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

Reference / correct answer:

Argument construction

The argument attempts to convince that since the number of students caught copying in examination each year is nearly the same as the number of students caught driving without a valid driving license each year, and the number of students caught traveling without a valid ticket, the uproar about the act of copying in examination is not required. Copying in examination in fact almost as commonplace as the acts of driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket.

Conclusion: The act of copying in examination is in fact almost as mundane as the acts of driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket.

Predict a Weakener

We need to weaken the conclusion that the act of copying in examination is almost as ordinary as the acts of driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket. We must cast a doubt over the comparison between the act of copying in examination and the acts of driving without a valid driving license and traveling without a valid ticket. The weakener of the argument would be something that shows Copying in Examinations to be extraordinary (in some respect) as compared to the other two acts. Though all the three acts mentioned attract punishments, do the quantum or the degree of punishments differ? Certainly, they do! The punishments for driving without a valid driving license and traveling without a valid ticket are usually monetary; however, those for copying in examination could be: disgrace, discredit for the test, reexamination, repetition of the course, debarring from the course, and in the extreme case, criminal prosecution. These are certainly severer than the monitory punishments. And this makes the act of copying in examination incomparable to that of driving without a valid driving license and traveling without a valid ticket.

Predictive Weakener: The consequences for the act of copying in examination are severer than those for driving without a valid driving license and traveling without a valid ticket.

Answer choices explanation:

[Although the number of students caught driving without a valid driving license …] This is incorrect. The statement does not talk about the act of copying in examination. It tries to make a relationship between the other two acts, which are not the focus of the conclusion.

[The punishments upon being caught copying in examination...] This is correct. This matches our predictive weakener.

[Fewer students would take their chances with driving without a valid driving license …] This is incorrect. The premise mentions that the number of students caught each year for the three acts of wrongdoings is similar. This option states that there are fewer students who are inclined to try driving without a valid driving license and traveling without a valid ticket than are inclined to try copying in examination. So, we can infer that there is a relatively greater number of students who copy in examinations. Thus, this option rather bolsters the claim that the act of copying in examination is in fact almost as mundane as (or, in fact, more mundane than) the acts of driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket. It is rather a strengthener.

[Cheating in general – including copying in examination – is more …] This is incorrect. This is not a weakener. It is a generic statement and lacks reasoning to weaken the argument.

[The prevalence of wrongdoings such as copying in examination…] This is incorrect. From the premise, we know that the number of students caught copying in examination is similar to the number driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket. However, the probability of getting caught for each of these three wrongdoings may be different. For example, copying in examinations may be more strictly checked than traveling without a valid ticket. Therefore, the prevalence of the three wrongdoings may be different. This option does not give us any information to mark out copying in examinations as in any way extraordinary or distinct from the other two wrongdoings.

Reference / correct answer:

Argument construction

This is a typical conditional statement. If then argument with its contrapositive. We have the conditional statement:

P: Amy were a tall and fair actress from the mainstream film industry. Q: She would have won the best actress award.

P −> Q

Thus, the contrapositive statement would be:

~Q −> ~P

~Q: Amy has not won the best actress award.

~P: She is not a tall and fair actress from mainstream film industry.

In words:

If Amy has not won the best actress award, she is not a tall and fair actress from the mainstream film industry.

We can rewrite the contrapositive statement using since as:

Since Amy has not won the best actress award, she is not a tall and fair actress from the mainstream film industry./p> The statement can also be rewritten as

Amy is not a tall and fair actress from the mainstream film industry since she has not won the best actress award.

Now let's bring out the statement given in the argument.

She (Amy) is not a tall and fair actress since she has not won the best actress award.

Predict a Flaw

Comparing the two statements, we find that 'from the mainstream film industry,' is missing in the argument statement. Thus, this makes the conclusion unsound. Amy could still be a tall and fair actress but from a non-mainstream industry.

Predictive Flaw: Amy could be a tall and fair actress from a non-mainstream industry.

Answer choices explanation:

[have won an award for scriptwriting] This is incorrect. This is irrelevant. The premise is that Amy has not won the best actress award. Scriptwriting domain is not relevant.

[be a singer from the mainstream film industry] This is incorrect. Singing domain is also irrelevant.

[be a tall and fair actress from a non-mainstream film industry] This is correct. This matches our predictive flaw.

[be an actress belonging to a mainstream theatre group] This is incorrect. First, it misses that the qualification 'tall and fair'; second, we cannot conclude that the 'mainstream theatre group' is not a part of mainstream film industry.

[have won an award for some other mainstream work] This is incorrect. All we know that she has not won the best actress award. Rest is not relevant.

Reference / correct answer:

Argument construction

The survey covers 100 students in Midtown college. They were asked to pick their preference for one of the three genres of movies: romantic, drama, and tragedy. More than 50% picked romantic, more than 25% picked drama and at least 1 student picked tragedy. When asked about the movie Titanic, however, more than 75% viewed it as a romantic movie.

Predict an Inference

Presenting the information mathematically will help.

Say R represents Romantic genre; D represents Drama genre; and T represents Tragedy genre.

Let's first find out the minimum values of R, D and T.

It is given that there are 100 students, thus, the percent figures represent the actual numbers.

We know that

More than 50% picked romantic, thus R ≥ 51;

More than 25% picked drama, thus D ≥ 26;

At least 1 student picked tragedy, thus T ≥1

Let's now find out the maximum values of R, D and T. Remember that a student could choose only one of the three genres, and every student did choose one of these three genres. So, the sum of R, D and T would be 100.

We know that

Maximum value of R would happen when the values of D and T are minimum. So, it would be 100 − 26 − 1 = 73

Likewise, Maximum value of D would be 100 −51 − 1 = 48

Maximum value of T would be 100 − 51 − 26 = 23

51 ≤ R ≤ 73

26 ≤ D ≤ 48 1 ≤ T ≤ 23

We have to see in how many ways the number of votes for Titanic viewed as a romantic movie can be more than 75%.

Since there can be many inferences, we need to see the option statements to get the correct answer.

Answer choices explanation:

[Only the students whose preferences were romantic and drama genres of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie.] This is incorrect. This is not necessarily true. Even some students from each genre can make the figure more than 75%. For example, 60 students who voted R, 30 students who voted D and 5 students who voted T could have viewed Titanic as a romantic movie. Further, since 'more than 75%' can stretch up to 100%, even all the 100 students covered in the survey can view Titanic as a romantic movie.

[Only the students whose preferences were romantic and tragedy genres of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie.] This is incorrect. For the same reasoning, as with option [Only the students whose preferences were romantic and drama genres …] this option is incorrect.

[At least one student from each genre of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie.] This is incorrect. This is not necessarily true. If the maximum number of students (73) whose preference is romantic movies and the minimum number of students (26) whose preference is drama movies view Titanic as a romantic movie, the total number of students equals 73 + 26 = 96 number of students > 75%. So, even if none of the students whose preference is tragedy movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie, the given survey fact - more than 75% of students view Titanic as a romantic movie – can still hold.

[Some students whose preference was romantic genres of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie.] This is correct. The minimum number of students whose preference is Romantic movies is 51. This means that the maximum number of students whose preference is drama or tragedy movies is 100 −51= 49. This is less than 75% of all surveyed students. Since the number of students who view Titanic as a romantic movie is more than 75%, some students whose preference is romantic movies must view Titanic as a romantic movie.

[Some students whose preference was tragedy genres of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie] This is incorrect. This is not necessarily true. With the same reasoning as used in option C, this is incorrect.