← Back to exam page

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

Loading demo links...

Showing 358–360 of 430 questions

Question 358

Recently discovered prehistoric rock paintings on small islands off the northern coast of Norway have archaeologists puzzled. The predominant theory about northern cave paintings was that they were largely a description of the current diets of the painters. This theory cannot be right, because the painters must have needed to eat the sea animals populating the waters north of Norway if they were to make the long journey to and from the islands, and there are no paintings that unambiguously depict such creatures.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument against the predominant theory about northern cave paintings EXCEPT:

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

  • ○

    Once on these islands, the cave painters hunted and ate land animals.
  • ○

    Parts of the cave paintings on the islands did not survive the centuries.
  • ○

    The cave paintings that were discovered on the islands depicted many land animals.
  • ○

    Those who did the cave paintings that were discovered on the islands had unusually advanced techniques of preserving meats.
  • ○

    The cave paintings on the islands were done by the original inhabitants of the islands who ate the meat of land animals.
Question 359

Attacks on an opponent's character should be avoided in political debates. Such attacks do not confront the opponent's argument; instead they attempt to cast doubt on the opponent's moral right to be in the debate at all.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning above?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

  • ○

    Attacks on an opponent's character result from an inability to confront the opponent's argument properly.
  • ○

    Attacks on an opponent's character should not impress those watching a political debate.
  • ○

    Debating techniques that do not confront every argument should be avoided.
  • ○

    Attacking the character of one's opponent does nothing to preserve one's moral right to enter into further political debates.
  • ○

    Questions of character should be raised in political debate if they are relevant to the opponent's argument.
Question 360

Lawyer: Did Congleton assign the best available graphic artist to the project?

Witness: Yes.

Lawyer: And the best writer?

Witness: Yes.

Lawyer: In fact everyone she assigned to work on the project was top notch?

Witness: That's true.

Lawyer: So, you lied to the court when you said, earlier, that Congleton wanted the project to fail?

Each of the following accurately describes a flaw in the lawyer's reasoning displayed above EXCEPT:

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

  • ○

    It takes for granted that Congleton was not forced to assign the people she did to the project.
  • ○

    It takes for granted that the project could fail only if Congleton wanted it to fail.
  • ○

    It ignores the possibility that Congleton knew that the people assigned to the project would not work well together.
  • ○

    It ignores the possibility that the witness failed to infer from known facts what should have been inferred and therefore was not lying.
  • ○

    It ignores the possibility that Congleton failed to allot enough time or resources to the project team.