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

Question 49

Barnes: The two newest employees at this company have salaries that are too high for the simple tasks normally assigned to new employees and duties that are too complex for inexperienced workers. Hence, the salaries and the complexity of the duties of these two newest employees should be reduced.

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

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
The duties of the two newest employees are not less complex than any others in the company.
○
It is because of the complex duties assigned that the two newest employees are being paid more than is usually paid to newly hired employees.
○
The two newest employees are not experienced at their occupations.
○
Barnes was not hired at a higher-than-average starting salary.
○
The salaries of the two newest employees are no higher than the salaries that other companies pay for workers with a similar level of experience.

Reference / correct answer:

The two newest employees are not experienced at their occupations.

This is an Assumption question, so we will need the answer choice that connects the evidence with the conclusion. Barnes’ conclusion is that the salaries and complexity of the duties of these two newest employees should be reduced. (Conveniently, the conclusion is pointed out by the Keyword “Hence”.) Why should they be reduced? Because these employees have salaries that are too high for the simple tasks normally assigned to new employees and they have duties that are too complex for inexperienced workers. Can you see what’s going on here? By concluding from this evidence that the two new employees should have their salaries and duties reduced, the author is just assuming that these two new employees are like typical new employees: they must have simple tasks assigned to them, and they are inexperienced. But what if that weren’t true? What if they have nonsimple tasks assigned to them, or they are, in fact, experienced workers? Then there would be no reason to reduce their salaries and duties; Barnes’ conclusion would not logically follow. So the author must be assuming that they are just like the typical new employee.

Once you have this kind of prephrase in your head, you can attack the answer choices. [The two newest employees are not experienced at their occupations] is correct because it tells us that the new employees are just like typical new employees in one important respect – they are not experienced at their occupations.

Question 50

These days, drug companies and health professionals alike are focusing their attention on cholesterol in the blood. The more cholesterol we have in our blood, the higher the risk that we shall die of a heart attack. The issue is pertinent since heart disease kills more North Americans every year than any other single cause. At least three factors – smoking, drinking, and exercise – can each influence levels of cholesterol in the blood.

Which one of the following can be properly concluded from the passage?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
If a person has low blood cholesterol, then that person's risk of fatal heart disease is low.
○
Smoking in moderation can entail as great a risk of fatal heart disease as does heavy smoking.
○
A high-cholesterol diet is the principal cause of death in North America.
○
The only way that smoking increases one's risk of fatal heart disease is by influencing the levels of cholesterol in the blood.
○
The risk of fatal heart disease can be altered by certain changes in lifestyle.

Reference / correct answer:

The risk of fatal heart disease can be altered by certain changes in lifestyle.

We’re looking for a proper conclusion, so it behooves us to read through the stimulus with an eye towards where it’s all heading. The topic is blood cholesterol, a relevant concern “these days.” Sentence 2 offers what most would accept as conventional wisdom: the higher one’s cholesterol, the greater the risk of a heart attack. The following sentence tells us why this is important (heart disease is the number one killer in North America), and the passage ends with three factors that affect cholesterol. Not much of an argument; more like a collection of facts. But that makes sense, since it’s something that “can be properly concluded from the passage” that we’re after anyway. It’s hard to prephrase exactly what that conclusion might be, but you may have had a pretty good feeling that it would have something to do with the factors listed at the end. After all, the abrupt ending kind of begs the question “what about these factors? Why mention these?” Only options [Smoking in moderation can entail as…], [The only way that smoking increases one's…] and [The risk of fatal heart disease can be altered…] relate specifically to these factors, and the first two conclude more about smoking than we can infer from the passage (see below). But option [The risk of fatal heart disease can be altered…] works: Blood cholesterol influences heart disease, and the factors that influence blood cholesterol are lifestyle choices. Put it together, and it’s proper to conclude that the risk of fatal heart disease can be influenced by changes in such choices.

Question 51

In Debbie's magic act, a volunteer supposedly selects a card in a random fashion, looks at it without showing it to her, and replaces it in the deck. After several shuffles, Debbie cuts the deck and supposedly reveals the same selected card. A skeptic conducted three trials. In the first, Debbie was videotaped, and no sleight of hand was found. In the second, the skeptic instead supplied a standard deck of cards. For the third trial, the skeptic selected the card. Each time, Debbie apparently revealed the selected card. The skeptic concluded that Debbie uses neither sleight of hand, nor a trick deck, nor a planted "volunteer" to achieve her effect.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the skeptic's reasoning?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
The skeptic failed to consider the possibility that Debbie did not always use the same method to achieve her effect.
○
The skeptic failed to consider the possibility that sleight of hand could also be detected by some means other than videotaping.
○
The skeptic failed to consider the possibility that Debbie requires both sleight of hand and a trick deck to achieve her effect.
○
The skeptic failed to consider the possibility that Debbie used something other than sleight of hand, a trick deck, or a planted "volunteer" to achieve her effect.
○
The skeptic failed to consider the possibility that Debbie's success in the three trials was something other than a coincidence.

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