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

Reference / correct answer:

Argument construction

The conclusion of the CEO's argument is described in the last statement:

"when our customers choose to buy from us instead of our competitors, they can be sure that they are buying from an environmentally-responsible company."

What is the basis on which this conclusion is drawn? This basis (the premise of the argument) is described in the second statement of the argument:

"we have got our product-manufacturing process audited for its environmental impact by Green Org, a reputed international agency that monitors industrial pollution."

Therefore, the CEO's argument can be simplified as follows: "Because we have got our process audited by Green Org, our customers can be sure that we are environmentally-responsible."

This is an Evaluate the Argument question. Each answer choice contains a question. The correct answer will be that answer choice whose question, when answered one way will strengthen the conclusion and when answered the opposite way will weaken the conclusion.

Let us analyze the options one by one.

Answer choices explanation

[Does Noan Industries provide more donations than its…] This option is incorrect. Suppose the answer to this question is 'Yes.' Then the question arises – is Noan's providing more donations than its competitors to agencies that do environmental work sufficient to get it labelled as 'environmentally-responsible'? Even if other competitors provide zero donations and Noan donates a paltry $1000 per annum to this cause? Even if the product-manufacturing process of Noan causes the maximum environmental degradation among all companies that operate in this product category? So, we see that a 'Yes' answer to this option statement is not sufficient in itself to strengthen the conclusion. Likewise, a 'No' answer does not significantly weaken the conclusion. For example, even if Noan donates zero dollars to such agencies while its competitors donate millions, does this necessarily mean that Noan is environmentally-irresponsible? Even if, Noan uses such a manufacturing process that causes zero pollution, whereas its competitors cause environmental damage worth billions of dollars while donating only a few millions to such environmental agencies?

[Has Green Org audited the product-manufacturing processes of all competitors of Noan Industries?] This option is incorrect. Let's suppose the answer to this question is 'Yes.' If other competitors of Noan also get their process audited by Green Org, then by the logic used in this argument, the customers will believe that they too are environmentally-responsible companies. Well, then, so what? This does not impact the CEO's conclusion at all, which is just that the customers can be sure that his own company – Noan Industries - is environmentally-responsible. Had the Noan CEO claimed that the customers can be sure that his company was the only environmentallyresponsible company in the product category that it operated in, then indeed, his claim would have been weakened by a 'Yes' answer to this question. But, once again, the CEO has not made this "we are the only ones" claim. Likewise, a 'No' answer to this question will not affect the CEO's conclusion.

[In the product category in which Noan Industries operates, does…] This option is incorrect. Let's suppose the answer to this question is 'Yes.' Then, all that this answer suggests is that, if the customers do believe that Noan is environmentally-responsible, then they may prefer to buy from Noan over its competitors. Well, this may impact the revenues and profits of the company in the long-term. However, the present argument is only about the CEO's claim of his company's environmental-responsibility. And this claim is neither strengthened nor weakened by a 'Yes' answer to this question. In a similar manner, answering this question with a 'No' does not impact the conclusion. Therefore, this answer choice does not help to evaluate the argument.

[Do Noan's customers trust the audit reports of Green Org?] This option is correct. Let's suppose the answer to this question is 'Yes.' This means, if Green Org says that Noan is an environmentally-responsible company, then the customers are going to believe that it is so. This greatly strengthens the CEO's claim. On the other hand, if the answer to this question is 'No,' that is, if the customers do not trust Green Org's audit reports, then the CEO's conclusion - that the customers will feel sure that Noan is environmentally-responsible because it's been audited by Green Org – stands shattered. Therefore, the answer to the question helps us assess (evaluate) the correctness of the conclusion.

[Does Noan Industries make lesser profits than its competitors?] This option is incorrect. The companies mentioned in the first statement of the argument are concerned about "increasing their profits." The numerical values of their profits are never mentioned in the argument, nor is it suggested that the judgment of whether a company is environmentally-responsible or not depends on the profits made by the company. Therefore, whether you answer the question posed by this answer choice with a 'Yes' or 'No,' the conclusion remains unimpacted.

Reference / correct answer:

Argument construction

This argument is about connecting everyday objects to the internet (abbreviated henceforth as CO2I – Connecting Objects to Internet).

Let's analyze the argument. It begins with this statement:

There are many benefits to connecting everyday objects like cars and home appliances to the internet to enable their owners to manage them remotely.

Here, the lecturer states that there are many benefits of CO2I. Then, he begins the second statement with "but," thereby indicating that he is now going to talk about something other than benefits (possibly the costs/dangers/risks?) of CO2I.

No other statement of the argument provides support to this statement. Therefore, this statement definitely cannot be the conclusion of the argument. Further, this statement does not provide support to any of the other statements of the argument (had it done so, the argument would have been of the form: "There are many benefits of CO2I. Therefore, …"). Hence, it is not a premise of the argument either.

The second statement of the argument is: But beware of doing so! 'So' in the above statement refers to CO2I.

This statement does not state facts or principles. Therefore, it is not a premise. It states an advice. So, it is a candidate of being the main conclusion of the argument, provided the remaining statements of the argument provide support for this advice.

The third statement of the argument is: With the rising number and variety of devices connected to it, the internet is becoming more complex and, consequently, more prone to security breaches by hackers.

This statement states a fact. Therefore, it could be a premise. But we see that this statement by itself is not sufficient to support the 2nd statement (our only candidate so far for being a conclusion). How do we know that it is not sufficient? Because, if you put the second and the third statement in a "(2nd statement) because (3rd statement)" format, we get:

'Beware of CO2I because with the rising number and variety of devices connected to it, the internet is becoming more complex and, consequently, more prone to security breaches by hackers.'

Reading this statement, questions immediately spring in our mind – "Okay, so internet is more prone to security breaches. Then so what? Why should I beware of CO2I?" Clearly, there is a missing link between the 3rd statement and the 2nd statement. If the last statement of the argument supplies this missing link, then the 3rd and the 4th statements will both become the premises on which the conclusion drawn in the 2nd statement is based.

The fourth and the last statement of the argument is: The consequences of a security breach are much graver with an internet-connected car or home appliance than with an internet-connected computer and might even include a risk to the life of the owner of these objects.

Now, we see that when statements 3 and 4 are read in conjunction, we can draw the inference that: 'With the rising number of devices connected to the internet, the chances of security breach are increasing, and the consequences of such a breach can potentially be life-threatening for the owners of CO2I cars and homes.'

We are now able to understand why the author asked us, in the second statement, to beware of CO2I. His line of reasoning is as under:

CO2I will increase the number of devices connected to the internet (because obviously, in CO2I, you are connecting devices to the internet).

Rising number of devices connected to the internet increases the chances of a security breach.

The consequences of a security breach are much graver – potentially life-threatening for the owners – in the case of CO2I cars and homes than in the case of internetconnected computers.

Hence the main conclusion of the argument is described in the 2nd statement – beware of CO2I. Who should beware? Presumably, the owners of cars and home appliances.

Let us analyze the options one by one. If we feel doubtful about whether an answer choice represents the main conclusion of the argument or not, we will perform the Conclusion Test as under:

We will read that answer choice along with the 3rd and the 4th statements of the argument in the following format:

"(Answer choice) because (3rd statement) and (4th statement)"

If the resulting statement makes logical sense, then the answer choice is indeed the main conclusion of the argument. If it does not, then the answer choice can be ruled out.

Answer choices explanation

[The gravity of the consequences suffered by the owner…] This option is incorrect. The inference stated in this answer choice can be indeed be drawn from the information given in the argument. However, does this answer choice describe the main conclusion of the argument? Let's perform the Conclusion Test:

(The gravity of the consequences suffered by the owner of an internet-connected car or home appliance in the event of a security breach outweighs the benefits that these devices offer) because

(Rising number of devices connected to the internet increases the chances of a security breach) and

(The consequences of a security breach are much graver – potentially life-threatening - for CO2I cars and homes than for internet-connected computers).

Does this make logical sense? No. Therefore, this answer choice is definitely not the main conclusion of the argument.

You may also notice that if we write the following statement: (2nd statement of the argument) because (this answer choice) – (Beware of CO2I) because (The gravity of the consequences suffered by the owner of an internet-connected car or home appliance in the event of a security breach outweighs the benefits that these devices offer) Then, the resulting statement makes much more logical sense. Therefore, this answer choice can actually be thought of as a premise for the main conclusion rather than the main conclusion itself.

[Owners of cars and home appliances should be cautious and…] This option is correct. This answer choice adequately describes the second statement of the argument, which, as we have identified in the 'Argument Construction' part above, is the main conclusion.

[A security breach of a car or home appliance that is connected to the internet can be…] This option is incorrect. This answer choice restates the last statement of the argument. As discussed above, the fourth statement is a premise of the main conclusion and not the main conclusion itself.

[The vulnerability of the internet to security breaches is directly proportional…] This option is incorrect. The inference stated in this answer choice may indeed be drawn from the third statement of the argument. However, it is not the main conclusion of the argument.

[The increasing connection of everyday objects such as cars and…] This option is incorrect. This statement is factually incorrect as per the information given in the argument – it is the increase in number and variety of devices (note that the general word 'devices' has been used in the argument) that has caused the increased vulnerability of the internet. Some of these devices may indeed be CO2I cars and home appliances. However, this answer choice makes it look like only the CO2I cars and home appliances are responsible for the increased vulnerability of the internet. Another problem with this answer choice is, of course, that it only states an (incorrect) inference based on the third statement of the argument, whereas the question has asked us to find the main conclusion.

Reference / correct answer:

Argument construction

Premise 1: Movies that contain persistent violence are usually given R rating.

Two points to note in the above premise:

The word "usually": From this, we may infer that though most movies that contain persistent violence are given R rating, there may be some movies that contain persistent violence but are not given R rating. Had R rating been given to 100% of the movies that contain persistent violence, Premise 1 would have read differently, for example:

○ Movies that contain persistent violence are given R rating.

○ Movies that contain persistent violence are always given R rating.

○ Every movie that contains persistent violence is given R rating.

This premise only states one feature of a movie (containing persistent violence) that may result in a R rating. We cannot infer on the basis of this statement that this is the only feature that results in a R Rating. There may be other features too that result in a R rating. For example, the list of features of a movie, having one or more of which results in the movie getting a R rating, might read as follows:

○ Persistent violence

○ Gruesome scenes that are revolting to watch, even if their number is a small percentage of all scenes in the movie

○ Persistent use of obscene language

○ Glorification of immorality, etc.

So, a movie may get R rated despite not having persistent violence if it has one or more of the other features on this list.

Premise 2: R rated movies can be viewed in a theater by a child or an under-17 adolescent only in the company of a parent or an adult guardian.

Note that this premise does not say that a child or an under-17 cannot watch R rated movies in a theater. These movies are not banned for the under-17 age group. The requirement is only that the under-17s be accompanied by their parents or adult guardians.

Further, note that the restriction for the under-17s is only for viewing an R rated movie in a theater. We do not know – and cannot infer - from the argument if similar restrictions apply to other, non-theatrical – avenues (such as, say, television or screenings in a community hall, etc.) that may be available to view R rated movies.

Also, this premise applies to 100% of the R rated movies. We know this because the wording of the statement is not something like "R rated movies are usually viewed in a theater…." Or "Most R rated movies are viewed in a theater…." but a definite "can be viewed in a theater…" without any qualifications like "most" or "some" or "usually," etc.

Premise 3: Mr. Smith is a director whose every movie has been given an R rating.

Premise 4: Mr. Green is a director whose every movie has been given an R rating.

Premise 5: Ms. Abbott is a director only some of whose movies are R rated.

Because several inferences may be drawn by combining Premises 3-5 with the other premises of the argument, we cannot determine the correct answer without reading the answer choice. So, let's go through the answer choices to find the one that must be true, given the premises of the argument.

Let us analyze the options one by one.

Answer choices explanation

[The movies made by female directors are more often viewed alone in…] This option is incorrect. From Premise 2, we know that under-17s simply cannot view an R rated movie alone in the theaters. Therefore, the frequency of viewing a movie alone will be zero among the under-17 age group for 'R rated movies.' Presumably, for movies that have non-R ratings, this frequency might be non-zero. So, this option statement may be simplified as: 'The movies made by female directors are less likely to be R rated than the movies made by male directors.' Now, this is a gross generalization of the specific facts mentioned in the argument. From such a small sample size as just one female director and two male directors, it is plainly wrong to generalize that movies made by female directors are less likely to be R rated than those of male directors.

[An under-17 adolescent cannot view a movie of Mr. Green…] This option is correct. By combining Premise 4 with Premise 2, we may infer that an under-17 adolescent can view a movie made by Mr. Green in a theater only in the company of a parent or an adult guardian. Therefore, we may infer that he cannot view a movie made by Mr. Green in a theater alone (by himself, without an accompanying a parent or an adult guardian).

[No movie of Mr. Smith can be viewed by a child or…] This option is incorrect. By combining Premise 3 with Premise 2, we may infer that a child or an under-17 adolescent can view a movie made by Mr. Smith in a theater only in the company of a parent or an adult guardian. Therefore, it is wrong to say that he cannot view Mr. Smith's movies in a theater. He can watch all of those movies in a theater if he wants to, the requirement is only that he be accompanied by a parent or an adult guardian.

[A child is more likely to view a movie made by…] This option is incorrect. By combining Premise 4 with Premise 2, we may infer that a child can view a movie made by Mr. Green in a theater only in the company of a parent or an adult guardian. Similarly, by combining Premise 5 with Premise 2, we may infer that to view some of Ms. Abbott's movies in a theater, a child needs to be accompanied by a parent or an adult guardian. Just this information is not sufficient to make a comparison of the likelihood of children to watch the movies by the two directors. For example, it is possible that the movies of Mr. Green, though R rated, are wildly popular among children and so they urge their parents to take them to theaters to view the movies. On the other hand, Ms. Abbott's movies may have such content or presentation style that does not appeal to children and so they do not like to view any of her movies, even if the rating of a movie is such that they are allowed to view that movie alone. In such a scenario, the likelihood of a child watching Mr. Green's movie will be higher than his watching Ms. Abbott's movie. In other words, the likelihood of a child watching a movie by either director in a theater depends not just on the rating of the movie but also on the popularity of that director and that particular movie among children, and therefore, just on the basis of a movie's rating, we cannot infer a "must be true" statement about the likelihood of its being watched by children.

[Some of Ms. Abbott's movies do not contain persistent violence.] This option is incorrect. Premise 5 only tells us that some movies of Ms. Abbott are R rated. We cannot infer from this that these movies got R rated because they had persistent violence. As discussed in the 'Argument Construction' part of the solution, there may be other reasons for an R rating. For example, Ms. Abbott's R rated movies may have zero violence but may have persistent use of obscene language. So, among Ms. Abbott's R rated movies, it is possible that all of them contain persistent violence, and it is also possible that none of them contain persistent violence. What about her non-R rated movies? Are they the "some" movies referred to in this answer choice? Imagine a scale that rates movies on their suitability to be viewed by children and under-17 adolescents. Let's suppose that R rating lies at the middle of this scale. At one end of this scale are, say, Z movies – movies that can be watched by children and under-17 adolescents alone in a theater. At the other end of this scale lie, say, J movies – movies that are so disturbing that the entry of children and under-17 adolescents in the theater is prohibited, even if they are accompanied by adults. Just from knowing that some of Ms. Abbott's movies are not R rated, can we make a "must be true" inference about what the ratings of those movies is? For all we know, they may all be Z rated, with absolutely zero occurrence of persistent violence. Or they may all be J rated, with gruesome violence in every scene. Or they may have zero violence and still be J rated for another reason. Therefore, the information given in the argument is not sufficient to infer whether some of Ms. Abbott's movies contain persistent violence, all of her movies contain persistent violence, or none of them do. To restate this conclusion in the wording used in this answer choice: we cannot infer whether "some of Ms. Abbott's movies do not contain persistent violence," all of her movies do not contain persistent violence, or there is no movie of hers that does not contain persistent violence.