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

Loading demo links...

Showing 259–261 of 430 questions

Question 259

So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid form, consist of protein that is distilled from natural sources and supplemented with vitamins and minerals. Although the amino acids contained in such products stimulate the production of growth hormones, these hormones produce growth in connective tissue rather than in muscle mass; this does not improve muscle strength. Hence, athletes, who need to improve their muscular strength, should not consume engineered foods.

The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
An increase in muscle mass produces an increase in strength.
○
People who are not athletes require neither stronger connective tissue nor muscle strength.
○
If an engineered food does not improve muscle strength, there is no other substantial advantage to athletes from consuming it.
○
Consuming engineered foods that provide nutrients that can be obtained more easily elsewhere is unhealthy.
○
Growth of muscle mass enhances muscle strength only when accompanied by growth of connective tissue.

Reference / correct answer:

If an engineered food does not improve muscle strength, there is no other substantial advantage to athletes from consuming it.

Here’s another assumption question, so let’s zero in on the components of the argument. The last sentence (signaled by the Keyword “Hence”) contains the conclusion: Athletes looking to improve muscle strength should not consume engineered foods. The first sentence is largely irrelevant to this conclusion, but the muscle issue comes up in the second sentence, where we learn that the amino acids in engineered foods stimulate growth hormones, which causes growth of connective tissue but not muscle mass. The argument seems to make sense if increasing muscle mass is the only possible benefit from engineered foods – but what if there are other benefits? Wouldn’t it then be reasonable to infer that even athletes who are interested in increasing muscle still might benefit from these foods, and should consider consuming them? This alternative possibility would wreak havoc with the argument, so the author must be assuming that outside of increasing muscle strength, consuming engineered foods confers no benefits at all to athletes.

Question 260

Some types of organisms originated through endosymbiosis, the engulfing of one organism by another so that a part of the former becomes a functioning part of the latter. An unusual nucteomorph, a structure that contains DNA and resembles a cell nucleus, has been discovered within a plant known as a chlorarachniophyte. Two versions of a particular gene have been found in the DNA of this nucleomorph, and one would expect to find only a single version of this gene if the nucleomorph were not the remains of an engulfed organism's nucleus.

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

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
Only organisms of types that originated through endosymbiosis contain nucleomorphs.
○
A nucleomorph within the chlorarachniophyte holds all of the genetic material of some other organism.
○
Nucleomorphs originated when an organism endosymbiotically engulfed a chtorarachniophyte.
○
Two organisms will not undergo endosymbiosisunless at least one of them contains a nucleomorph.
○
Chlorarachniophytes emerged as the result of two organisms having undergone endosymbiosis.

Reference / correct answer:

Chlorarachniophytes emerged as the result of two organisms having undergone endosymbiosis.

This next Inference question involves a scientifically challenging argument. But buried amidst the technical terms is some fairly straightforward formal logic, so hopefully

you didn’t let yourself get bogged down in the terminology. Endo (no reason not to shorten this) is a process by which one organism engulfs another and the engulfed organism becomes a functioning part of the whole. Something strange that looks like a cell nucleus (let’s shorten its cumber somename to nuc) has been found inside a plant (chlor); can you see where this is going? Perhaps endosymbiosis occurred here? What follows requires some interpretation (and that’s, after all, what Inference questions are all about – interpreting and combining): If the nuc was NOT originally part of an organism that got engulfed, then we’d expect one version of a particular gene in its DNA. That’s a simple formal logic statement, albeit one with complicated terms. Nonetheless, the contrapositive applies: If there’s NOT one version of the gene, then the nuc WAS part of something that got engulfed. And we’re told, in fact, that there are TWO versions of the gene, so we know for sure that engulfing took place.

Question 261

Reviewer: Although finalism – the view that there are purposes in nature – has been universally rejected, this book launches another attack on that view. Its arguments are based on a complete misunderstanding of the operation of pure chance in nature and so it fails as a critique of finalism. Finalism, therefore, is clearly more plausible than people have thought.

Which one of the following is most closely parallel in its flawed reasoning to the flawed reasoning in the reviewer's argument?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
No literary historian still believes the claim that a single author wrote every word of this collection of works. Evidence on which that claim is based can be shown to be false by manuscript dating techniques, but these dating results have not been cited before. Therefore, it is quite likely that a single author did write every word of this collection of works.
○
Few botanists deny that a recently discovered fernis the same species represented in ancient fossils. The botanists who first discovered this specimen deny that it is the same species as the ancient one, but they have spent little time studying the specimen. Therefore, the specimen is likely to be the same species represented in the ancient fossils.
○
Bicycle engineers no longer believe that aluminum is as good a frame material as titanium. An engineer at Ace Bicycles has argued that aluminum is not as good as titanium because it breaks under pressure. But he is confused about the kind of pressure exerted on bicycles. Therefore, the claim that aluminum is as good a frame material as titanium makes more sense than bicycle engineers believe.
○
Experts agree that red wines from France's Bordeaux region are the best in the world, and five are on this year's list of the world's top ten red wines. However, the best currently available Bordeaux wines are more than one-year-old, whereas other countries' best are not. Therefore, it is false that Bordeaux red wines are the best in the world this year.
○
Sociologists agree that the psychological development of children may be impaired by watching too much television, though researchers argued recently that the quality of the parent-child relationship is more developmentally significant than television viewing. These researchers did not consider the long-term impact of television on children, so it is quite likely that the psychological development of children is impaired by watching too much television.

Reference / correct answer:

Bicycle engineers no longer believe that aluminum is as good a frame material as titanium. An engineer at Ace Bicycles has argued that aluminum is not as good as titanium because it breaks under pressure. But he is confused about the kind of pressure exerted on bicycles. Therefore, the claim that aluminum is as good a frame material as titanium makes more sense than bicycle engineers believe.

Considering the sheer length of this Parallel Reasoning question, we have to believe that there are some shortcuts possible; after all, there’s simply no time to slog through every word here. And indeed, the Training strategies cut it down to size. First, compare conclusions: The original conclusion, signaled by the trusty Keyword “therefore,” is that finalism must be “more plausible” than previously thought. Scanning the choices, we see that four of them match this structure well enough, but option [Experts agree that red wines from…]. concludes that something “is false” and can be cut for that reason alone. In fact, the phrase “Therefore it is false” is all you need to read of option [Experts agree that red wines from….. Similarly, the evidence in the original begins with a view that has been “universally rejected.” That’s a totally unqualified statement that’s not matched by option [Few botanists deny that a recently discovered…]’s “Few…deny” or option [Sociologists agree that the psychological development of…]’s notion that sociologists agree that something maybe the case.

← Prev 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 Next →

Page 87 of 144

Sale Ends In

2h 0m 0s