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

Question 241

David: Forbidding companies from hiring permanent replacements for striking employees would be profoundly unfair. Such companies would have little leverage in their negotiations with strikers.

Lin: No, the companies would still have sufficient leverage in negotiations if they hired temporary replacements.

Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by the exchange between David and Lin?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
David does not believe that the freedom to hire temporary replacements gives companies any leverage in their negotiations with strikers.
○
David and Lin believe that companies should be allowed as much leverage in negotiations as the striking employees.
○
David and Lin disagree over the amount of leverage companies lose in their negotiations with strikers by not being able to hire permanent replacements.
○
David and Lin disagree over how much leverage should be accorded companies in their negotiations with strikers.
○
Lin believes it is unfair to forbid companies from hiring permanent replacements for their striking employees.

Question 242

A favorable biography of a politician omits certain incriminating facts about the politician that were available to anyone when the book was written. The book's author claims that, because he was unaware of these facts when he wrote the book, he is not accountable for the fact that readers were misled by this omission. In a biographer, however, ignorance of this kind cannot be used to evade blame for misleading readers.

Which one of the following principles, if established, does most to justify the position advanced by the passage?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
An author of a biography should not be blamed for whether the book is perceived to be favorable or unfavorable by readers of the biography.
○
An author of a biography should be blamed for readers' misperceptions only when facts are omitted deliberately in order to mislead the readers.
○
An author of a biography should not be blamed for omitting facts if those facts would have supported the author's view,
○
An author of a biography should be blamed for misleading readers only if facts are omitted to which the author alone had access when the biography was written.
○
An author of a biography should be blamed for readers' misperceptions caused by omitting facts that were widely available when the biography was written.

expresses

Question 243

Logician: I have studied and thoroughly mastered the laws of logic. So to argue that I sometimes violate the laws of logic in ordinary conversation would be like arguing that some physicist circumvents the laws of physics in everyday life.

The reasoning in the logician's argument is questionable because this argument

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
ignores the fact that our conception of physical laws undergoes constant change
○
presents no evidence that physics is as difficult to master as logic
○
fails to rule out the possibility that some physicist could circumvent the laws of physics in everyday life
○
treats two kinds of things that differ in important respects as if they do not differ
○
has a conclusion that contradicts what is as sertedin its premise

Reference / correct answer:

treats two kinds of things that differ in important respects as if they do not differ

When we see “the logician’s argument is questionable because” in the question stem, we think “find the logical flaw.” And we have to admit the test makers are not without a sense of irony, beginning a Logical Flaw question with the phrase “Having mastered the laws of logic. . .” Hmm…evidently not. So, because he has supposedly mastered logic, the logician claims that for him to commit a logical flaw in conversation would be like a physicist violating the everyday laws of physics. This seems fairly silly on its face. Does the logician mean that because no physicist can simply float off into space, for example, he, a master logician, cannot make a logical mistake? We can see immediately that the two situations are not the same. Violating the laws of physics is by definition impossible, whereas the logician can easily violate the laws of logic by misspeaking. The laws of physics and the laws of logic differ in important respects. The laws of physics apply universally and cannot be violated; the so-called “laws” of logic are learned and therefore can be violated.

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