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

Question 286

Most people who shop for groceries no more than three times a month buy prepared frozen dinners regularly. In Hallstown most people shop for groceries no more than three times a month. Therefore, in Hallstown most people buy prepared frozen dinners regularly.

Which one of the following arguments has a flawed pattern of reasoning most like the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
It is clear that most drivers in West Island are safe drivers since there are very few driving accidents in West Island and most accidents there are not serious.
○
It is clear that John cannot drive, since he does not own a car and no one in his family who does not own a car can drive.
○
It is clear that Fernando's friends usually drive to school, since all of his friends can drive and all of his friends go to school.
○
It is clear that most people in Highland County drive sedans, since most people who commute to work drive sedans and most people in Highland County commute to work.
○
It is clear that most of Janine's friends are good drivers, since she accepts rides only from good drivers and she accepts rides from most of her friends

Reference / correct answer:

It is clear that most people in Highland County drive sedans, since most people who commute to work drive sedans and most people in Highland County commute to work.

We’ve already seen a standard Parallel Reasoning question, so not surprisingly we come upon the “mimic the logical flaw” variety, and the same drill applies: Compare conclusions to narrow the choices down, and then look further. The conclusion is fairly obviously signaled by the ubiquitous Keyword “Therefore,” and let’s restate it in general terms: In a certain place, most people do X (buy prepared frozen dinners regularly). Happily, all of the wrong choices fall on this count alone; that is, they all fail to mimic this simple structure in their conclusions. Options [It is clear that most drivers in West Island are safe…], [It is clear that Fernando's friends usually drive to…] and [It is clear that most of Janine's friends are good drivers, since…] all conclude something about a certain type of person instead of the more general “most people” in a certain place: Option [It is clear that most drivers in West Island are safe…] concludes something about most drivers; Option [It is clear that Fernando's friends usually drive to…] about Fernando’s friends; and option [It is clear that most of Janine's friends are good drivers, since…] is about most of Janine’s friends. Option [It is clear that John cannot drive, since he…] concludes something about a specific person, John, which is even further away from “most people do X.”

Question 287

Editorial: This political party has repeatedly expressed the view that increasing spending on education is a worthy goal. On other occasions, however, the same party has claimed that the government should not increase spending on education. So this party's policy is clearly inconsistent.

The argument in the editorial depends on assuming which one of the following?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
It is inconsistent for a legislator both to claim that increasing spending on education is a worthy goal and to vote against increasing spending on education.
○
A consistent course of action in educational policy is usually the course of action that will reduce spending on education in the long run.
○
Even if a goal is a morally good one, one should not necessarily try to achieve it.
○
A consistent political policy does not hold that an action that comprises a worthy goal should not be performed.
○
Members of one political party never have inconsistent views on how to best approach apolitical issue.

Reference / correct answer:

A consistent political policy does not hold that an action that comprises a worthy goal should not be performed.

Another Assumption question to chew on, and not surprisingly, there’s a scope shift that needs to be cleared up before the conclusion that the party’s policy is inconsistent is viable. Why the inconsistency, according to the editorialist? Because the party has said that increasing spending on education is a good thing, yet at other times has claimed that the government shouldn’t increase education spending. But noting the worthiness of a cause and suggesting it be acted upon are two different things; it’s possible that despite thinking that the cause is worthy, other considerations cause the party to claim the government shouldn’t do anything about it. In order for these positions to be truly inconsistent, as the editorialist contends, we need a more precise definition of inconsistency that shows these two positions to be mutually exclusive. Option [A consistent political policy does not hold that…] accomplishes this, by implying that a political policy is not consistent if it holds that a worthy action should not be done.

The editorialist doesn’t actually say this, but must assume this is the case in order for the conclusion to stand. If you weren’t able to prephrase this answer, don’t fret – this was a tough one. But hopefully you saw the merits of option [A consistent political policy does not hold that…]. when you got to it, or even confirmed it using the Denial Test (see second bullet point below).

Question 288

Science journalist: Brown dwarfs are celestial objects with more mass than planets but less mass than stars. They are identified by their mass and whether or not lithium is present in their atmospheres. Stars at least as massive as the Sun have lithium remaining in their atmospheres because the mixing of elements in their internal nuclear furnaces is incomplete. Stars with less mass than the Sun have no lithium because the element has been fully mixed into their nuclear furnaces and consumed. A brown dwarf does not have a fully functional nuclear furnace and so its lithium cannot be consumed.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the science journalist's statements?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
Any celestial object without lithium in its atmosphere is a star with less mass than the Sun.
○
Any celestial object with lithium in its atmosphere has a nuclear furnace that has incompletely mixed the object's elements.
○
No celestial object that has no lithium in its atmosphere is a brown dwarf.
○
No celestial object with lithium in its atmosphere has less mass than the Sun.
○
No celestial object less massive than a brown dwarf has lithium in its atmosphere.

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