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

Question 277

City council member: Despite the city's desperate need to exploit any available source of revenue, the mayor has repeatedly blocked council members' attempts to pass legislation imposing real estate development fees. It is clear that in doing so the mayor is sacrificing the city's interests to personal interests. The mayor cites figures to show that, in the current market, fees of the size proposed would significantly reduce the number of building starts and thus, on balance, result in a revenue loss to the city. But the important point is that the mayor's family is heavily involved in real estate development and thus has a strong financial interest in the matter.

Which one of the following most accurately and completely expresses the main conclusion of the city council member's argument?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
Imposing real estate development fees is the best way for the city to exploit the available sources of revenue.
○
The city would benefit financially from the passage of legislation imposing real estate development fees.
○
In blocking council members' attempts to impose real estate development fees, the mayor is sacrificing the city's interests to personal interests.
○
Significantly reducing the number of building starts would not, on balance, result in revenue loss to the city.
○
The mayor's family has a strong financial interest in preventing the passage of legislation that would impose real estate development fees

Reference / correct answer:

In blocking council members' attempts to impose real estate development fees, the mayor is sacrificing the city's interests to personal interests.

One argument, two questions. First we need to find the main point. The city seems eager for money, but the mayor won’t allow legislation imposing fees for real estate. Think ahead! If that’s the conclusion, the rest of the argument will be structured to provide evidence that the city wants money but the mayor’s blocking said legislation. Is that what we get? Nope; the council member proceeds from there to a new point, and the conclusion Keyword phrase “it is clear that” is a strong clue that what’s coming up is at least part of the main point. The council member accuses the mayor of putting his own interests above the city’s. The next sentence contains the mayor’s rationale for blocking the legislation, but the council member blows right past that, stating that the most important point is that the mayor’s family is in the real estate biz and therefore has a financial interest in this matter. Can this last fact stand by itself; that is, can it satisfy the Training One Sentence Test? No; don’t be fooled by the phrase “the most important point”; surely the council member didn’t speak up merely to point out the mayor’s family business and its interest in the matter. This last point relates back to the assertion that by blocking the legislation and not allowing fees on real estate development, the mayor is sacrificing the city’s welfare in favor of his own (which, incidentally, allows us to kill option [The mayor's family has a strong financial interest in…]). All the statements point in this direction, and a quick scan for this yields option [In blocking council members' attempts to…].

Question 278

City council member: Despite the city's desperate need to exploit any available source of revenue, the mayor has repeatedly blocked council members' attempts to pass legislation imposing real estate development fees. It is clear that in doing so the mayor is sacrificing the city's interests to personal interests. The mayor cites figures to show that, in the current market, fees of the size proposed would significantly reduce the number of building starts and thus, on balance, result in a revenue loss to the city. But the important point is that the mayor's family is heavily involved in real estate development and thus has a strong financial interest in the matter.

The reasoning in the city council member's argument is flawed because

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
the issue of the mayor's personal interest in the proposed legislation is irrelevant to any assessment of the mayor's action with respect to that legislation
○
the mayor's course of action being personally advantageous is not inconsistent with the mayor's action being advantageous for the city
○
the council member's own absence of personal interest in the proposed legislation has not been established
○
that a person or a municipality has a need for something does not, in itself, establish that that person or that municipality has a right to that thing
○
the possibility remains open that the mayor's need to avoid loss of family revenue is as desperate as the city's need to increase municipal revenue

Reference / correct answer:

the mayor's course of action being personally advantageous is not inconsistent with the mayor's action being advantageous for the city

Now that we’ve nailed down exactly what the council member said, let’s now see what’s wrong with it. As you recall, the mayor offers a rationale for his refusal to sign the legislation imposing real estate development fees. The council member begins her response with “But…”, and we’d expect her to counter the mayor’s figures in some way, or at least attempt to show that he’s skewing the interpretation of same. Instead, she gives information about the mayor’s family meant to suggest his self-interest alluded to earlier. But what about the mayor’s evidence? She simply ignores it, citing his family’s financial interests as the most important consideration in condemning the mayor’s actions. But if his figures are correct and the city will actually lose money if the fees are imposed (a fact the council member doesn’t contest), why is she so worried about his private concerns? If what’s good for his family also happens to be good for the city, then how can the council member argue that the mayor is after his own benefit at the expense of the city? Maybe he is out for himself, but it doesn’t seem to be at the city’s expense, so there’s no inconsistency here, as the council member suggests.

Question 279

Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature due to global warming eventually result in declines in fish and seabird populations. A rise of just two degrees prevents the vertical mixing of seawater from different strata. This restricts the availability of upwelling nutrients to phytoplankton. Since zooplankton, which feed upon phytoplankton, feed the rest of the food chain, the declines are inevitable.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the statement that zooplankton feed upon phytoplankton?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
It is a hypothesis supported by the fact that phytoplankton feed on upwelling nutrients.
○
It is intended to provide an example of the ways in which the vertical mixing of seawater affects feeding habits.
○
It helps show how global temperature changes affect larger sea animals indirectly.
○
It is offered as one reason that global warming must be curtailed.
○
It is offered in support of the idea that global warming poses a threat to all organisms

Reference / correct answer:

It helps show how global temperature changes affect larger sea animals indirectly.

Next up is a Role of a Statement question, so categorizing the argument’s components is paramount here. Let’s shorten the terms to zoo and phyto for easier handling. The phrase in question is preceded immediately by “Since,” which tells us right off the bat that we’re probably dealing with some form of evidence. The conclusion that follows is that “the declines are inevitable,” and this refers to declines of fish and seabird populations mentioned earlier. So you should at least get a sense that zoo feeding on phyto in some way plays a key part in the process that inevitably leads to the decline. Scanning the choices for something that recognizes this phrase as support or evidence for a larger point narrows the choices down to [It helps show how global temperature…]. and [It is offered in support of the idea that…] and option [It helps show how global temperature…] hits the nail on the head: The global temperature changes affect phyto; zoo feed on phyto and the rest of the food chain feed on zoo. So zoo feeding on phyto is the mechanism that comes between global temperature changes and the decline of the larger fish and seabird populations.

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