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

Loading demo links...

Showing 64–66 of 430 questions

Question 64

The price of a full-fare coach ticket from Toronto to Dallas on Breezeway Airlines is the same today as it was a year ago, if inflation is taken into account by calculating prices in constant dollars. However, today 90 percent of the Toronto-to-Dallas coach tickets that Breezeway sells are discount tickets and only 10 percent are full-fare tickets, whereas a year ago half were discount tickets and half were full-fare tickets. Therefore, on average, people pay less today in constant dollars for a Breezeway Toronto-to-Dallas coach ticket than they did a year ago.

Which one of the following, if assumed, would allow the conclusion above to be properly drawn?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
A Toronto-to-Dallas full-fare coach ticket on Breezeway Airlines provides ticket-holders with a lower level of service today than such a ticket provided a year ago.
○
A Toronto-to-Dallas discount coach ticket on Breezeway Airlines costs about the same amount in constant dollars today as it did a year ago.
○
All full-fare coach tickets on Breezeway Airlines cost the same in constant dollars as they did a year ago.
○
The average number of coach passengers per flight that Breezeway Airlines carries from Toronto to Dallas today is higher than the average number per flight a year ago.
○
The criteria that Breezeway Airlines uses for permitting passengers to buy discount coach tickets on the Toronto-to-Dallas route are different today than they were a year ago.

Reference / correct answer:

A Toronto-to-Dallas discount coach ticket on Breezeway Airlines costs about the same amount in constant dollars today as it did a year ago.

This is a tricky Assumption question. And it looks like we’re going to have to do a little math on this one. Let’s start with what we know. We know that the price of a full fare coach ticket from Toronto to Dallas is the same as last year. We also know that this year, 90 percent of Toronto to Dallas coach tickets are discount tickets, and 10 percent are full-fare tickets. This compares with last year’s breakdown of 50 percent discount tickets, and 50 percent full-fare tickets. Based on this evidence, the author concludes that on average, people are paying less for a coach ticket than a year ago. Well, what seems to be missing here? The price of a discount ticket. You have to know what the price of a discount ticket was last year, and what the price is this year, to make an effective comparison. Let’s put in some numbers to see why this is so. If the discount tickets were half the price of full fare tickets last year, and half the price this year, then you can see how the author’s conclusion would be valid: 90 percent of people would be getting half-off fares this year, as compared to only 50 percent getting half off fares a year ago. So, on average, passengers would be paying less this year. But what if last year the discount tickets were half off, and this year, the “discount” tickets are only 5 percent off? Now, even though most people are getting “discount” tickets, most people are still paying practically full fare, and the author’s conclusion that on average people are paying less would be invalid. So now let’s get back to the question. You had to find what the author was assuming for the conclusion to be valid. As we just saw, the author must be assuming that there isn’t a big difference between the cost of last year’s discount tickets and the cost of this year’s discount tickets. And that’s exactly what correct answer choice [A Toronto-to-Dallas discount coach ticket on Breezeway Airlines costs about the same amount in…] says.

Question 65

Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear power plants are entirely safe and hence that the public's fear of nuclear accidents at these plants is groundless. The government also contends that its recent action to limit the nuclear industry's financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents at power plants is justified by the need to protect the nuclear industry from the threat of bankruptcy. But even the government says that unlimited liability poses such a threat only if injury claims can be sustained against the industry; and the government admits that for such claims to be sustained, injury must result from a nuclear accident. The public's fear, therefore, is well

founded.

If all of the statements offered in support of the editorial's conclusion correctly describe the government's position, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of those statements?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
The government's claim about the safety of the country's nuclear power plants is false.
○
The government's position on nuclear power plants is inconsistent.
○
The government misrepresented its reasons for acting to limit the nuclear industry's liability.
○
Unlimited financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents poses no threat to the financial security of the country's nuclear industry.
○
The only serious threat posed by a nuclear accident would be to the financial security of the nuclear industry.

Reference / correct answer:

The government's position on nuclear power plants is inconsistent.

We’re to accept that the government’s position is accurately portrayed, and need to infer what must be true on the basis of that portrayal. While it’s usually difficult to prephrase answers to Inference questions, perhaps a general sense of contradiction jumped out at you? After all, the government does appear to be speaking out of both sides of its PR office. On the one hand we have assurances to the public that nuclear power is perfectly safe. At the same time, however, the government is taking an action that seems to be necessary only if injury claims resulting from a nuclear accident can be sustained. If there’s really no danger of injury, then such claims can’t be sustained, and no limits to the industry’s financial liability in case of accidents would be necessary. But the government has acted to protect the industry. Evidently, the government’s pronouncements to the public regarding the safety of the plants doesn’t match its own beliefs underlying its action to limit the nuclear industry’s financial liability. Something doesn’t jibe here. As option [The government's position on] puts it, the government’s position on nuclear power plants (specifically relating to the safety issue) is inconsistent.

Question 66

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the editorial's argumentation?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
If the government claims that something is unsafe then, in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that thing should be assumed to be unsafe.
○
Fear that a certain kind of event will occur is well founded if those who have control over the occurrence of events of that kind stand to benefit financially from such an occurrence.
○
If a potentially dangerous thing is safe only because the financial security of those responsible for its operation depends on its being safe, then eliminating that dependence is not in the best interests of the public.
○
The government sometimes makes unsupported claims about what situations will arise, but it does not act to prevent a certain kind of situation from arising unless there is a real danger that such a situation will arise.
○
If a real financial threat to a major industry exists, then government action to limit that threat is justified.

Reference / correct answer:

The government sometimes makes unsupported claims about what situations will arise, but it does not act to prevent a certain kind of situation from arising unless there is a real danger that such a situation will arise.

Now we need a principle that justifies the editorial’s position. Remember, the editorial concludes that the danger of a nuclear accident is real, based on the government’s protection of the nuclear industry. But on the other hand, the government also says that there’s no danger of a nuclear accident. A principle that would help this argument would explain away this contradiction while preserving the “bankruptcy” argument made in the last half of the stimulus. That’s what option [The government sometimes makes unsupported claims about…]. does. Option [The government sometimes makes unsupported claims about…] addresses the government claim in the first sentence of the stimulus, but then goes on to identify what’s really important. Sure, the government sometimes talks nonsense, but here’s what you can count on: the government doesn’t take preventative steps unless there’s a real risk. Here, the government has taken preventative steps, since they’ve limited the liability of the nuclear industry, and so, given the principle in option [The government sometimes makes unsupported claims about…], we would be able to infer that there is a real danger, and so the public’s fears would be well-founded. So this option supports the argument.

← Prev 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next →

Page 22 of 144

Sale Ends In

2h 0m 0s