded manner, all it says is that the 10 to 1 ratio is not sufficient to teach preventive medicine well. If it was sufficient (the Denial Test), then the argument would make no sense.

LSAT-Section-1-Logical-Reasoning – Section One : Logical Reasoning