Last modified on 19 May 2010, at 17:23

Past LSAT Explained/PrepTest 35

October 2001 Form 1LSS51

Section I Logical ReasoningEdit

Question 01Edit

IDENTIFY

This is a Conclusion question.

Question 02Edit

Question 03Edit

Question 04Edit

Question 05Edit

IDENTIFY

This is a Method of Argument question.

READ

Proponent and Opponent discusses the merit of gamma ray radiation of food.

ANALYZE

Your task is to evaluate how the opponent's argument proceeds.

CHOOSE

(A) Incorrect. There is no ambiguity in a crucial term here.

(B) Incorrect. No self-contradition mentioned.

(C) Incorrect. The proponent only proposes one remedy which is irration by gamma ray.

(D) Incorrect. Safety with respect to producers is not discussed at all in the passage.

(E) Correct. This response suggests an alternative means- using a safe chemical dip. This method without the particular disadvantage which is leaving Salmonella intact.

Question 06Edit

Question 07Edit

Question 08Edit

Question 09Edit

Question 10Edit

Question 11Edit

Question 12Edit

Question 13Edit

Question 14Edit

IDENTIFY

This is an Assumption question. You need to analyze the formal logic strcture of this passage to answer the question.

  • novelist
  • academia

READ

Some difficult words are here such as intersperse.

ANALYZE

CHOOSE

(A) Incorrect. This response introduces a foreign concept of impartiality which is irrelevant in the passage.

(B) Incorrect. the powers of observation and analysis is only useful but not required. This needs not be assumed. The passage focuses on the intuitive grasp of the emotions and response (B) does not impact the central logic.

(C) Incorrect. Participation in life is not required at all. The logic of the argument hinges on the intuitive grasp which does not require participation.

(D) Correct. To see if this assumption is vital, suppose this reponse is negated. Novelists can be great without an grasp of the emotions. The factor which prevented the people in the academia from becoming a great novelist is gone! The author can no longer argue that you can't be great if one remain in the academia.

(E) Incorrect. This one is an attractive choice. The key here is the difference between knowledge and an intuitive grasp. The passage leads us to differentiate the aspects of emotions that can be grasped by observing and analyzing them as a dutiful scholar would do. The author argues that there are intangible aspects of the emotions that the scholars miss and that aspects had to be experienced by immersing oneself in real life. Just like you can read about law school but it is nothing like experiencing one.

Question 15Edit

Question 16Edit

Question 17Edit

Question 18Edit

Question 19Edit

Question 20Edit

Question 21Edit

Question 22Edit

Formal logic question

The argument follows:

  • c --> ~t
  • p --> t (cpositive: ~t --> ~p)
  • ~p --> h

So it leads: c --> ~t --> ~p --> h, thus All members of the family H are C.

Question 23Edit

Question 24Edit

Question 25Edit

Question 26Edit

Section II Reading ComprehensionEdit

Passage 1 Social Science French Revolution Women La Villirouet

Question 01Edit

Question 02Edit

Question 03Edit

Question 04Edit

Question 05Edit

Question 06Edit

Passage 2 Humanity Romare Bearden African American History

Question 07Edit

Question 08Edit

Question 09Edit

Question 10Edit

Question 11Edit

Question 12Edit

Question 13Edit

Question 14Edit

Passage 3 Natural Science

  • Philosophy of Science
  • biology
  • physics
  • DNA
  • Biological determist

Question 15Edit

Question 16Edit

Question 17Edit

Question 18Edit

Question 19Edit

Question 20Edit

Passage 4 Law

  • Ronald Dworkin
  • natural law
  • legal positivism

Question 21Edit

Question 22Edit

Question 23Edit

Question 24Edit

I can NOT figure out why the answer is E here. Can anyone help??

Another reminder why reading a sentence for its full meaning is so important on the LSAT. Look at line 27. "According to Dworkin, this account is incompatible with the actual practice of judges and lawyers, who act as if there is a fact of the matter even in cases where there is no consensus. The theory he proposes seeks to validate this practice without falling into what Dwokin correctly sees as the error of natural law theory."

Reading the entire sentence gives you E, and helps on question 25 as well.

Question 25Edit

Question 26Edit

Section III Analytical ReasoningEdit

Question 01Edit

Question 02Edit

Question 03Edit

Question 04Edit

Question 05Edit

Question 06Edit

Question 07Edit

Question 08Edit

Can someone figure out why E is the correct answer for this question? I am having trouble making the deductions that make it logical that Z has a sunroof.

Question 09Edit

Question 10Edit

Question 11Edit

Question 12Edit

Question 13Edit

Question 14Edit

Question 15Edit

Question 16Edit

Question 17Edit

Question 18Edit

Question 19Edit

Question 20Edit

Question 21Edit

Question 22Edit

Question 23Edit

Question 24Edit

Section IV Logical ReasoningEdit

Question 01Edit

Question 02Edit

Question 03Edit

Question 04Edit

Question 05Edit

Question 06Edit

Question 07Edit

Question 08Edit

Question 09Edit

Question 10Edit

Question 11Edit

Question 12Edit

Question 13Edit

Question 14Edit

Question 15Edit

Question 16Edit

Question 17Edit

Question 18Edit

Question 19Edit

Question 20Edit

Question 21Edit

Question 22Edit

Question 23Edit

Question 24Edit

Question 25Edit

Question 26Edit

The materials adapted for LSAT.