LSAT-Test – Law School Admission Test: Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension, Analytical Reasoning

Loading demo links...

Showing 19–20 of 20 questions

Question 19 (Logical Reasoning)

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 20 (Logical Reasoning)

Joseph: My encyclopedia says that the mathematician Pierre de Fermat died in 1665 without leaving behind any written proof for a theorem that he claimed nonetheless to have proved. Probably this alleged theorem simply cannot be proved, since – as the article points out – no one else has been able to prove it. Therefore, it is likely that Fermat was either lying or else mistaken when he made his claim.

Laura: Your encyclopedia is out of date. Recently someone has in fact proved Fermat's theorem. And since the theorem is provable, your claim – that Fermat was lying or mistaken – clearly is wrong.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a reasoning error in Laura's argument?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
It purports to establish its conclusion by making a claim that, if true, would actually contradict that conclusion.
○
It mistakenly assumes that the quality of a person's character can legitimately be taken to guarantee the accuracy of the claims that person has made.
○
It mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion to follow for something that ensures that the conclusion follows.
○
It uses the term "provable" without defining it.
○
It fails to distinguish between a true claim that has mistakenly been believed to be false and a false claim that has mistakenly been believed to be true.

← Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next →

Page 7 of 7

Sale Ends In

2h 0m 0s