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

Question 145

Parent: I had tried without success to get my young child to brush her teeth. I had hoped that she would imitate me, or that she would be persuaded by reason to brush her teeth. Then, I made a point of brushing her teeth for her immediately before reading her a story before her naps and at night. After several weeks, when I would pick up a storybook at these times, she began automatically to retrieve her toothbrush and brush her teeth herself.

The parent's experience with the child most closely conforms to which one of the following generalizations?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
Children are most effectively taught to do something by someone's setting an example.
○
Children more readily adopt a behavior through habit and repetition than through other means.
○
Children are too young to understand rational arguments for adopting a behavior.
○
Children often imitate the behavior of others rather than listening to reason.
○
Children ordinarily act contrary to their parents' expectations in order to get more attention.

Question 146

The student body at this university takes courses in a wide range of disciplines. Miriam is a student at this university, so she takes courses in a wide range of disciplines.

Which one of the following arguments exhibits flawed reasoning most similar to that exhibited by the argument above?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
The students at this school take mathematics. Miguel is a student at this school, so he takes mathematics.
○
The editorial board of this law journal has written on many legal issues. Louise is on the editorial; board, so she has written on many legal issues.
○
The component parts of bulldozers are heavy. This machine is a bulldozer, so it is heavy.
○
All older automobiles need frequent oil changes. This car is new, so its oil need not be changed as frequently.
○
The individual cells of the brain are incapable of thinking. Therefore, the brain as a whole is incapable of thinking.

Question 147

Opponent of offshore oil drilling: The projected benefits of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster. The oil already being extracted from these areas currently provides only 4 percent of our country's daily oil requirement, and the new wells would only add one-half of 1 percent.

Proponent of offshore oil drilling: Don't be ridiculous! You might just as well argue that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for more than a few minutes.

The drilling proponent's reply to the drilling opponent proceeds by

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
offering evidence in support of drilling that is more decisive than is the evidence offered by the drilling opponent
○
claiming that the statistics cited as evidence by the drilling opponent are factually inaccurate
○
pointing out that the drilling opponent's argument is a misapplication of a frequently legitimate way of arguing
○
citing as parallel to the argument made by the drilling opponent an argument in which the conclusion is strikingly unsupported
○
proposing a conclusion that is more strongly supported by the drilling opponent's evidence than is the conclusion offered by the drilling opponent

Reference / correct answer:

citing as parallel to the argument made by the drilling opponent an argument in which the conclusion is strikingly unsupported

“Don’t be ridiculous!” begins the proponent’s reply to the opponent – no punches pulled here. The opponent of offshore oil drilling argues that drilling in certain areas is not worth the risk; these areas contribute only a small amount of oil overall to the country, and new wells there would contribute only a small percentage of that. Obviously, the proponent doesn’t agree that the new wells shouldn’t be drilled simply because they will add very little to the country’s oil supply. If that reasoning held, he argues, we wouldn’t allow new farms, because no one farm is capable of feeding the entire country for long. The farm example is meant to sound ridiculous, and by extension imply that the opponent’s reasoning regarding the new wells is ridiculous as well. Option [citing as parallel to the argument made by…] describes this method: The farm example is provided as a parallel argument, the implausibility of which is meant to highlight the “ridiculous” nature of the opponent’s argument.

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