LSAT

Logical Reasoning Answers & Explanations

1. B
The evidence is that, while nationalizing will allow more people more access to beaches, it could also lead to WORSE beaches. The author points out that access to beaches is only good if the beaches themselves are cared for adequately and are therefore desirable. The author's conclusion is the last sentence: We should consider carefully before nationalizing more coastal property. So, the author believes we have reason to be concerned that the beaches won't be taken care of as well as when they were privately owned, but nowhere is this claim supported; it is assumed. So the answer choice must deny the central assumption and imply that the government would do a good job taking care of beaches. Choice two does what we want by saying that private beaches are cared for by the government. So, if the government were to nationalize those beaches, nothing changes: It should take on no new maintenance obligations, and we have little additional cause for concern about dirty beaches.

2. D
We're searching for a necessary assumption upon which the conclusion logically depends. First identify the evidence and conclusion. The assumption is required to bridge the gap between them.

The evidence consists of a study indicating that students on full scholarships maintain higher GPAs than do students that work or take out loans. From this evidence, the study concluded that the scholarships enable those students to earn higher GPAs by alleviating financial stress and freeing up the students' time.

The evidence links scholarships and higher GPAs, but the conclusion jumps into the realm of cause and effect—a common LSAT shift in scope. The author assumes that the only possible reason for the association is the causal mechanism cited in the conclusion and the correct answer will very likely bolster this notion by eliminating an alternative explanation.

Choice (D) hits on the right issue: The argument won't work if there's another reason for the correlation cited in the evidence. If high GPAs are the primary criterion for the scholarships in the first place, then it's not surprising that scholarship holders tend to earn higher GPAs than others. The students must generally be of otherwise equal ability before the conclusion can be safely drawn. (D) eliminates a very plausible alternative explanation for the correlation cited in the first sentence, and this is the assumption on which the conclusion depends.

3. E
The best explanation is, as the fifth choice says, that it's the high temperatures Y can't handle. If the information in choice E were true, you would actually expect Y not to grow in Desert X. Choice A doesn't work because we're not given any reason to think the plant needs animals to feed on it in order to survive. Choice B. is out because one week of consistent rainfall hardly explains why Y isn't in Desert X. Is that too much, too little, or just right? We don't know. The fact that it can easily grow elsewhere doesn't answer the question of why it doesn't grow in Desert X; we already knew that and so it doesn't resolve the paradox. Choice D is wrong because the ability of other plants to survive in Desert X by itself has nothing to do with Plant Y. Plant Y might be one of the few lucky plants that get along fine with the lack of moisture in the desert.

4. D
Since the plant that was opened in Country Y during a revolution generated profits, a parallel can be drawn to conclude that a plant in Country X will also generate profits, despite that country's war.

5. D
You're looking for an assumption, something the author never states, but which must be true for the argument to work. The author concludes that the cost of living is higher in Sepra. The conclusion is backed up by the fact that the cost of living rises with wages in an area, and that people make cars in Sepra, but farm in Moomba. But who's to say whether auto manufacturing pays more than farming? For all we know, farming pays at least as well as auto manufacturing, and so we've located the missing piece in the author's argument. After all, if farming paid at least as well, then the cost of living in Moomba would be at least as high, and the author's argument would fall apart. So D is necessary for the argument to work.

Back to Home

Other Practice Questions:

Logic Games

Reading Comprehension