LSAT History
This popular LSAT section was removed from the LSAT in August 2024.
What is logic games?
A compound statement that implies one statement from another. I.E. if A then B.
What is a conditional argument?
In response to requests made by the dairy industry the government is considering whether to approve the synthetic hormone BST for use in dairy cows. BST increases milk production but also leads to recurring udder inflammation, decreased fertility, and symptoms of stress in cows who receive the hormone. All of these problems can be kept under control with constant veterinary care, but such levels of veterinary help would cost big farms far less per cow than they would small farms.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following claims is most strongly supported by them?
A - The government is unlikely to approve the synthetic hormone BST for use in cows.
B- The proportion of cows that suffer from udder inflammation, decreased fertility, and symptoms of stress is currently greater on big dairy farms than on small ones.
C- At the present time milk from cows raised on small farms is safer to drink than milk from cows raised on big farms.
D- The milk from cows who receive BST will not be safe for people to drink.
E- Owners of big farms stand to gain more from government approval of BST than do owners of small farms.
E- Owners of big farms stand to gain more from government approval of BST than do owners of small farms.
- correct - Well, yea, this makes a lot of sense. Big farms won’t have to pay that much to keep up the constant veterinary care that comes with giving cows BST. On the other hand, owners of small farms don’t seem to benefit much from giving their cows this hormone. E must be true, so it’s our answer.
The Following syllogism is: “If Professor Rathsam wears a pink bow tie, then Professor Vorberger has to match Professor Rathsam. Vorberger has to match Professor Rathsam, therefore Professor Rathsam has a pink bow tie on.”
What is, False
Pre-Law Society President Rachel Auld is from
What is Canada?
The LSAT originated from this educational institution.
What is Columbia Law School?
This logical term refers to the flaw in reasoning where the conclusion depends on assuming the very thing it is trying to prove.
What is circular reasoning?
Director of Ace Manufacturing Company: Our management consultant proposes that we reassign staff so that all employees are doing both what they like to do and what they do well. This, she says, will “increase productivity by fully exploiting our available resources.” But Ace Manufacturing has a long-standing commitment not to exploit its workers. Therefore, implementing her recommendations would cause us to violate our own policy.
The director’s argument for rejecting the management consultant’s proposal is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?
A - failing to distinguish two distinct senses of a key term
B - attempting to defend an action on the ground that it is frequently carried out
C - defining a term by pointing to an atypical example of something to which the term applies
D- drawing a conclusion that simply restates one of the premises of the argument
E - calling something by a less offensive term than the term that is usually used to name that thing
A - failing to distinguish two distinct senses of a key term - correct - Yep. The “key term” here is “exploit.” The director uses it in a very different sense than the management consultant meant it. This is the answer.
Three informal fallacies are…
What are: Variable answers….
The youngest Helms School of Government Professor is
What is Aaron Van Allen?
At this age you can take the LSAT.
A method of drawing conclusions by going from the specific to the general.
What is inductive reasoning?
Several Tyrannosaurus rex skeletons found in North America contain tooth marks that only a large carnivore could have made. At the time T. rex lived, it was the only large carnivore in North America. The tooth marks could have resulted only from combat or feeding. But such tooth marks would have been almost impossible to inflict on the skeleton of a live animal.
The information above most strongly supports which one of the following?
A- T. rex regularly engaged in combat with smaller carnivores.
B- At the time T. rex lived, it was common for carnivores to feed on other carnivores.
C- T. rex sometimes engaged in cannibalism.
D- T. rex sometimes engaged in intraspecies combat.
E- At the time T. rex lived, there were large carnivores on continents other than North America.
A- T. rex regularly engaged in combat with smaller carnivores.
B- At the time T. rex lived, it was common for carnivores to feed on other carnivores. - No way. These tooth marks were made by large carnivores, not small ones. And they seem to have been made after the T.rexes had died, not while they were alive. This answer sucks.
C- T. rex sometimes engaged in cannibalism. - Sure seems like it, yeah. The facts say that large carnivores were gnawing on these T.rex bones, either in combat or feeding, but probably after the T.rexes were dead—so probably while feeding. We have no idea how often this happened, but we know that it did happen at least once, which is all the justification we need to claim that this happened “sometimes.” This looks safer than anything we’ve read so far.
D- T. rex sometimes engaged in intraspecies combat. - Nope. These tooth marks were probably made during feeding because “such tooth marks would have been almost impossible to inflict on the skeleton of a live animal.”
E- At the time T. rex lived, there were large carnivores on continents other than North America. - Huh? How the heck would we possibly know this? It would be wildly speculative to imagine that some large carnivore lumbered over from an entirely different continent to make these tooth marks. Ain’t no way I’m going to vouch for this answer without a hell of a lot more evidence.
Nah. We know that T.rexes sometimes gnawed on T.rex bones, not that some carnivores fed on other carnivores. And we definitely don’t know that this was “common.”
Attacking a person instead of their argument.
What is: Ad Hominem fallacy
Liberty School of Law opened in
What is 2004?
In this year the LSAT came into existence.
What is 1948?
A measure of how sound an argument is.
What is validity?
Investment banker: Democracies require free-market capitalist economies, because a more controlled economy is incompatible with complete democracy. But history shows that repressive measures against certain capitalistic developments are required during the transition from a totalitarian regime to a democracy. Thus, people who bemoan the seemingly anticapitalistic measures certain governments are currently taking are being hasty.
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the investment banker’s argument?
A- No current government has reached as complete a state of democracy as it is possible for a government to reach.
B- The more democratic a country is, the less regulated its economy must be.
C- The need for economic stability makes the existence of partially democratic governments more probable than the existence of fully democratic governments.
D- A free-market economy is incompatible with a nondemocratic regime.
E - The nations whose anticapitalistic measures the people in question bemoan had totalitarian regimes in the recent past.
Most students just have difficulty deciphering this argument, because there are so many five-dollar words where ten-cent words would have sufficed. Let’s see if I can clarify it a bit. Basically, all it says is this: “In the long run, democracy requires a free market. But to move from totalitarianism to democracy in the first place, certain restrictions against the free market are necessary. Therefore, critics of the current restrictions against the free market should shut up.”
The question says “which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument,” which means we are asked to identify a Necessary Assumption. Read the above argument again (my simplified version) and see if you can find the missing link. Take a minute, and ask yourself where the hole is.
Ready for the answer? Okay, the missing link is this: “We are currently trying to move from totalitarianism to democracy.” This must be true, or else the argument would fall apart! Listen to what happens if the missing link is not true:
“Democracy requires the free market in the long run. But in the short run, when we’re first trying to create a democracy, some restrictions are required. We are not currently trying to move from totalitarianism to democracy. Therefore, critics of the current restrictions against the free market should shut up.” Wait, what? That makes no sense whatsoever! That proves that the missing link was a “necessary” component of the argument.
Our prediction here is “we are currently trying to move from totalitarianism to democracy.” Let’s see if we can find that in the answer choices.
A
This just isn’t what we’re looking for. We have a very strong prediction here, so we don’t need to waste time with answers that don’t match our prediction.
B
Same explanation as A and B.
C
Same explanation as A, B, and C.
D
Nope. We don’t know that it’s impossible to have a nondemocratic government (a dictatorship, for example) while also having a free-market economy. The investment banker says that free-market capitalist economies are necessary for democracy; she does not say that democracy is necessary for a free-market economy. If you were tempted by this one, you were probably confusing sufficient and necessary.
E
Bingo. This is the only answer that captures the idea of “we are moving from totalitarianism to democracy.” Note that if E is untrue, then the nation in question had not been totalitarian in the recent past. If that’s true, then the nation in question can’t be moving from totalitarianism to democracy. And if that is true, then the investment banker has no argument whatsoever against the critics. Since E must be true or else the argument is ruined, E is a Necessary Assumption of the argument, and is our answer.
The process of analyzing from general rules to a particular outcome
What is: deductive reasoning
In Alaska, it’s illegal to drop what from an airplane
What is a moose?
This major statistically performs the best on the LSAT.
What is math/physics?
The first component of a conditional clause.
What is an antecedent?
Only poetry cannot be translated well, and therefore it is poets who preserve languages, for we would not bother to learn a language if we could get everything written in it from translation. So, since we cannot witness the beauty of poetry except in the language in which it is composed, we have motivation to learn the language.
The information above provides the least support for which one of the following?
A- All nonpoetic literature can be translated well.
B- One purpose of writing poetry is to preserve the language in which it is written.
C- Some translations do not capture all that was expressed in the original language.
D- The beauty of poetry is not immediately accessible to people who do not understand the language in which the poetry was written.
E- Perfect translation from one language to another is sometimes impossible.
The elements are out of order here, with the conclusion stuffed in the middle of the first sentence and the premises all jumbled up, but it basically makes sense. Poetry can’t be translated well because of beauty blah blah blah, and we don’t learn languages when we can get everything we need from a translation, so poetry gives us motivation to learn a language, therefore poets are the ones who preserve languages. (If we didn’t need to learn languages for poetry, we’d just use translations into our own language and other languages would die.) Got it.
It’s a Supported EXCEPT question. So the facts given should provide strong evidence to believe four of these answer choices. The one correct answer will be unsupported by the facts or possibly the opposite of the facts.
A
Yes, this must be true because poetry is the only thing that can’t be translated well.
B
Hmmm, I don’t know about this. It’s true that poetry and poets preserve languages, but I don’t know that that’s the purpose for which poetry is written. (Maybe poetry preserves language accidentally, even though its initial purpose was to make cool art, or to impress a hot guy or girl, or to be super-pretentious and annoy your friends…) Let’s keep this open. If we have strong evidence for C-E, we can pick B.
Answer B is correct because the passage never discusses the “purpose” of the poets.
C
Yup. If you try to translate poetry, it doesn’t capture poetry’s beauty.
D
Yup. The beauty of poetry can only be witnessed in its original language, which is why poetry motivates people to learn languages.
E
Yup. It’s impossible to perfectly translate poetry.
The answer is B because it talks about the purpose of writing poetry, which is different from poetry’s effect once it’s written.
If you get this question wrong, then you are stupid. You are not stupid, therefore you got this question right.
What is: Modus Tollens
In Virginia, it’s illegal to impersonate someone by wearing a
What is a mustache?