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

Question 172

Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue shortfall of a billion dollars in the coming fiscal year. Since there is no feasible way to increase the available funds, our only choice is to decrease expenditures. The plan before you outlines feasible cuts that would yield savings of a billion dollars over the coming fiscal year. We will be able to solve the problem we face, therefore, only if we adopt this plan.

The reasoning in the commissioner's argument is flawed because this argument

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
relies on information that is far from certain
○
confuses being an adequate solution with being a required solution
○
inappropriately relies on the opinions of experts
○
inappropriately employs language that is vague
○
takes for granted that there is no way to increase available funds

Reference / correct answer:

confuses being an adequate solution with being a required solution

We’re looking for a flaw, and it’s quite possible you sensed that the commissioner goes a little too far in her conclusion. Some organization or institution (we’re not told who the poor saps are) is short a whopping billion dollars (so that’s where all the petty cash went...). Funds cannot be increased, so the only way is to decrease outlays. Fair enough so far. Then a plan is introduced that will save, lo and behold, a billion dollars over the next year (no more free coffee in the company cafeteria?). So the problem can be solved ONLY if this plan is adopted. And there’s where the commish overreaches. Just because this plan will save the billion, what evidence is provided that it is the only way to do so? Perhaps itis, but the commissioner gives no evidence to that effect, which she must do if she is going to claim that this is the ONLY way to solve the problem. Option [confuses being an adequate…] fancies this up a little, but says the same thing: The plan may be adequate, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s required – that is, that nothing else could do the trick.

Question 173

Critic: Emily Dickinson's poetry demonstrates that meaning cannot reside entirely within a poem itself, but is always the unique result of an interaction between a reader's system of beliefs and the poem; and, of course, any two readers from different cultures or eras have radically different systems of beliefs.

If the critic's statements are true, each of the following could be true EXCEPT:

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
A reader's interpretation of a poem by Dickinson is affected by someone else's interpretation of it.
○
A modern reader and a nineteenth-century reader interpret one of Shakespeare's sonnets in the same way.
○
A reader's interpretation of a poem evolves overtime.
○
Two readers from the same era arrive at different interpretations of the same poem.
○
A reader's enjoyment of a poem is enhanced by knowing the poet's interpretation of it.

Question 174

Archaeologist: The fact that the ancient Egyptians and the Maya both built pyramids is often taken as evidence of a historical link between Old- and New-World civilizations that is earlier than any yet documented. But while these buildings are similar to each other, there are important differences in both design and function. The Egyptian pyramids were exclusively tombs for rulers, whereas the Mayan pyramids were used as temples. This shows conclusively that there was no such link between Old- and New-World civilizations.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the archaeologist's argument?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
The argument equivocates with respect to the term "evidence."
○
The argument appeals to emotion rather than to reason.
○
The argument assumes the conclusion it is trying to prove.
○
The argument incorrectly relies on words whose meanings are vague or imprecise.
○
The argument presumes that no other evidence is relevant to the issue at hand.

Reference / correct answer:

The argument presumes that no other evidence is relevant to the issue at hand.

Another flaw question, so keep your eyes peeled for where the logic goes astray. You can’t get a clearer signal of an author’s conclusion than the phrase “This shows conclusively that . . .” So the author thinks there’s definitely no link between Old- and New-World civilizations simply because some evidence that’s used to demonstrate a possible link is not perfect. Sure, says the archaeologist, the Mayans and Egyptians both built pyramids, but there are certain differences between them in design and function. Therefore, no link between Old and New. Well, this could, we suppose, support the notion that the Egyptians and Mayans weren’t linked, but not too well – perhaps the Mayans somehow learned pyramid building from the Egyptians but incorporated their own look and functionality to suit their culture. More info is needed even to prove conclusively that there was no link between these two civilizations. Yet the author even goes one step further, concluding based on this specific Egyptian-Mayan example that no Old-World/New-World link exists at all. The evidence provided is simply too paltry for this definitive pronouncement in the final sentence. Option [The argument presumes that no other…] is a fancy way of saying this. The author mistakenly assumes no other evidence is needed.

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