LSAT Logical Reasoning.pdf

LSAT Logical Reasoning – Practice Questions Question 1 If all beaches were publicly owned, we would have to rely on government funds to maintain them. It is true that more people would have access to the ocean and beaches, but at what cost? If the beaches are not cared for adequately, soon there will be nothing left worth having access to. We should consider carefully before nationalizing more coastal property. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above? 1. The public public does does not want want additiona additionall access access to beache beaches. s. 2. The gove governmen rnmentt is currently currently responsib responsible le for the maintenanc maintenance e of all public and private beaches. 3. The public public already already has has some some access access to many many beaches. beaches. 4. Other propert property y has been been nationaliz nationalized ed in the past past with no complai complaints nts from the the original owners of the property. 5. Some private privately ly owned owned beaches beaches are are not well well maintaine maintained. d.

Kaplan Test Prep and Admissions – European Head Office 3-5 Charing Cross Road, London WC2H 0HA + 44 (0) 20 7930 3130 | www.kaptestglobal.com www.kaptestglobal.com | | [email protected]

© Copyright Kaplan Test Prep and Admi ssions 2016 20 16

Answers and Explanations B The evidence is that, while nationalizing will allow more people more access to beaches, it could also lead to WORSE beaches. The author points out that access to beaches is only good if the beaches themselves are cared for adequately and are therefore desirable. The author's conclusion is the last sentence: We should consider carefully before nationalizing more coastal property. So, the author believes we have reason to be concerned that the beaches won't be t aken care of as well as when they were privately owned, but nowhere is this claim supported; it is assumed. So the answer choice must deny the central assumption and imply that the government would do a good job taking care of beaches. Choice two does what we want by saying that private beaches are cared for by the government. So, if the government were to nationalize those beaches, nothing changes: It should take on no new maintenance obligations, and we have little additional cause for concern about dirty beaches.

Question 2 A recent university study indicates that students who receive full scholarships tend to maintain higher grade point averages than do students who must take out loans or work to finance school. The survey concluded that scholarships enable students to achieve high grade point averages by alleviating the stress related to financial concerns and freeing up students' time to study more. The conclusion drawn in the argument above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed? 1. Students who take out loans maintain higher grade point averages than those who work to finance school. 2. Finance-related stress affects student performance in a manner similar to that of restricted study time. 3. Students who must work to pay for their studies cannot maintain high grade point averages. 4. High grade point averages were not the primary criterion upon which the scholarship awards were based. 5. Controlling stress level is less important to student performance than is intensive studying. Kaplan Test Prep and Admissions – European Head Office 3-5 Charing Cross Road, London WC2H 0HA + 44 (0) 20 7930 3130 | www.kaptestglobal.com | [email protected]

© Copyright Kaplan Test Prep and Admi ssions 2016

Answers and Explanations D We're searching for a necessary assumption upon which the conclusion logically depends. First identify the evidence and conclusion. The assumption is required to bridge the gap between them. The evidence consists of a study indicating that students on full scholarships maintain higher GPAs than do students that work or take out loans. From this evidence, the study concluded that the scholarships enable those students to earn higher GPAs by alleviating financial stress and freeing up the students' time. The evidence links scholarships and higher GPAs, but the conclusion jumps into the realm of cause and effect—a common LSAT shift in scope. The author assumes that the only possible reason for the association is the causal mechanism cited in the conclusion and the correct answer will very likely bolster this notion by eliminating an alternative explanation. Choice (D) hits on the right issue: The argument won't work if there's another reason for the correlation cited in the evidence. If high GPAs are the primary criterion for the scholarships in the first place, then it's not surprising that scholarship holders tend to earn higher GPAs than others. The students must generally be of otherwise equal ability before the conclusion can be safely drawn. (D) eliminates a very plausible alternative explanation for the correlation cited in the first sentence, and this is the assumption on which the conclusion depends.

Kaplan Test Prep and Admissions – European Head Office 3-5 Charing Cross Road, London WC2H 0HA + 44 (0) 20 7930 3130 | www.kaptestglobal.com | [email protected]


Question 3 Plant Y thrives in environments of great sunlight and very little moisture. Desert X is an environment with constant, powerful sunlight, and next to no moisture. Although Plant Y thrives in the areas surrounding Desert X, it does not exist naturally in the desert, nor does it survive long when introduced there. Which of the following would be most useful in explaining the apparent discrepancy above? 1. Desert X's climate is far too harsh for the animals that normally feed on Plant Y. 2. For one week in the fall, Desert X gets consistent rainfall. 3. The environment around Desert X is ideally suited to the needs of Plant Y. 4. Due to the lack of sufficient moisture, Desert X can support almost no plant life. 5. Plant Y cannot survive in temperatures as high as those normally found in Desert X.

Answers and Explanations E The best explanation is, as the fifth choice says, that it's the high temperatures Y can't handle. If the information in choice E were true, you would actually expect Y not to grow in Desert X. Choice A doesn't work because we're not given any reason to think the plant needs animals to feed on it in order to survive. Choice B. is out because one week of consistent rainfall hardly explains why Y isn't in Desert X. Is that too much, too little, or just right? We don't know. The fact that it can easily grow elsewhere doesn't answer the question of why it doesn't grow in Desert X; we already knew that and so it doesn't resolve the paradox. Choice D is wrong because the ability of other plants to survive in Desert X by itself has nothing to do with Plant Y. Plant Y might be one of the few lucky plants that get along fine with the lack of moisture in the desert.



Question 4 Opening a plant in war-torn Country X is not inadvisable, despite what critics of the plan may say. Ten years ago we opened our plant in Country Y in the middle of a revolution; that plant has been generating successful profits ever since. Which of the following is the author of the argument above most reasonably intending the reader to conclude? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Wars are profitable for the author's particular business. Country X is a more stable nation than Country Y. Critics of the proposed plant in Country Y are likely to be biased. The proposed plant in Country X will generate profits, despite war. The proposed plant in Country X will be more successful than in Country Y.

Answers and Explanations 4. D Since the plant that was opened in Country Y during a revolution generated profits, a parallel can be drawn to conclude that a plant in Country X will also generate profits, despite that country's war.



Question 5 The cost of living in a given area is directly proportional to the wages paid by the dominant industry in that area. In Moomba, the dominant industry is farming. However, in Sepra, the dominant industry is auto manufacturing. Thus, it is fair to conclude that the cost of living must be higher in Sepra than i n Moomba. The argument above assumes that 1. the quality of life in Sepra is higher than the quality of life in Moomba. 2. the number of people manufacturing autos in Moomba is higher than the number of people manufacturing autos in Sepra. 3. the cost of living in Sepra is higher than the cost of living in any other area. 4. wages paid by the auto manufacturing industry are higher than those of the farming industry. 5. automobile workers in Sepra are likely to leave Sepra and move to areas with a lower cost of living.

Answers and Explanations

D You're looking for an assumption, something the author never states, but which must be true for the argument to work. The author concludes that the cost of living is higher in Sepra. The conclusion is backed up by the fact that the cost of living rises with wages in an area, and that people make cars in Sepra, but farm in Moomba. But who's to say whether auto manufacturing pays more than farming? For all we know, farming pays at least as well as auto manufacturing, and so we've located the missing piece in the author's argument. After all, if farming paid at least as well, then the cost of living in Moomba would be at least as high, and the author's argument would fall apart. So D is necessary for the argument to work.



LSAT Logical Reasoning.pdf

Recommend Documents