Past LSAT Explained/PrepTest 30
October 2001 Form 1LSS51
Section I Logical Reasoning edit
Question 01 edit
Question 02 edit
Question 03 edit
Question 04 edit
Question 05 edit
Question 06 edit
Question 07 edit
Question 08 edit
Question 09 edit
Question 10 edit
Question 11 edit
Question 12 edit
Question 13 edit
Question 14 edit
Question 15 edit
Question 16 edit
Question 17 edit
Question 18 edit
Question 19 edit
Question 20 edit
Question 21 edit
Question 22 edit
Question 23 edit
Question 24 edit
Question 25 edit
Question 26 edit
Section II Logical Reasoning edit
Question 01 edit
"argument" Less emphasis should be placed on mathematical principles. Since more computer programs that solve mathematical problems are being created.
You are looking for something that weakens the argument.
Correct answer is A - It weakens the argument since it points out that understanding of the principles is essential in order to be able to use the computers effectively.
B- wrong, this doesn't weaken the questions , it brings irrelevant information C-irrelevant as well does not weaken the argument D-it does not weaken the argument, E-Does not weaken, does not attack the argument.
Question 02 edit
Question 03 edit
Question 04 edit
Question 05 edit
Question 06 edit
Question 07 edit
Question 08 edit
Question 09 edit
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.