LSAT_CR(9702)_真题详解(官方解释)

Section 1

Time

—

35 minutes

25 Questions

1. Sea turtle hatchlings leaving their hatching grounds on Florida beaches reach ocean currents by

swimming

to

the

northeast,

as

defined

by

the

north

of

the

Earth's

magnetic

field.

Florida

hatchlings

placed

in

a

large

indoor

tank

also

swim

toward

the

northeast.

But

when

the

tank

is

surrounded

by

an

artificial

magnetic

field

twice

as

strong

as

the

Earth's

field

and

opposite

in

direction,

the

hatchlings

swim

in

the

direction

opposite

to

that

in

which

they

swim

without

the

artificial magnetic field.

The information in the statements above most strongly supports which one of the following?

(A) Once baby sea turtles reach the open sea, they join groups of adults in the North Atlantic.

(B) The direction in which ocean currents flow is determined by the magnetic field of the Earth.

(C) Baby sea turtles are able to sense the magnetic field of the Earth.

(D) No sea turtle ever returns to the beach where it hatched.

(E) If a sea turtle hatches on the coast of Africa, it will swim toward the southwest.

General

Description:

This

question

asks

you

to

draw

an

inference

based

on

the

information

presented. It is not enough that a response be true, if the information in that response is irrelevant

to the information presented. Nor is it sufficient that a response present information that is merely

consistent with the information presented in the passage; the best answer must present information

that is supported by the information in the passage.

A. Incorrect. Since the passage does not say anything about adult sea turtles, or about the location

of the adults, this claim is not supported by information in the passage.

B.

Incorrect.

The

passage

does

not

provide

any

information

about

the

relation

between

ocean

currents and the magnetic field of the Earth, and so this response is not correct.

C. Correct. Though the passage does not draw the conclusion that baby sea turtles can sense the

magnetic

field,

the

fact

that

the

hatchling

change

their

direction

certainly

suggests

that

the

hatchlings are responding to changes in the magnetic field. And if the hatchlings respond to the

changes, then on reasonable inference is that they are able to sense the magnetic field. So, this is

the best answer.

D. Incorrect. The information in the passage about the behavior of sea turtle hatchlings in the wild

deals only with their behavior as they leave their hatching grounds. It provides no support for a

claim about the sea turtles' behavior after they have left their hatching rounds.

E. Incorrect. The passage does not provide any information that would justify an inference about

the behavior of hatchlings on the coast of Africa.

Difficulty Level: Easy

Tips and Pitfalls: Read questions carefully. If a question asks which statement is supported by the

passage, do not choose a response just because it seems on independent grounds to be plausible or

likely--you must pick a response based on the information given in the passage.

Question 2-3

Twenty percent of the population of Springhill has been to Italy at least once in the last five years,

and thirty percent of the population of Springhill has been to France at least once in the last five

years. Therefore, half of the population of Springhill has been to Europe at least once in the last

five years.

2. The argument is faulty because it ignores the possibility that

(A) some of the population of Springhill has been neither to Italy nor to

France in the last five

years.

(B) some of the population of Springhill has been both to Italy and to France in the last five years.

(C) some of the population of Springhill has been either to Italy or to France in the last five years,

but not to both.

(D)

none

of

the

population

of

Springhill

has

been

to

any

country

in

Europe

other

than

Italy

or

France in the last five years.

(E) none of the population of Springhill has been either to Italy or to France more than once in the

last five years.

General Description: This question asks you to identify the logical problem in an argument caused

by

failure

to

consider

a

logically

relevant

possibility.

The

best

answer,

then,

will

not

merely

present some possibility the argument fails to consider. Rather, it will be something the argument

should have considered: a possibility that, if it turned out to be true, would tend to undermine the

reasoning leading to the argument’s conclusion.

A.

Incorrect.

It

would

not

make

the

argument

flawed

to

have

ignored

this

possibility:

the

argument’s

conclusion

is

consistent

with

the

possibility

that

the

other

half

of

Springhill’s

population

has

never

been

to

Europe

at

all.

Because

the

conclusion

is

consistent

with

this

possibility, the argument does not need to address it.

B. Correct. If there were no overlap between the travelers to Italy and the Travelers to France, then

the

argum

ent’s

premises

would

provide

good

evidence

for

its

conclusion:

20%+30%=50%.

But

the argument has presented no reason to suppose that there is no such overlap, and to the extent

that

there

is,

the argument

is

undermined.

That

is,

if

some

people

are

counted

both

in

the

Italy

group and in the France group, then the two groups together do not add up to 50%. (B) describes

just this problem and is the best answer.

C. Incorrect. Far from ignoring this possibility, the argument seems to be assuming that it is actual.

In fact, the greater the number of people from Springhill who have been to Italy or to France in the

last five years, but not to both, the stronger the argument.

D. Far from ignoring this possibility, the argument seems to be assuming that it is actual. For if

there

were

people

FORM

Springhill

who

had

been

to

other

European

countries

in

the

last

five

years, the argument would be stronger for mentioning them.

E. Incorrect. The argument is not faulty in ignoring this possibility, because it is irrelevant: The

argument is about numbers of people who have been to Italy and/or France (and thus Europe) at

least once in the last five years.

Difficulty Level: Easy

Tips

and

Pitfalls:

Though

answering

LSAT

questions

does

not

require

perFORMing

any

mathematical calculations, the questions do assume a college-level understanding of concepts that

may be termed “mathematical,” including “percent.”

3. McBride’s and Leggett’s statements commit them to disagreeing about the truth of which one of

the following?

(A) The manufacture of full-size cars should be discouraged.

(B) Fuel conservation is less important than safety in case of a collision.

(C) When a full-size car and a subcompact car collide, the occupants of the full-size car are less

likely than the occupants of the subcompact car to be seriously injured.

(D) Reducing the number of full-size cars on the highway will reduce the frequency of collisions

between automobiles.

(E)

The

new

fuel- efficiency

standards

will

encourage

automobile

manufacturers

to

build

more

subcompact cars.

General Description: Since the question asks you to determine a point of disagreement between

McBride and Leggett, the best answer will be the on describing a point that McBride accepts and

Leggett rejects

—

or vice versa.

A. Correct. McBride opposes the introduction of fuel- efficiency standards precisely because these

standards will discourage the manufacture of full-

size cars, calling that prospect “troubling.” So

McBride would disagree with (A). Leggett, on the other hand,

explicitly disagrees with McBride’s

position, arguing that the standards ought to be supported precisely because they discourage the

manufacture of full-size cars and thus agreeing with (A). Thus, (A) is the best answer.

B.

Incorrect.

Though

McBride

and

Leggett

disagree

about

whether

the

standards

should

be

implemented, both clearly are interested in the issue of safety, and it is quite plausible that one or

both believe that fuel conservation is less important than is safety. However, this can be the best

answer only if there is evidence that either Leggett or McBride believes that fuel conservation is

not less important than is safety; the passage, however, provides no grounds for such an inference.

C.

Incorrect.

The

passage

does

not

provide

enough

information

to

judge

whether

McBride

and

Leggett disagree on this point. McBride’s comments suggest agreement with it, but it is not clear

where

Leggett

stands

on

the

claim

in

question.

Leggett

says

only

that

it

is

more

likely

that

someone will be seriously injured in a collision if one of the cars is full-size, without specifying

the location of the injured person.

D. Incorrect. Neither Leggett nor McBride mentions anything about the frequency of accidents;

both are more concerned with the likelihood of harm should be accident occur.

E.

Incorrect.

Both

Leggett

and

McBride

agree

that

the

new

fuel-efficiency

standards

will

discourage

automobile

manufacturers

from

building

full-size

cars.

However,

it

is

not

clear

that

either

believes

that

the

standards

will

encourage

the

manufacture

of

more

subcompact

cars

(as

opposed to some third kind of car). Further, even if it is true that the reduction in full-size cars

causes

an

increase

in

the

manufacture

of

subcompact

cars,

this

is

a

point

of

agreement,

not

disagreement, between Leggett and McBride. Of those who answered this question incorrectly, the

majority chose (E), perhaps confusing the issue of whether manufacturers should be encouraged to

build more subcompact cars with the issue of whether they will be encouraged to do so.

Difficulty Level: Difficult

Tips

and

Pitfalls:

When

asked

to

determine

a

point

on

which

two

speakers

are

committed

to

agreement

or

disagreement,

be

sure

to

narrow

your

focus

to

explicit

assertions

by

the

speaker;

avoid the temptation to speculate about what (elst) either speaker might believe.

4. Which one of the following argumentative strategies does Leggett use in attempting to refute

McBride's position?

(A) demonstrating that McBride's claims are contradictory

(B) challenging the unstated assumption that all cars are either full-size or subcompact

(C) shifting the perspective from which the issue of automobile safety is considered

(D) raising doubts about the accuracy of a generalization made by McBride

(E) demonstrating that it is impossible to follow the course of action advocated by McBride

General Description: This question asks you to find the description of strategy used by Leggett in

arguing against McBride.

A.

Incorrect.

McBride’s

and

Leggett’s

conclusions

contradict

one

another,

but

there

is

no

suggestion that McBride’s statements themselves contradict one another.

B. Incorrect. Though the discussion focuses only on full-size and subcompact cars, neither party is

presuming that all cars are either full-size or subcompact.

C. Correct. From McBride’s perspective, discouraging the manufacture of full

-size cars is a bad

thing, because McBride is considering the relative safety of a collision of two full- size cars and a

“mixed”

collision

involving

one

full

-size

and

one

subcompact

car.

Leggett

is

shifting

the

perspective:

Instead of comparing a mixed collision to a collision of two full-size

cars, Leggett

compares a two-car collision involving a full-size car to a collision of two subcompact cars. From

that perspective, discouraging the manufacture of full-size cars is a good thing, because a collision

of two subcompact cars is sager than a collision involving a full-size car. The two agree that the

new fuel-efficiency standards will discourage the manufacture of full-size cars, but take different

perspectives on the implication of that for automobile safety

—

and so reach opposite conclusions

about whether the new standards should be supported.

D.

Incorrect.

Leggett

is

raising

doubts

only

about

the

conclusion

McBride

draws

from

the

evidence, and that conclusion is “The new fuel

-

efficiency standards should therefore be opposed,”

which is not a generalization. This was the most popular incorrect answer.

E. The “course of action advocated by McBride” is to oppose the new fue

l-efficiency standards.

Leggett

is

simply

arguing

in

favor

of

supporting

them,

not

claiming

that

is

impossible

take

McBride’s course.

Difficulty Level: Difficult

Tips and Pitfalls: In answering questions about “argumentative strategy,” it is imperative

that you

understand

the

structure

of

the

argument

in

question.

You

also

need

to

be

able

to

compare

the

strategies

described

in

the

responses

to

the

argument

structure

in

the

passage:

If

the

response’s

strategy

cannot

be

mapped

exactly

onto

the

argument

structure,

that

response

is

not

the

best

answer.

5.

Concerns

for

the

environment

have

led

chemists

to

develop

plastics

that

are

degradable.

All

degradable

plastics,

which

are

potentially

useful

packaging

materials,

need

just

the

right

conditions

to break down.

Some

need

exposure

to

sunlight,

some

need

to

be

buried

in

soil

and

some need to be submerged in water. It should be cautioned that some degradable plastics leave

residues of unknown toxicity.

If all of the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

(A) Some materials that are potentially useful for packaging leave residues of unknown toxicity.

(B) Some degradable plastics need both sunlight and submersion in order to break down.

(C) Some materials that need sunlight in order to break down are not potentially useful packaging

materials.

(D) Some materials that leave residues of unknown toxicity are not degradable plastics.

(E)

Some

materials

that

need

to

be

buried

in

soil

to

break

down

leave

residues

of

unknown

toxicity.

General Description: This question asks you to determine which one of the responses must be true,

given the info in the passage. This is a very strong requirement. It may be easier to think of the

task at determining which choice cannot be false, if the statements in the passage are true. Then

you can rule out any choice that could be false.

A. Correct. Since the passage tells us that all degradable plastics are potentially useful packaging

materials,

and

also

that

some

degradable

plastics

leave

residues

of

unknown

toxicity,

it

is

necessarily

true

that

some

potentially

useful

packaging

materials

(namely,

those

degradable

plastics) leave residues of unknown toxicity. This is the best answer.

B. Incorrect. Thought it is possible that some plastics would need both sunlight and submersion in

order to decompose, the passage merely states that at least one is necessary. So, contrary to (B) it

is quite possible that only sunlight or submersion is needed, and thus it is quite possible that (B) is

false.

C. Incorrect. The passage focuses solely on the status of degradable plastics. However, it is quite

possible

that

there

are

some

other

materials--that

is,

nonplastic

materials--that

need

sunlight

to

break down. If there are no such materials, of course, the response need not be true. But even if

there are, the passage gives no info about the status of these materials--they might or might not be

potentially useful packaging materials. So in any case, (C) need not be true.

D. Incorrect. The passage says that some degradable plastics leave residues of unknown toxicity,

but it does not say whether any substances other than degradable plastics leave such residues. For

all

we

know

from

the

passage,

those

degradable

plastics

are

the

only

materials

that

leave

such

residues.

Consequently,

it

is

quite

possible

that

all

materials

that

leave

residues

of

unknown

toxicity are degradable plastics, and thus it is possible for this statement to be false.

E. Incorrect. This choice certainly is perfectly consistent with the info in the passage, and thus it

certainly may be true. But it may be instead that these residues are left not by plastics that need to

be buried in soil to break down, but rather only by the plastics that require submersion in water or

exposure to sunlight to break down. Thus, it is possible for this statement to be false.

Difficulty Level: Relatively easy

Tips

and

Pitfalls:

Keep

in

mind

that

what

be

true

cannot

be

false

and

vice

versa;

in

different questions and with different responses, conceiving of the question in one of these ways

or the other may be easier for you. It is also worth repeating that

be false

quite likely to be true will be the best answer.

Questions 6-7

The

coming

economic

recovery

will

surely

be

strong.

Most

of

the

economists

in

investment

companies now agree that this is so, thought the leading academic economists still think otherwise.

Since

the

investment

companies’

economists

are

risking

their

jobs

when

they

make

forecasts,

whereas

academic

economists

have

lifelong

tenure,

it

generally

makes

sense

to

take

the

investment companies’ economists more seriously.

6. The main conclusion of the argument is supported only

(A)

by

comparing

the

number

of

experts

who

agree

with

the

conclusion

with

the

number

who

disagree with the conclusion

(B) through an assessment of the likely risks and consequences of believing one or another strand

of expert opinion

(C)

through

projection

from

the

economic

prospects

for

investment

companies

to

economic

prospects for the economy as a whole

(D) through an assessment of the relative reliability of the experts who agree with the conclusion

as compared with that of those who disagree

(E) by attacking the character of those experts who disagree with the conclusion

General Description: To answer this question, you must first recognize exactly what is the main

conclusion of the argument. Then you should be able to consider how the argument goes about

supporting that conclusion. You also need to be able to compare the methods of support described

in

the

responses

to

the

argument

in

the

passage:

if

the

response’s

method

does

not

correspond

exactly to that used in the argument, that response is not the best answer.

A. Incorrect. The number of experts on each side does not arise; rather, qualities of the experts on

each side are discussed.

B. Incorrect. The idea of risks and consequences does arise in the argument, which may account

for the popularity of this incorrect answer (chosen by the vast majority of those test takers who

answered

this

question

incorrectly).

But

the

risks

and

consequences

discussed

are

risks

and

consequences for the experts themselves, not for the people who may or

may not believe those

experts.

C. Incorrect. The economic prospects for investment companies are not mentioned at all. Further,

though economic prospects for employees of such companies arise indirectly, even these prospects

are not “projected” onto the economy as a whole.

D. Correct. The argument points out that the economists who support its conclusion are those who

risk their jobs in making forecasts. If one group of experts is risking their jobs in making certain

forecasts, that group has a prima facie reason to be more careful in making such forecasts than

does

a

group

of

experts

not

risking

their

jobs

in

making

such

forecasts.

This,

the

argument

suggests, is a reason to think that the first group of experts is more reliable than the second, and

thus a reason to believe the forecast made by the first group, namely, that the coming economic

recovery will be strong. So (D) is the best answer.

E.

Incorrect.

It

is

too

strong

to

call

this

argument

an

“attack”

on

anyone’s

“character”:

th

e

argument simply points out facts about the two groups of experts.

Difficulty Level: Difficult

Tips & Pitfalls:

Keep in mind that for a response to be the best answer, it is not sufficient that it be connected to

passage in some way or other; it must relate in the specific way stated in the question.

7. Which one of the following, if true about the predictions of investment companies’ economists,

most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Their content is likely to be dictated as much by the interes

ts of the economist’s employer as

by an objective assessment of the economy.

(B)

They

are

likely

to

have

more

effect

on

the

economic

climate

than

are

the

predictions

of

academic economists.

(C) The methods used in arriving at them include factors not employed by academic economists.

(D) Their accuracy is an important factor affecting the profitability of the investment companies.

(E) They are more reliable when they disagree with than when they agree with the predictions of

academic economists.

General Description: The passage is suggesting that the information provided by the investment

companies’

economists

is

more

trustworthy

than

the

information

provided

by

academic

economists. So, a claim that weakens the argument would be one that weakens the trustworthiness

of

the

information

from

the

investment

company’s

economists

(or

a

claim

that

increases

the

trustworthiness of the academic economists).

A.

Correct.

If

the

interests

of

the

economist’s

employer

are

likely

to

affect

the

economist’s

predictions as much as do more objective factors, this provides a reason to doubt the predictions.

The predictions still might be accurate, depending on what exactly the interests of the employer

are, but on the face of it, response (A)’s truth tends to weaken the ar

gument in favor of taking the

investment companies’ economists more seriously than the academic economists. Thus (A) is the

best answer.

B.

Incorrect.

At

best,

this

choice

is

irrelevant

to

the

conclusion

of

the

argument;

at

worst,

this

choice

supports

the

conclusion

by

giving

a

reason

that

forecasts

of

investment

company

economists should be taken more seriously.

C. This is tempting choice, because one might reason that if the investment company economists

include factors that make their methods problem

atic, and the academics don’t, then their use of

these methods would lead one to doubt the accuracy of the predictions made by the investment

company

economists.

However,

it

is

equally

possible

that

including

other

factors

improves

the

methods used by the investment company economists, and so this response has as much chance of

supporting the argument as of weakening it.

D. Incorrect. Response (D) indicates a way in which the investment companies benefit from the

accuracy

of

their

economists’

forecasts.

T

his

in

turn

provides

a

reason

for

the

investment

companies’

economists

to

try

to

make

their

forecasts

accurate,

and

thus,

if

anything,

tends

to

strengthen the argument.

E.

Incorrect.

The passage

says

that

the

investment

company

economists

are

making

predictions

opposite from those made by academic economists. So if (E) is true, it provides support for the

reliability

of

the

investment

company

economists.

Thus,

far

from

weakening

the

argument,

(E)

would (if true) provide support for the argument.

Difficulty Level: Relatively easy

Tips

&

Pitfalls:

Be

careful

not

to

read

more

into

a

response

than

is

actually

stated.

See,

for

example, (C).

8. John wants to win the annual Mayfield raffle next year because he needs the Mayfield raffle’s

prize. If he enters more than one raffle next year, the likelihood of his winning one of them would

be greater than if he entered only a single raffle. Hence, to have this greater likelihood of winning

the Mayfield prize, John should enter several other raffles next year.

The argument exhibits which one of the following flaws in reasoning?

(A) presupposing that a person’s strong desire for a certain outcome increases the likelihood that

the actual outcome will be as desired

(B) mistaking for the activity itself the goal for which one pursues that activity

(C) assuming without warrant that a person will be successful if the person engages only in those

activities that are likely to be successful

(D) assuming that an event, if it is highly improbable, cannot possibly occur

(E) confusing the likelihood that at least one event in a set of events will occur with the likelihood

that a designated event in that se will occur

General Description: This question asks you to identify the reasoning flaw in a given argument.

For a response to be the best answer, it is necessary, but not sufficient, that it accurately describe

some

part

of

the

argument:

it

must

describe

a

feature

of

the

argument

in

virtue

of

which

the

argument’s reasoning is flaw.

A.

Incorrect.

John’s

desire

to

win

the

Mayfield

raffle

is

mentioned,

but

not

as

part of

what

the

argument says will increase the likelihood of his winning it.

B.

Incorrect.

The

“activity

itself”

is

entering

the

Mayfield

(or

any

other)

raffle.

The

“goal

for

which [John] pursues that activit

y” is to win the prize. There is no suggestion that the argument is

confusing these two things.

C. Incorrect. The argument is not assuming, or even claiming, that John will be successful (i.e.,

will

win

the

Mayfield

raffle).

The

argument

is

about

what

will

increase

his

chances

of

being

successful.

D. Incorrect. The argument makes no claims that any event “cannot possibly occur.” The argument

is about what makes certain events more or less likely.

E. Correct. The phrase in this response “the likelihood th

at at least one event in a set of events will

occur” refers to the passage’s phrase “the likelihood of his winning one of them [i.e., the raffles],”

if

John

enters

raffles

in

addition

to

the

Mayfield

raffle.

The

passage

goes

on

to

refer

to

“this

greater li

kelihood of winning the Mayfield prize”, which is response (E)’s “the likelihood that a

designated event in that set will occur.” To equate these two is to make a logical mistake: the first

likelihood

is

the

likelihood

of

John’s

winning

some

raffle

or

othe

r,

not

that

of

his

winning

any

particular

raffle.

That

is,

entering

other

raffles

does

not

increase

the

chances

of

its

being

the

Mayfield one that he wins; to think that it does is the flaw in the argument’s reasoning.

Difficulty Level: Relatively easy

Tips and pitfalls: A general or abstract response is not necessarily better than a concrete, specific

one.

9.

In

order

to

avoid

causing

inadvertent

harm

to

their

neighbors,

householders

ought

to

evade

politely or refuse to answer a stranger’s questions r

egarding their neighbors, unless the stranger

provides some proof of being a government official pursuing official inquiries, in which case the

questions should be answered truthfully.

In which one of the following situations does Mary act in accordance with the principle above?

(A) A man claiming to be a private detective asked Mary whether her neighbor ever entertained

guests overnight. Mary, though unsure of the facts, said that her neighbor never did so, and later

told the neighbor about the suspicious questioner.

(B) A stranger showing a police badge asked Mary whether her neighbor was away on vacation.

Because several homes in the neighborhood had recently been burglarized while their owners were

vacationing, Mary lied and said no.

(C)

When

asked

by

a

confused-looking

couple

whether

the

house

next

door

belonged

to

a

Mr.

Brown, who, they said, was expecting them for dinner, Mary answered that is did not, and pointed

out Mr. Brown’s house.

(D)

Immigration

officers,

showing

valid

identification

and

asserting

that

they

were

on

official

business, asked Mary whether a neighbor who belonged to a local church that offered sanctuary to

refugees lacking visas had sheltered any such refugees. Mary gave an evasive answer and warned

her neighbor.

(E) A woman claiming to be an insurance adjuster asked Mary whether her neighbor owned any

vehicles other than the ones currently parked in the neighbor’s driveway. Mary answered that the

adjuster would have to ask her neighbor as she herself did not really know.

Ge

neral Description: This question asks you to determine whether Mary’s actions are consistent

with

the

actions

and

situations

dictated

by

the

principle.

Answering

this

question

requires

precision: the elements of the situations and the actions dictated by the principle must match the

response exactly if the principle in the passage is to apply correctly to a response.

A. Incorrect. The principle requires (among other things) that, when the stranger does not provide

proof

of

being

a

government

official,

householders

should

not

reveal

information

about

their

neighbors.

The

stranger

merely

claimed

to

be

a

detective,

and

a

private

detective

at

that,

so

—

according

to

the

principle

—

Mary

should

have

either

evaded

the

questions

or

refused

to

answer them; she did neither.

B.

Incorrect.

The

stranger

showed

Mary

a

police

badge,

which

counts

as

proof

of

being

a

government

official.

Still,

there

was

no

evidence

that

the

stranger

was

on

police

business,

and

so

—

according to the principle

—

Mary ought to have refused to answer or evaded the questions.

However, rather than refusing or evading, Mary lied, and lying is not an action supported by the

principle.

C. Incorrect. The principle requires (among other things) that, when the stranger does not provide

proof of being a government official, householders should not reveal info about their neighbors.

The confused couple offered no such proof, and hence

—

according to the principle

—

Mary should

have either evaded the questions or refused to answer them.

D. Incorrect. The strangers showed Mary valid id as proof of being government officials, and also

stated they were on official business. According to the principle, Mary ought to have answered

their questions truthfully, but she instead gave an evasive answer.

E. Correct. The woman merely claimed to be an insurance adjuster, but did not offer any proof of

being a government official. According to the principle, Mary was correct in politely evading her

questions: this is the best answer.

Difficulty Level: Relatively easy

Tips and Pitfalls: Questions that ask you to apply or interpret a principle require that you pay close

attention to the exact limits of the principle. In particular, do not make assumptions about what

would follow in some case outside the limits of what the principle actually addresses or includes.

10.

Competitive

figure

skaters

are

judged by

panels

of

up

to

nine

judges,

who

use

a

numerical

scale

with

the

highest

mark

being

6.

To

arrive

at

a

total

score,

all

judges’

marks

are

summed.

Competitive

divers

are

judged

by

panels

of

five

or

seven

judges

using

a

scale

with

10

as

the

highest

mark.

Before

all

judges’

marks

are

summer

to

a

final

score,

however,

the

highest

and

lowest marks are discarded in order to eliminate the possibility of bias either in favor of or against

a particular diver. Competitive figure skating should adopt the approach taken in diving because it

is a fairer system.

Which one of the following can be inferred from the passage above?

(A)There is wider disagreement among figure skating judges than among diving judges.

(B)Currently,

there

is

a

greater

possibility

of

bias

in

the

scoring

process

for

competitive

figure

skating than in that for diving.

(C)It is more likely that a diver will receive a biased total score than that a skater will.

(D)It is fairer to judge a competitor on a 10-point scale than a 6-point scale.

(E)Without the discarding of highest and lowest marks, diving would be more vulnerable to bias

than figure skating.

General

Description:

This

question

asks

you

to

find

the

response

that

can

be

inferred

from

the

given passage. A statement that may well be true, but that is irrelevant to the passage, cannot be

the best answer. Even a response that presents info consistent with the passage need not be the best

answer. Rather, the passage must provide grounds or support for inferring the response in order for

that response to be the best answer.

A. Incorrect. The passage does not consider how widely the scores range in either sport.

B. Correct. The passage says that in scoring competitive diving, the highest and lowest marks are

discarded “in order to eliminate the possibility of bias.” The passage concludes by saying that the

“approach taken in diving…is a fairer system” than that used in scoring competitive figure skating.

From

these

statements

it

can

be

inferred

that

with

the

current

scoring

systems,

there

is

more

chance of bias in scoring competitive figure skating than in scoring competitive diving, which is

what (B) says. Thus (B) is the best answer.

C. Incorrect. In fact, the passage supports the opposite conclusion.

D.

Incorrect.

The

passage

says

it

is

the

discarding

of

high

and

low

scores

that

is

relevant

to

fairness, not the range of the possible scores.

E.

Incorrect.

For

all

we

know

from

the

passage,

there

may

be

other

facts

about

the

scoring

of

competitive diving and figure skating such that diving would be no more vulnerable to bias than

figure

skating

even

if

the

discarding

of

high

and

low

scores

were

eliminated.

The

passage

compares the fairness of just one aspect of the sports, namely, their scoring processes. This was

the most popular incorrect answer.

Difficulty Level: Relatively easy

Tips

and

Pitfalls:

Do

not

infer

merely

from

the

fact

that

a

passage

focuses

on

one

aspect

of

a

phenomenon that there cannot be other relevant aspects.

11.

Rose:

The

book

is

either

by

Deerson

or

else

by

Jones;

I

am

not

usre

which.

However,

Deerson’s books are generally published by Quince Press, as are Jones’s. Therefore, the book is

probably published by Quince.

The pattern

of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in Rose’s argument?

(A) That tree is either a beech or else an elm, and Mercedes can identify most trees, so she will

probably be able to tell which it is.

(B) The culprits escaped either by car or else on foot, but in either case they must have opened

Isidore’s creaking gate. Therefore Isidore probably heard them.

(C) Judging by what he said in the interview, George is either a liar or incredibly na?

ve. Both these

attributes are unsuitable in a customs inspector. Therefore George should not be hired as a customs

inspector.

(D) Margarethe the Second was born either in Luppingshavn or else in Kindelberg. Most of the

people

in

each

city

then

were

of

Mondarian

descent,

so

Margarethe

probably

had

Mondarian

ancestors.

(E)

Tomas

will

probably

participate

in

community

service,

since

he

will

atten

either

Dunkeld

College

or

Steventon

University

and

at

both

most

students

currently

enrolled

say

that

they

participate in some form of community service.

General Description: To answer this question, you must first recognize the pattern or structure of

the

reasoning

in

Rose’s

argument.

Then

choose

the

response

whose

argument

is

most

like

it

in

pattern or structure.

A.

Incorrect.

The

first

step

in

this

argumen

t

is

similar

to

that

in

Rose’s

argument:

it

limits

the

possibilities to two. But the next step is different: instead of pointing out a property that each

of

the

possibilities

usually

has,

it

makes

a

claim

about

a

larger

group,

of

which

the

two

possibilities are members.

B.

Incorrect. There are (at least) two ways in which the pattern of reasoning in this argument is

different from that in Rose’s argument. First, the second step here reasons to what must be the

case for each possibility (i.e., “they must have opened Isidore’s creaking gate”), whereas Rose

reasons

to

what

is

generally

the

case

(i.e.,

“Deerson’s

books

are

generally

published

by

Quince

Press,

as

are

Jones’s”).

Second,

unlike

in

Rose’s

argument,

the

final

conclusion

in

response (B) introduces a new factor: the premises make no mention of what Isidore heard.

C.

Incorrect.

The

first

step

in

this

argument,

like

that

in

Rose’s

argument,

presents

two

possibilities. But the second step is different from

that in Rose’s argument: the second step

here reasons

to what is the case for each possibility (i.e., “Both these attributes are unsuitable

in a customs inspector”), whereas Rose reasons to what is generally the case (i.e., “Deerson’s

books are generally published by Quince Press, as are Jones’s”). Furthermor

e, the conclusion

in response ? is prescriptive (“George should not be hired…”), whereas Rose’s conclusion is

probabilistic (“the book is probably…”).

D.

Correct.

The

claim

that

Margarethe

was

born

either

in

Luppingshavn

or

in

Kindelberg

parallels Rose’s cla

im that the book was written either by Deerson or by Jones. The claim that

most people in each city were of Mondarian descent parallels Rose’s claim that both authors

are

generally

published

by

Quince

Press.

The

conclusion,

that

Margarethe

probably

had

Mon

darian

ancestors,

parallels

Rose’s

conclusion

that

the

book

is

probably

published

by

Quince.

E.

Incorrect. The pattern of reasoning in the first two steps of this argument is similar to that in

Rose’s argument. However, this argument uses evidence about what

people say to support a

conclusion about what is probably the case; Rose does not use evidence about what people

say.

Difficulty Level: Relatively easy

Tips and Pitfalls: When answering questions about “pattern of reasoning,” look at the form of the

argument, not its content. The fact that the argument in the passage is about authors and publishing

is irrelevant to the question of its pattern of reasoning.

Question 12

Sarah, who is an excellent mechanic, said that in her opinion the used car John is considering is in

good

mechanical

condition.

However,

it

is

clear

that

Sarah

cannot

be

trusted

to

give

an

honest

opinion, since when Emmett asked her opinion of his new haircut she lied and said she thought it

looked

good.

Therefore,

it

is

very

likely

that

Sarah

also

lied

in

giving

her

opinion

of

the

mechanical condition of that car.

The

argument

is

flawed

by

virtue

of

having

committed

which

one

of

the

following

errors

of

reasoning?

(A) It fails to offer any grounds for the attack it makes on the character of the person.

(B) It confuses claims about the past with claims about the future.

(C) It bases a sweeping claim on the evidence provided by an instance that is not clearly relevant.

(D)

It

presents

evidence

in

value-laden

terms

that

presuppose

the

conclusion

for

which

that

evidence is offered.

(E)

It

wrongly

assumes

that

because

someone

is

a

competent

judge

of

one

kind

of

thing,

that

person will be a competent judge of a very different kind of thing.

General Description: This question asks you to determine the error of reasoning committed by the

argument.

A.

Incorrect.

It

is

not

clear

that,

in

saying

that

Sarah

lied

or

that

she

cannot

be

trusted,

the

argument is attacking Sarah's character (as opposed to simply stating facts). But even if one does

construe these statements as attacks on Sarah's character, response (A) is incorrect in saying that

argument]

fails

to

offer

any

grounds

for

these

statements;

the

fact

that

Sarah

lied

about

Emmett's haircut is presented as ground.

B. Incorrect. The argument does not confuse claims about the past with claims about the future.

The

argument

makes

claims

about

the

future

(

cannot

be

trusted...

but

there

is

no

suggestion that these are ever confused.

C.

Correct.

The

argument

states

that

Sarah

is

excellent

mechanic.

Having

lied

about

her

opinion about a haircut is not clearly relevant to whether Sarah can be trusted to give an honest

opinion

about

the

mechanical

condition

of

a

car--the

claim

made

by

the

argument.

This is especially so, since the opinion whose honesty is in question is in an area in which Sarah is

acknowledged to be an expert.

D.

Incorrect.

A

case

could

perhaps

be

made

that

the

evidence

in

the

argument

is

presented

in

terms.

But

even

if

that

were

established,

this

response

would

still

be

incorrect,

because the evidence presented does not presuppose the argument's conclusion.

E. Incorrect. From the argument, the only kind of thing about which we can say Sarah may be a

competent judge is mechanics (She is an

judgment arises here is her opinion of Emmett's haircut. But the argument makes no claims about

Sarah's competence to judge haircuts. This was the most popular incorrect response.

Difficulty Level: Medium difficulty

Tips and Pitfalls: Pay careful attention to the location of words with logical force, such as

For example,

QUESTION 13

Modern flamingos derive their pink coloration from pigments stored in tiny shrimp that they filter

from shallow, salty waters. The shrimp get this pigment from tiny red algae that they filter through

their leg bristles. In the Jurassic period (about 200 million years ago), both algae and shrimp were

an excellent source of food for any larger animal equipped to sieve them out of the water through

an anatomical strainer.

The Argentine pterodactyl possessed a row of thin, bristlelike teeth through which it pumped water,

straining out any tiny food particles in the process. Thus, because it was able to filter both algae

and shrimp, it is reasonable to conclude that the pterodactyl acquired a pink coloration.

Which

one

of

the

following

statements,

if

true,

strengthens

the

argument

for

the

existence

of

a

pink pterodactyl?

(A) The Argentine pterodactyl inhabited the shores of shallow freshwater seas in Jurassic South

America.

(B) There is a specific type of shrimp that does not eat the algae immediately but carries them on

its bristles and eats them later.

(C) If the Argentine pterodactyl did not eat a diet containing red algae, its color was determined by

factors other than diet.

(D)

The

Argentine

pterodactyl's

habitat

included

shallow

seas

that

were

particularly

rich

in

red

algae and shrimp.

(E) Captive modern flamingos, which do not have access to shallow salty waters from which to

filter tiny shrimp, are given a diet that produces a red coloration.

General

Description:

This

question

asks

you

to

determine

which

statement

strengthens

the

argument that pink pterodactyls existed. The argument draws an analogy between pterodactyls and

modern

flamingos,

and

suggests

that

pterodactyls

could

have

acquired

a

pink

coloration

in

the

same way that flamingos do: namely, by eating shrimp that get the pigment from red algae. So a