Past LSAT Explained/PrepTest 30

      October 2001 Form 1LSS51

      Section I Logical Reasoning

      Question 01

      Question 02

      Question 03

      Question 04

      Question 05

      Question 06

      Question 07

      Question 08

      Question 09

      Question 10

      Question 11

      Question 12

      Question 13

      Question 14

      Question 15

      Question 16

      Question 17

      Question 18

      Question 19

      Question 20

      Question 21

      Question 22

      Question 23

      Question 24

      Question 25

      Question 26

      ↑Jump back a section

      Section II Reading Comprehension

      Question 01

      Question 02

      Question 03

      Question 04

      Question 05

      Question 06

      Question 07

      Question 08

      Question 09

      Question type: Semi-flaw

      Argument: Premise- Because a runner's feet remain in contact with the ground for shorter period of time on a hard running surface than on a softer one. Conclusion- Running tracks with a hard surface allows you to run faster, under dry conditions.

      You're looking for an answer that shows that the argument provided only partial evidence for the conclusion.

      Correct answer (C): This answer choice tells us that hard tracks affect the posture of the runners which minimizes wind resistance. This shows that the time a runner's feet remains on the surface isn't the only reason why hard surfaces allows runners to run faster.

      A) Incorrect, since the conclusion already stated 'under dry conditions', we're looking for something that would affect running speed on hard surfaces in dry conditions.

      B) Incorrect, irrelevant to the argument since it's stating differences between runners, not the running surface.

      D) Incorrect, tempting since it seems to give another reason for running speed variations, but remember, we're looking for something that explains why running speed varies between hard and soft surfaces. Also remember, we're not looking to disprove the original argument, we're looking for another explanation with which to prove the argument. If we go with this answer choice, then the argument would fall apart, since we would ask ourselves, 'would a soft surface track at high altitude allow runners run faster than a hard surface track at sea level?'

      E) Incorrect, all this answer choice does is try to throw us off, does nothing to the argument.

      Question 10

      Question 11

      Question 12

      Question 13

      Question 14

      Question 15

      Question 16

      Question 17

      Question 18

      Question 19

      Question 20

      Question 21

      Question 22

      Question 23

      Question 24

      Question 25

      Question 26

      Question 27

      Question 28

      ↑Jump back a section

      Section III Analytical Reasoning

      Question 01

      Question 02

      Question 03

      Question 04

      Question 05

      Question 06

      Question 07

      Question 08

      Question 09

      Question 10

      Question 11

      Question 12

      Question 13

      Question 14

      Question 15

      Question 16

      Question 17

      Question 18

      Question 19

      Question 20

      Question 21

      Question 22

      Question 23

      Question 24

      ↑Jump back a section

      Section IV Logical Reasoning

      Question 01

      Question 02

      Question 03

      Question 04

      Question 05

      Question 06

      Question 07

      Question 08

      Question 09

      Question 10

      Question 11

      Question 12

      Question 13

      Question 14

      Question 15

      Question 16

      Question 17

      Question 18

      Question 19

      Question 20

      Question 21

      Question 22

      Question 23

      Question 24

      Question 25

      Question 26

      ↑Jump back a section
      Last modified on 30 April 2009, at 18:58