Past LSAT Explained/PrepTest 03
October 2001 Form 2LSS13
- 1 Section I Analytical Reasoning
- 2 Section II Logical Reasoning
- 2.1 Question 01
- 2.2 Question 02
- 2.3 Question 03
- 2.4 Question 04
- 2.5 Question 05
- 2.6 Question 06
- 2.7 Question 07
- 2.8 Question 08
- 2.9 Question 09
- 2.10 Question 10
- 2.11 Question 11
- 2.12 Question 12
- 2.13 Question 13
- 2.14 Question 14
- 2.15 Question 15
- 2.16 Question 16
- 2.17 Question 17
- 2.18 Question 18
- 2.19 Question 19
- 2.20 Question 20
- 2.21 Question 21
- 2.22 Question 22
- 2.23 Question 23
- 2.24 Question 24
- 2.25 Question 25
- 2.26 Question 26
- 3 Section III Reading Comprehension
- 3.1 Passage 1 Natural Science
- 3.2 Passage 2 Social Science
- 3.3 Passage 4 Art/Humanity
- 4 Section IV Logical Reasoning
- 4.1 Question 01
- 4.2 Question 02
- 4.3 Question 03
- 4.4 Question 04
- 4.5 Question 05
- 4.6 Question 06
- 4.7 Question 07
- 4.8 Question 08
- 4.9 Question 09
- 4.10 Question 10
- 4.11 Question 11
- 4.12 Question 12
- 4.13 Question 13
- 4.14 Question 14
- 4.15 Question 15
- 4.16 Question 16
- 4.17 Question 17
- 4.18 Question 18
- 4.19 Question 19
- 4.20 Question 20
- 4.21 Question 21
- 4.22 Question 22
- 4.23 Question 23
- 4.24 Question 24
Section I Analytical ReasoningEdit
This is an easy game. Each person needs to be assigned a food. There are six people and five entrees.
This is an elimination question. In this case a subset of the foods he could eat isn't sufficient -- the correct answer will have all possible foods.
Pork chops is in all answers, so forget about it-- he can eat it.
Roast beef from answer A -- going through the rules one by one, there is no reason he can't eat it. This eliminates answer B which doesn't have roast beef. A is still in the running.
Sword fish from C -- Lewis' wife is Marie, Marie orders swordfish, and two people in a couple can't order the same food. This eliminates answer C and E.
This leaves us with B and D. If Lewis can eat either tilefish or veal cutlet, D is the answer. Going through the rules, there is no reason he couldn't eat either.
(Two rules to watch out for here is the one specifying that neither John nor Nat orders fish, and that none of the men order the same thing. This could run into a situation that once Lewis chooses a non-fish entree, such as veal cutlet, that either John or Nat have to choose a fish dish. This is not the case, however, as there are two other non-fish entrees. This could have been important, and will likely prove critical later in the game.)
The answer is D.
A - John can't order fish. False.
B - No obvious problem with this -- Kate and Nat aren't married and there aren't other restrictions on her.
C - Two men can't eat the same thing. False
D - Marie order swordfish, Olive roast beef. False
E - Nat and Olive are married and can't order the same thing. False.
The answer is B.
A - Neither John nor Nat order fish dishes. Thus they must order from among pork chops, roast beef and veal cutlet. They can't order the same thing as each other, and Nat can't order roast beef. Thus Nat must order veal cutlet or pork chops. A is true.
B - Since A is true, we don't have to go further, but if you want to confirm, Nat must order veal or pork chops. John can order pork chops, roast beef or veal cutlet. We know from 1 that Lewis can order four different dishes. False.
C - one woman orders roast, one orders swordfish. False.
D - Lewis can order a fish entree. False.
E. We know Marie orders swordfish, and Olive doesn't order fish. Could Kate order a fish entree? There's no reason why she couldn't from the rules. False.
The answer is A.
A - If John orders veal cutlet, Kate could order roast beef. Does she have to? No.
B - Same as A. Not necessarily true.
C - Lewis can eat all the things in 1D, but not veal cutlet now because John ordered it and no men can order the same entree.
D - Lewis can't order what John orders. False.
E - Working from reasoning in Question 3, Nat must order veal or pork chops. If John has already ordered veal, Nat must order pork chops. Must be true.
The answer is E.
Section II Logical ReasoningEdit
This is an argument about your money and spending power.
A→B B→C A→C
- personality test
This is a Flaw question.
A reporting about a survey to uncover a relationship between two factors.
The first part of the passage describes a survey and how it was done. The last sentence, the conclusion claims that one's astrological birth sign influence one's personality. You need to find a choice that discredits the survey result since the conclusion bases its validity on it.
(A) Incorrect. This is not a flaw. We need a further evidence that the scorers were incompetent or the administration suffered from poor management. The passage provides none of such evidence.
(B) Incorrect. This strengthens the argument. Remember this is not a Strengthen/Weaken question.
(C) Incorrect. This does not address the flaw and somewhat strengthens the argument.
(D) Incorrect. This does not address the flaw but somewhat strengthens the argument since it provides some credence to the survey result.
(E) Correct. If the survey result is not representative of the whole population that it is skewed. This type of question appeals often on the LSAT. For instance, when a political party surveys voter's preference using an online survey, it is going to overpresent younger and more tech savvy people who tend to be more liberal.
This is an Assumption question.
The author is arguing for the merit of calisthenics in improving the American kids' physical fitness.
ANALYZE To show that, you need to prove that there are some causal link between calisthenics and improved fitness. A good test is to see if the argument still stands if you falsify the choice.
(A) Incorrect. This is not necessary. What if a majority or significant number of students still benefit from calisthenics? The author's argument still works. So when you see a choice like this, pay attention to words like "All", "Every". These words should ring a bell to you.
(C) Incorrect. This choice is totally out of scope. It is so important to not bring in any preconception or bias into the question. Maybe we are not concerned about health really- you could say we want the children to be fit to train them as better soldiers.
Section III Reading ComprehensionEdit
Passage 1 Natural ScienceEdit
Passage 2 Social ScienceEdit
- Robert Boyle
Passage 3 LawEdit
- economies of scale
This is a Main Idea question.