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

Loading demo links...

Showing 232–234 of 430 questions

Question 232

Not all works of art represent something, but some do, and their doing so is relevant to our aesthetic experience of them; representation is therefore an aesthetically relevant property. Whether a work of art possesses this property is dependent upon context. Yet there are no clear criteria for determining whether context-dependent properties are present in an object, so there cannot be any clear criteria for determining whether an object qualifies as art.

The reasoning above is questionable because it fails to exclude the possibility that

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
because some works of art are nonrepresentational, there is no way of judging our aesthetic experience of them
○
an object may have some aesthetic properties and not be a work of art
○
aesthetically relevant properties other than representation can determine whether an object is a work of art
○
some works of art may have properties that are not relevant to our aesthetic experience of them
○
some objects that represent things other than themselves are not works of art

Question 233

If the flowers Drew received today had been sent by someone who knows Drew well, that person would have known that Drew prefers violets to roses. Yet Drew received roses. On the other hand, if the flowers had been sent by someone who does not know Drew well, then that person would have sent a signed card with the flowers. Yet Drew received no card. Therefore, the florist must have made some sort of mistake: either Drew was supposed to receive violets, or a card, or these flowers were intended for someone else.

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

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
Most people send roses when they send flowers.
○
Some people send flowers for a reason other than the desire to please.
breaks down this central assumption and thus weakens the argument, allowing for the possibility that someone who knows Drew well may indeed be the mysterious sender.
○
Someone who does not know Drew well would be unlikely to send Drew flowers.
○
The florist has never delivered the wrong flowers to Drew before.
○
Some people who know Drew well have sent Drew cards along with flowers.

Reference / correct answer:

Some people send flowers for a reason other than the desire to please.
breaks down this central assumption and thus weakens the argument, allowing for the possibility that someone who knows Drew well may indeed be the mysterious sender.

This is yet another Weaken the Argument question. The conclusion, set off by the word “therefore,” is that the florist made a mistake – Drew was supposed to receive violets, or a card, or the flowers were for someone else. The evidence involves two conditions: Someone who knows Drew well would know that he prefers violets, and a person who doesn’t know Drew well would have sent a card. According to the author, neither of these conditions is met: Drew got roses and no card. Well, we can’t argue with the second condition; it’s a simple formal logic statement to which we can apply the contrapositive: If a relative stranger sent the flowers, then there would be a card. If no card, then no stranger. So far so good. But what about the first condition? Did you notice the subtle scope shift? Someone well acquainted with Drew would know Drew prefers violets, but Drew actually received roses. But what one prefers and what one receives need not be the same thing; the author assumes that Drew’s friends will always get him the flowers he prefers.

B. breaks down this central assumption and thus weakens the argument, allowing for the possibility that someone who knows Drew well may indeed be the mysterious sender.

Question 234

One of the most vexing problems in historiography is dating an event when the usual sources offer conflicting chronologies of the event. Historians should attempt to minimize the number of competing sources, perhaps by eliminating the less credible ones. Once this is achieved and several sources are left, as often happens, historians may try, though on occasion unsuccessfully, to determine independently of the usual sources which date is more likely to be right.

Which one of the following inferences is most strongly supported by the information above?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
We have no plausible chronology of most of the events for which attempts have been made by historians to determine the right date.
○
Some of the events for which there are conflicting chronologies and for which attempts have been made by historians to determine the right date cannot be dated reliably by historians.
○
Attaching a reliable date to any event requires determining which of several conflicting chronologies is most likely to be true.
○
Determining independently of the usual sources which of several conflicting chronologies is more likely to be right is an ineffective way of dating events.
○
The soundest approach to dating an event for which the usual sources give conflicting chronologies is to undermine the credibility of as many of these sources as possible.

← Prev 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 Next →

Page 78 of 144

Sale Ends In

2h 0m 0s