Past LSAT Explained/Sample PrepTest
June 2007 Form 8LSN75
- 1 Section II Logical Reasoning
- 1.1 Question 1
- 1.2 Question 2
- 1.3 Question 3
- 1.4 Question 4
- 1.5 Question 5
- 1.6 Question 6
- 1.7 Question 7
- 1.8 Question 8
- 1.9 Question 9
- 1.10 Question 10
- 1.11 Question 11
- 1.12 Question 12
- 1.13 Question 13
- 1.14 Question 14
- 1.15 Question 15
- 1.16 Question 16
- 1.17 Question 17
- 1.18 Question 18
- 1.19 Question 19
- 1.20 Question 20
- 1.21 Question 21
- 1.22 Question 22
- 1.23 Question 23
- 1.24 Question 24
- 1.25 Question 25
- 1.26 Question 25
- 2 Section III Logical Reasoning
Section II Logical ReasoningEdit
This is a Conclusion question.
The economist discusses how efforts to increase productivity can be counterproductive. He says "But not all efforts to increase productivity are beneficial to the business as a whole."
(A) Incorrect. This response goes too far. It sounds quite ambitious and makes an unwarranted claim that the action cannot be good for the business.
(B) Correct. Good because the passage supports this claim. Some measures, as mentioned in the passage, are decreasing the number of employees. It fails to benefit the business beccause it affects the morale.
(C) Incorrect. Nothing in the passage discusses the ownership issue. This is certainly plausible but not supported by the passage at all. Watch out for this kind of sound-good responses.
(D) Incorrect. This is a sweeping claim and not supported by the passage. This claim sounds not right because not all businesses try to boost productivity as in the communist countries.
(E) Incorrect. This is one of the premises but not the main conclusion. The economist uses this fact as the evidence to conclude what was said in response (B).
This is an easy question to start with. Choose (B) and move on.
This is a Parallel reasoning question. The question discusses the types of dog so it helps a bit if you are familiar with them. They also appeared in the logic games section so review them. The question is lengthy but not very challenging.
The passage introduces a logic. While reading and understanding the logical structure, identify the flaw.
All L bark a lot. All S bark little. R are L + S. Therefore, R bark moderately.
The flaw is that 1 plus 0 is not necessarily 0.5.
(A) Incorrect. This one is flawed but does not parallel the relationship mentioned in question 2. Why? Because in the passage, R is a mix between L and S, meaning that R is produced by physically integrating two different things. Moreover, the second sentence says "some student" instead of "all". Jane is not. If this choice to be true, it has to be like this.
All students in the Dumbledore clan make good grades. All students in the Gaunt clan make poor grades. Jane's father is from Dumbledore's and mother is from Gaunt's. Therefore, Jane makes somewhat good grades.
(B) Correct. This response parallels the stated relationship well.
(C) Incorrect. The conclusion is different. While Rosa's dogs have the averaged attribute of the two, the Perry family have both without compromise. If this choice were to become true, it has to be like this:
All students at Hanson School live in Green County. All students at Edwards School live in Winn Country. The joint summer program of Hanson and Edwards Schools draw an equal number of students from two schools only. Perry who is in the summer program live in Gwrienn Country which is between Green and Winn Country.
This passage is still not as strong as the response (B) however.
(D) Incorrect. Bob is a member of both distinct groups- transcriptionists and engineers. Bob's skills are not diminished by his dual membership as it was the case for barking. Transcription and engineering do not have the opposite relationship as is in barking frequently and infrequently.
(E) Incorrect. Wrong. Below is an improved version.
All of Kenisha's dresses are very well made. All of Connie's dresses are very badly made. Conisha's dresses, which copied the style of Kenisha's and Connie's and made of the exact same fabrics as those two, are of average quality.
This is a Conclusion question.
Remember the millennium? This discusses the people's attitude towar the century's end.
Draw a conclusion that best conmpletes the passage. The passage introduces an analogy that people near the end of their life often spend time looking back on the old events. Then it suggests that it would be similar- "century ... is like a life" from the century's end.
CHOOSE (A) Incorrect. Consider this analogy- Century : Life :: end of century : end of life. If you further extend this analogy it becomes- end of life : look back on the events of their lives :: end of century : look back on the events of the century.
(B) Incorrect. Nowhere it is implied that they fear something.
(C) Incorrect. Some attractive but remember the passage did not say that people look foward to what the afterlife will bring when they die.
(D) Correct. Bingo. It fits perfectly with the analogy.
(E) Incorrect. This is too specific.
(Stim Breakdown) One report implies that Company A meals are without nutritional value. But the report given by company B, company A's biggest competitor approved the report. Because of the obvious biasness Company A meals are not really nutritous.
(Explanation) The apparent flaw in this argument is that the author assumes that just because of the bias nature of the situation then obviously the polar opposite is true - un-nutritional to nutritional. You can not assume this to be true because their is a possibility that it is un nutritous. Also the author cant base his argument solely on the representation of Company B's obvious bias motivation. Therefore, the correct answer is A
Conclusion from stimulus: GW is primarily the result of minor gases. Cause: Minor gases Effect: Global warming
Which answer choice WEAKENS the scientist?
A) The stimulus does not mention industrial pollution as the cause of minor gas build-up.
B) CORRECT This answer negates the causation, because the effect (warming) preceded the presumed cause (minor gas build-up)
C) Certain years warmer than others does not affect the causation. It does not state that the sun's effect was any different than past centuries.
D) Volcanic dust reflecting warmth does not deal with either cause or effect.
E) This actually supports the conclusion.
This is an Assumption question, which asks which answer choice is sufficient enough to make the conclusion valid.
Premise 1: Undergrad degree AND no felony conviction are required to be on the executive board.
EB --> UG +
Premise 2: Murray has degree but he has a conviction.
Conclusion: Murray can NOT be an Executive Administrator.
ANALYSIS: The premises involve a jump in logic, they describe the requirements for the Executive Board, but NOT for the position of Executive Administrator. The correct answer choice will remedy this jump.
A) Discusses requirements for the Board, not Exec Administrator.
B)CORRECT This applies the criteria for the EB to the position of EA, which disqualifies poor Murray and makes the conclusion valid.
EB --> UG +
felonyContrapositive: felony or UG--> EBEA --> EB Contrapositive: EB--> EAM --> felony
Therefore: M --> felony -->
C) This does not apply to Murray, he has an UG degree.
D) Does not make conclusion valid.
felony--> eligible for EA
E) This does not address the assumption needed.
Advanced Moral Motivation (AMM) --> abstract principles (AP) +
calculated self-interest (CSI) + social norms (SM)
AP or CSI or SM --> AMM
Which person shows advanced moral motivation?
A) Bobby adhered to social norms.
B) Wes is self-interested.
C) Donna is self-interested.
D) CORRECT Jadine has principles and no CSI or SM.
E) Leigh is conforming to social norms.
Must Be True question.
Proponents: When tech problems are gone, electric cars will be popular and will halt all environmental impact by cars.
Author: Electric power sources will produce considerable environmental damage.
A) CORRECT Impact may be greater than proponents believe. Low threshold for this to be true, supported by the passage.
B) Not supported by passage, author is discussing environmental impact, NOT popularity.
C) Not supported by passage, the author is not discussing this.
D) Not supported by passage, author does not provide premises to support such a strong conclusion.
E) Not supported by passage, author does not provide premises to support such a strong conclusion.
Premise 1: Video game sales have gone up in last 3 years.
Premise 2: Since the dawn of time, 13-16 year-olds have purchased 75% of games.
Premise 3: 13-16 demographic will shrink in next 10 years.
Conclusion: Video game sales will NOT continue to increase.
Which answer choice weakens conclusion?
B) Rentals are not relevant to discussion.
C) Unrelated to the topic, and strengthens the conclusion.
D) No impact on conclusion
E) CORRECT This qualifies premise 2 and presents new information that may suggest that the increase was from people over 16 purchasing video games.
Conclusion? It is in the first sentence, all other statements support this conclusion.
Quote provides an example of change that did not negatively impact the human minds.
Principle A: Keep a promise Principle B: Answer questions truthfully
Mantra: Principle A and Principle B are both expected, but you can not do one without violating the other.
Principle A: say whatever we want Principle B: be civil You can not do one without violating the other.
B) No two principles
C) Two options, each with undesirable consequences. These are not conflicting principles.
D) Two if/then statements, no principles in conflict.
E) Describes considerations when extending business hours. They come to a conclusion, not an irreconcilable impasse.
Assumption question: Answer needs to be necessary to make conclusion valid.
Premise 1: Aluminum soft-drinks all have same amount of aluminum.
Premise 2: 50% of Al in M came from L
Premise 3: All of L was recycled into M
Premise 4: Basically nothing but Al in cans
Conclusion: M has twice as many cans as L
Look for answer choices where if you negate it, the conclusion is no longer valid.
A) Negation does not impact the conclusion. (M can be recycled more does not negate conclusion)
B) Negation does not impact the conclusion. (Recycled Al is higher quality does not negate conclusion)
C) CORRECT Premise: All Al is recovered in recycling. If this was negated, the conclusion would be false.
Ex. if L had 100 cans, but only 20% could be recovered, then M would have 40 cans. This negates the conclusion.
D) Negation does not impact the conclusion. (All of group L comes from recycled cans does not negate conclusion)
E) Negation does not impact the conclusion. (Al cans are harder to recycle does not negate the conclusion)
Assumption: This answer needs to be sufficient to make the conclusion true.
Premise 1: High risk = 65+ or chronic disease
Premise 2: Each year vaccine is ONLY against flu strain expected to be most prevalent
Conclusion: Every year high risk people get vaccinated against a different flu strain.
The missing information is why is it for a different flu strain? Premises only support the one most expected to be prevalent.
A) high risk category does not satisfy the gap in reasoning
B) likelihood of epidemic does not fill the gap in reasoning.
C) the limits of the vaccine does not fill the gap in reasoning.
D) CORRECT This answer choice fills the logical gap and necessitates that each vaccine is DIFFERENT.
E) side effects are irrelevant to the passage.
Taylor: exact claims could NEVER be established by science
Sandra: some science can achieve precise results
Stimulus: Computer experts said the MOST significant threat (of any possible threat, even nuclear meltdown, famine, invasion by a rat army) is unauthorized access to confidential data.
Computer experts are not qualified to determine the MOST significant threat of all potential threats in the universe.
This is why their expertise is not broad enough to support the claim.
Argument claims that there is nothing that brings more recognition to modern science than to overthrow conventional wisdom to scientists. We know that scientists are thus skeptical of the theory behind global warming; why? Well because they want some kind of recognition.
(B) Their motivation is recognition. Thus, they want to find some kind of evidence that overthrows global warming hypothesis.
Munoz: SW Hopeville Neighbors Association oppose water system, therefore the whole town doesn't want it.
Gamba: Only 25 people were in that vote, and 15 opposed vs 10 support. We shouldn't base the whole town's opinion on that.
Gamba's argument attempts to cast doubt on Munoz's evidence.
Friends tell driver he may wreck his sports car because he drives recklessly. Driver reads report that minivans have lower accident rates. Driver thinks he may trade in his sports car for a minivan to minimize risk of accident.
What is the flaw?
A) CORRECT Correlation does not equal causation. If driver still drives like an asshole, having a minivan probably won't change his risk of accident.
B) We don't know the sample size and thus can't pass judgement on sample size.
C) Driver doesn't make this mistake, he consistently refers to his "risk" and not in absolutes.
D) There are no necessary/sufficient conditions discussed, only a correlation and causation.
E) We don't know about the sources.
Causes: News doesn't cover local politics AND local politics is secretive
Effect: Reduce the chance an act of participation will get a positive official response.
Which is most true?
A) Only addresses one of the causes.
B) Author did not present their opinion.
C) We don't know if it's the most important factor
D) CORRECT This would eliminate AL LEAST ONE cause.
E) This reverses cause and effect.
Assumption Question: Which answer is sufficient to allow the conclusion to be true.
Premise 1 Increase well-being --> Morally right
Premise 2 Decrease well-being --> Morally wrong
Conclusion: Unchanged well-being --> Morally right
We can recognize the jump in logic, because premise 1 said only that which increases well-being is morally right. The answer needs to expand the definition of morally right actions.
A) Does not expand morally right
B) This excludes the possibility that things can be neutral. Does not expand morally right.
C) CORRECT This creates a condition that expands what is "morally right" and allows the conclusion to be correctly drawn.
D) Does not expand morally right
E) Does not help reconcile the jump in logic
Section III Logical ReasoningEdit
- Tasmanian tiger
The experimental (unscored) section appeared in the same place for nearly all test takers. Section 3 was experimental on most forms, but Section 2 was experimental on some. The June LSAT had a total of 100 scored questions— 23 in Games, 25 in each Arguments section, and 27 in Reading Comprehension.
Games - 23 questions Overall, test takers rated the June Games section as similar in difficulty to the December 2006 Games section. Most test takers classified the first game as easy and the next three as medium. Though there was no killer game, figuring out the best setup took time on several of the games.
Passage Topic Test Takers' Rankings Passage One Arts/Humanities easy Passage Two Science (Comparative) medium Passage Three Law medium-difficult Passage Four Social Science medium-difficult