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

Question 58

Prosecutor: Dr. Yuge has testified that, had the robbery occurred after 1:50 a.m., then, the moon having set at 1:45 A.M., it would have been too dark for Klein to recognize the perpetrator. But Yuge acknowledged that the moon was full enough to provide considerable light before it set. And we have conclusively shown that the robbery occurred between 1:15 and 1:30 A.M. So there was enough light for Klein to make a reliable identification.

The prosecutor's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism because it overlooks which one of the following possibilities?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
Klein may be mistaken about the time of the robbery and so it may have taken place after the moon had set.
○
The perpetrator may closely resemble someone who was not involved in the robbery.
○
Klein may have been too upset to make a reliable identification even in good light.
○
Without having been there, Dr. Yuge has no way of knowing whether the light was sufficient.
○
During the robbery the moon's light may have been interfered with by conditions such as cloud cover.

Reference / correct answer:

During the robbery the moon's light may have been interfered with by conditions such as cloud cover.

Looks like we’re going to have to play criminal defense attorney in this one as we try to determine how the prosecutor’s argument is vulnerable? The prosecutor concludes in the last sentence that there was enough light for Klein to make a reliable identification. What does the prosecutor base this on? 1) The fact that they have shown that the robbery took place between 1:15 and 1:30; 2) the moon did not set until 1:45; and 3) the moon was full enough to provide considerable light before it set. It’s kind of tough to prephrase an answer for this question. But before you went on to the answer choices, you needed to remain focused on the prosecutor’s precise conclusion and the evidence on which he bases that conclusion.E.is correct because even if all the other facts are true (i.e. the time of the robbery, the time when the moon set, the condition of the moon on that night, and the amount of light a full moon provides), the prosecutor’s conclusion that there was sufficient light could still be questionable, because he has not considered whether anything could have interfered with that light.

Question 59

Ordinary mountain sickness, a common condition among mountain climbers, and one from which most people can recover, is caused by the characteristic shortage of oxygen in the atmosphere at high altitudes. Cerebral edema, a rarer disruption of blood circulation in the brain that quickly becomes life-threatening if not correctly treated from its onset, can also be caused by a shortage of oxygen. Since the symptoms of cerebral edema resemble those of ordinary mountain sickness, cerebral edema is especially dangerous at high altitudes.

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

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
The treatment for ordinary mountain sickness differs from the treatment for cerebral edema.
○
Cerebral edema can cause those who suffer from it to slip into a coma within a few hours.
○
Unlike cerebral edema, ordinary mountain sickness involves no disruption of blood circulation in the brain.
○
Shortage of oxygen at extremely high altitudes is likely to affect thinking processes and cause errors of judgment.
○
Most people who suffer from ordinary mountain sickness recover without any special treatment.

Question 60

We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished culture by examining its language. Thus, it is likely that the people who spoke Proto-Indo-European, the language from which all Indo-European languages descended, lived in a cold climate, isolated from ocean or sea, because Proto-Indo-European lacks a word for "sea," yet contains words for "winter," "snow," and "wolf."

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
A word meaning "fish" was used by the people who spoke Proto-Indo-European
○
Some languages lack words for prominent elements of the environments of their speakers.
○
There are no known languages today that lack a word for "sea."
○
Proto-Indo-European possesses words for "heat."
○
The people who spoke Proto-Indo-European were nomadic

Reference / correct answer:

Some languages lack words for prominent elements of the environments of their speakers.

Remember, on Weaken questions, the best strategy is usually to attack any underlying assumption that the author is making. This author is concluding that the P-I-E people lived in a cold climate, isolated from the ocean or sea. What evidence does the author use? That the P-I-E language did not have a word for “sea,” but did have words for “winter,” “snow,” and “wolf.” Can you identify an assumption that would link the evidence and conclusion? The author assumes that languages have words for elements of their culture that are present (e.g. snow) and don’t have words for elements that are not present (e.g., sea). So to most effectively weaken this argument, just look for an answer choice that attacks this underlying assumption. Option [Some languages lack words for prominent…]. does precisely that by saying that some languages lack words for prominent elements of the environments of their speakers. In other words, you could have an ocean (certainly a prominent element) without having a word for it. If this were true, it would undermine the author’s conclusion that the P-I-E people were isolated from the sea just because their language contained no word for it. Maybe they just never bothered to get around to making up the word.

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