Question #1
Literary historian: William Shakespeare, a humble actor, could have written the love poetry attributed to him. But the dramas attributed to him evince such insight into the minds of powerful rulers that they could only have been written by one who had spent much time among them; Francis Bacon associated with rulers, but Shakespeare did not.
1) Which one of the following logically follows from the literary historian’s claims?
Answer:
(E) Inference
“Only” invariably signals that necessity is at the heart of the question at hand.
Shakespeare could have written the love poetry they say he wrote, but not the dramas of powerful rulers, because he didn’t hang around with them—a necessary condition for writing those dramas, as “only” signals. Because the Bard of Avon fails to meet that necessary condition, (E) is right: His authorship of the love stuff is up in the air, but the dramas are out.(A) Bacon is thrown in to justify wrong answer choices like (A). All we know about Bacon is that he seems to have met the necessary condition for writing dramas about rulers, period. That Shakespeare couldn’t have written them doesn’t mean that Bacon definitely did, and that Shakespeare could have written the love poems doesn’t mean that Bacon couldn’t have.
(B) Bacon again. (B) goes even further than (A). Bacon’s meeting the necessary condition for the dramas says nothing about whether he had a hand in them, and of course Bacon isn’t connected to the love poems at all.
(C) goes too far, because the author concedes that Shakespeare might have written the love poetry—we just don’t know for sure.
(D) Well, one person who couldn’t have written both is Shakespeare, but the stimulus leaves open the possibility that any number of other single persons could have.
PT 46, Section 2, Question 2
Question #2
Futurist: Artists in the next century will be supported largely by private patrons. Because these patrons will almost invariably be supporters of the social order—whatever it happens to be at the time—art in the next century will rarely express social and political doctrines that are perceived to be subversive of that social order.
2) Which one of the following principles, if valid, provides the most support for the futurist’s inference?
Answer:
(A) Principle
A “supporting principle” is working as much as a strengthener as anything else.
The futurist’s inference is based on three predictions: that the artists of the 22nd century will mostly work under a patronage system; that those patrons will support the status quo, most likely; and that therefore 22nd-century art won’t be subversive. In other words, because patrons are not subversive, the art they support won’t be, either. This perhaps melancholy view is rendered more likely by (A), the idea that patrons generally won’t support art that expresses views the patrons themselves oppose.
(B) Knowing patrons’ relative interest in formal artistic problems vs. social and political issues has no impact on the logic. Patrons, says the futurist, don’t want to rock the boat; that’s all.
(C) Another irrelevant comparison, this one between two likelihoods (to attack vs. to defend) on the part of artists. Indeed, the stimulus is wholly involved with patrons’ behavior, not that of artists.
(D) Because artists of the 22nd century will be under patrons’ thumbs, what happens when they’re “freed of dependency” couldn’t be of less interest to the argument.
(E) is a 180: if patrons opposed everything except that which artists initiate, then the patrons would be more—not less—likely to support them.
PT 46, Section 2, Question 5
Question #3
Air traffic controllers and nuclear power plant operators are not allowed to work exceptionally long hours, because to do so would jeopardize lives. Yet physicians in residency training are typically required to work 80-hour weeks. The aforementioned restrictions on working exceptionally long hours should also be applied to resident physicians, since they too are engaged in work of a life-or-death nature.
3) Which one of the following is an assumption the argument depends on?
Answer:
(A) Assumption
Whenever an Assumption stimulus draws an analogy, the author must be assuming that the two terms are, logically speaking, similar enough to draw similar conclusions about them.
The rationale for restricting resident physicians from working punitively long hours is that two other occupations—air traffic controllers and power plant workers—are so restricted, and all three occupations involve “life and death” decisions and responsibilities. The key underlying assumption is that the analogy holds, or to put it more specifically, that these jobs are not materially different in terms of the effect of long hours on job performance. If (A) is false—if there’s something about medicine that makes working long hours a necessity rather than a hindrance—then the analogy falls apart. So the author is counting on (A) as he argues that what’s applicable to the other two occupations is applicable to resident physicians.
(B) The author need not assume that doctors have a greater need for the restrictions in order to strengthen the analogy to the controllers and plant workers. (B) goes beyond the two important criteria in the LSAT’s definition of an assumption: an assumption on the LSAT must be unstated, and must offer only that which is absolutely necessary to the conclusion (the “minimum mandatory”).
(C)’s generalization doesn't speak to the precise proposed analogy between resident physicians and other “life-and-death”-concerned workers, and indeed the author might very well disagree with (C) (although he'd probably concede that (C) is true in terms of these three occupations). If the author might disagree with a choice it’s certainly not one of his assumptions.
(D) Those whose work is not of a life-or-death nature fall outside the scope here.
(E) That which residents might want, and that which is good for them or indeed necessary for them, are two different things, and residents’ desires are irrelevant to the wisdom of the logic.
PT 46, Section 2, Question 10
Question #4
Roger Bacon, the thirteenth-century scientist, is said to have made important discoveries in optics. He was an early advocate of hands-on experimentation, and as a teacher warned his students against relying uncritically on the opinions of authorities. Nevertheless, this did not stop Bacon himself from appealing to authority when it was expedient for his own argumentation. Thus, Bacon’s work on optics should be generally disregarded, in view of the contradiction between his statements and his own behavior.
4) The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
Answer:
(E) Flaw
Most of the time, LSAT choices that accuse the author of attacking a speaker’s character (known sometimes as an ad hominem attack) are wrong. But sometimes they’re right.
There’s a long, important-sounding introduction here, but the basic argument is really contained entirely within the last sentence. Why disregard Bacon’s work on optics? Because Bacon contradicted himself by sometimes relying on authority, that’s why. The author’s attack is on Bacon’s character—his personal behavior, his alleged hypocrisy—and not actually on the validity of Bacon’s work on optics. (E) captures this problem.
(A) may be the most difficult wrong answer choice to eliminate. Its problem is that the author doesn’t base his criticism of Bacon’s work on Bacon’s reliance on authority, but on the fact that Bacon didn’t practice what he preached. Therefore it doesn't matter that the author fails to prove that work that relies on authority is often incorrect. Bacon’s hypocrisy, as well as the author's demand that his optics work be ignored, would stand nevertheless.
(B) distorts the author’s point. The author does not say we should distrust Bacon because of his reliance on authority, but rather because of his selfcontradictions.
(C) falls well out of the scope. Besides, there’s generally nothing wrong with using a person’s statements to students as evidence for what he believes.
(D) is also off topic. The author criticizes Bacon alone, and for something Bacon personally did. The general validity of 13th-century science is too vague to describe the flaw in this argument.
PT 46, Section 2, Question 14
Question #5
The ability to access information via computer is a tremendous resource for visually impaired people. Only a limited amount of printed information is accessible in braille, large type, or audiotape. But a person with the right hardware and software can access a large quantity of information from libraries and museums around the world, and can have the computer read the information aloud, display it in large type, or produce a braille version. Thus, visually impaired people can now access information from computers more easily than they can from most traditional sources.
5) Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
Answer:
(B) Strengthen the Argument
Determining an author’s assumption will often help to prephrase the answer to Strengthen questions. (Indeed, the right answer may sound just like a key assumption.)
The author’s conclusion (signaled by the strong Keyword “thus”) is that the visually impaired can now get information via computer more readily than through traditional sources. “More easily” is a comparison, which means that the author needs to support the comparison as well. The evidence first tells us that material for the visually impaired in traditional formats is limited, and then that with the right hardware and software, much more information is available to the visually impaired.
That second piece of evidence sounds just like what the author needs to complete the comparison, but notice that it has a big condition placed on it: “with the right hardware and software.” To reach the conclusion that more information is available via computer than through the traditional routes, the author must be assuming that the visually impaired have “the right” hardware and software (i.e., that which will supplant the traditional sources). Answer (B) paraphrases the assumption nicely, and because we’re to assume that it’s true, it’s a strengthener as well.
(A) The expense of computer speech synthesizers is too narrow to do the job in this argument. Availability, not expense, is the issue here, and we don’t know whether a speech synthesizer is part of the necessary hardware or not.
(C) Visually impaired people’s preference of sources lies outside the scope of an argument concerned with the accessibility of information. (In other words, the author says that the world of computers is available to them, which is irrelevant to whether they want it.)
(D) is a 180. Adding this information to the argument would lead to the conclusion that computers have no real advantage over the traditional sources.
(E) would be an advantage, one supposes, but because the language is broad enough to cover computers as well as other, nonelectronic sources of information, (E) makes the argument no stronger than before. Besides, the conclusion is about what's happening now, whereas (E) is a future prediction.
PT 46, Section 2, Question 16
Question #6
Many physicists claim that quantum mechanics may ultimately be able to explain all fundamental phenomena, and that, therefore, physical theory will soon be complete. However, every theory in the history of physics that was thought to be final eventually had to be rejected for failure to explain some new observation. For this reason, we can expect that quantum mechanics will not be the final theory.
6) Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?
Answer:
(C) Parallel Reasoning
In Parallel Reasoning questions, compare the arguments piece by piece.
That this is a rather compact Parallel Reasoning question may make it less intimidating than usual. The conclusion is a concrete negative prediction: “quantum mechanics will not be the final theory.” Scanning the conclusions in the answer choices, we can eliminate (A) because it's not strong enough (“few species... can live” as opposed to “will not be the final theory”). We can also get rid of (B) because it introduces the idea of “a fifth competitor” (nothing about the number of competing theories appears in the stimulus) and (D) because it says “reinfect” (the stimulus is not about a reoccurrence of anything).
That leaves (C) and (E), both of which conclude with strong negative predictions. To differentiate between them, we need to examine the evidence. In the stimulus, the evidence is, essentially, that no previous theory has been the final one. At this point a comparison makes (C) the clear winner, because it says “she has never won a chess tournament,” parallel to no previous theory’s ever having come out on top. The evidence in (E) does not match, because it says the team will fail because the team members individually failed; but the stimulus doesn't justify its conclusion in terms of the components or parts of the quantum theory.
PT 46, Section 2, Question 18
Question #7
A reporter is trying to uncover the workings of a secret committee. The committee has six members—French, Ghauri, Hsia, Irving, Magnus, and Pinsky—each of whom serves on at least one subcommittee. There are three subcommittees, each having three members, about which the following is known:
One of the committee members serves on all three subcommittees.
French does not serve on any subcommittee with Ghauri.
Hsia does not serve on any subcommittee with Irving.
7) If French does not serve on any subcommittee with Magnus, which one of the following must be true?
Answer:
(C) “Must be true” / “If” clause
When you’re told what is not true, it’s your job to turn that around and decide what is true.
If F and M never serve together on a subcommittee, what does that mean? It means that M isn’t the Triple, because if M were, he’d be serving on a subcommittee with everyone. If M isn’t the Triple then of course P is, which means that everyone else will share some subcommittee with P and, therefore, that (C) is correct. “Irving serves on a subcommittee with Pinsky?” Sure. Heck, everyone serves on a subcommittee with the Triple.
PT 46, Section 4, Question 17
Question #8
A reporter is trying to uncover the workings of a secret committee. The committee has six members—French, Ghauri, Hsia, Irving, Magnus, and Pinsky—each of whom serves on at least one subcommittee. There are three subcommittees, each having three members, about which the following is known:
One of the committee members serves on all three subcommittees.
French does not serve on any subcommittee with Ghauri.
Hsia does not serve on any subcommittee with Irving.
8) If Pinsky serves on every subcommittee on which French serves and every subcommittee on which Ghauri serves, then which one of the following could be true?
Answer:
(C) “Could be true” / “If” clause
Jot down the new “if” information and keep track of it.
According to the stem, P serves on every subcommittee on which F serves and every committee on which G serves. Note that F and G are always (Rule 3) on different subcommittees. So far we have:
P F __ / P G __ / __ __ __
Does P have to be the Triple? Yes, because if M were the Triple, notice that H and I would be left together on a subcommittee, a violation of Rule 3. So it must be:
P F __ / P G __ / P __ __
The remaining four slots are left for H, I, and M. M will serve with H or I to separate them from each other:
P F __ / P G __ / P M H or I
We can now attack the choices, confident that one and only one is possible, while the other four are false.
(A) As noted earlier, putting M on the same subcommittees as P, F, and G would force a violation of Rule 3. (A) is impossible.
(B) Look at the last arrangement, above. M certainly serves with either H or I, but cannot serve with both.
(C) If H is the Double, which he can be, then he could serve with F and G, and the assignments would be:
P F H / P G H / P M I
No problem there, so (C) is possible and therefore correct. For the record, (D) and (E) would each propose a second Triple—a second person, F or H, to serve along with P on all three subcommittees. That’s clearly impossible.
PT 46, Section 4, Question 18
Question #9
A reporter is trying to uncover the workings of a secret committee. The committee has six members—French, Ghauri, Hsia, Irving, Magnus, and Pinsky—each of whom serves on at least one subcommittee. There are three subcommittees, each having three members, about which the following is known:
One of the committee members serves on all three subcommittees.
French does not serve on any subcommittee with Ghauri.
Hsia does not serve on any subcommittee with Irving.
9) If Irving serves on every subcommittee on which Magnus serves, which one of the following could be true?
Answer:
(B) “Could be true” / “If” clause
The function of “if” clauses in questions is to narrow down the number of possibilities.
As we deduced way back when, there’s only one Triple (either M or P), and there’s only one Double, identity unknown. That leaves things fairly wide open, but this question narrows them significantly. I can serve on every M subcommittee, as the question demands, only if M serves on exactly one subcommittee. (If it were two subcommittees, I would have to be either a second Double, or the Triple.) With M on one subcommittee, P would be the Triple:
P I M / P __ __ / P __ __
Who's the Double here? Anyone but M or P. Let’s see what the choices propose:
(A) Impossible, because if M were the Triple, then I would have to be a Triple as well. Can’t happen.
(B) There’s nothing stopping I from being the Double (it’s not as if the stem reads, “I serves only on every subcommittee on which M serves”). The assignments could go like so:
P F H / P G I / P M I
Note that this arrangement violates no rules and follows the question’s “if” as well. Thus (B) is possible and correct. Of the wrong choices, because P is the Triple, I is restricted to two subcommittees, maximum [(C)]; and M’s single appearance in a “P I M” subcommittee renders (D) and (E) impossible.
PT 46, Section 4, Question 19
Question #10
Cox: The consumer council did not provide sufficient justification for its action when it required that Derma-35 be recalled from the market.
Crockett: I disagree. Derma-35 in fact causes inflammation, but in citing only the side effect of blemishes as the justification for its decision, the council rightly acknowledged that blemishes are a legitimate health concern.
10) Cox and Crockett disagree over whether
Answer:
(D) Point at Issue
In Point at Issue questions, the right answer must reflect both speakers’ opinions, and those opinions must disagree.
Cox, speaker 1, accuses the council of failing to provide sufficient justification for its action. Noting that, we quickly check Crockett’s response and find he also discusses justification, a clue that we’ve probably found the point at issue between them. Our suspicion is confirmed when he says that the “council rightly acknowledged” blemishes as an adequate reason. Cox says the council hasn’t given sufficient justification; Crockett says the council has. (D) sums up their disagreement.
(A) Evidently the product is not on the market now, so it can’t “remain” there. In any case, even if Crockett is happy to see Derma-35 off the shelves, we can’t infer that Cox wants it back, just that she’s not happy with the rationale for the decision.
(B) Only Crockett talks about blemishes; Cox is silent on the topic. And, at least to hear Crockett describe them, inflammation and blemishes seem to be two separate side effects of Derma-35, so (B) doesn’t even make sense.
(C) Cox is more vague on the particulars of the insufficient justification than (C) is. And because she never mentions either inflammation or blemishes, we can’t pin her down to a position on any conflict between them.
(E) As already noted Cox never discusses inflammation, and Crockett only names blemishes as a health concern.
PT 46, Section 2, Question 1
Question #11
Psychologist: Because of a perceived social stigma against psychotherapy, and because of age discrimination on the part of some professionals, some elderly people feel discouraged about trying psychotherapy. They should not be, however, for many younger people have greatly benefited from it, and people in later life have certain advantages over the young—such as breadth of knowledge, emotional maturity, and interpersonal skills—that contribute to the likelihood of a positive outcome.
11) Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the psychologist’s argument?
Answer:
(C) Main Point
When asked to find the main point, don’t get involved in any deep analysis. Just look for the sentence that gives the strongest authorial point of view—the one that the rest of the paragraph supports.
“They should not be X, for Y.” There's your superstructure: the latter word indicating the evidence that’s about to be presented, and the former phrase indicating the author’s interest in making a recommendation. “The elderly should not be discouraged from trying psychotherapy” is correct choice (C) practically word for word.
(A) The author acknowledges that such discrimination exists, but only in passing; she goes on to recommend that the elderly try therapy anyway.
(B) goes too far. That the elderly have “advantages... that contribute to...a positive outcome” doesn't necessarily give them the edge over the young that (B) assigns. Both groups could benefit equally (and indeed do, given the “for...” clause in sentence 2).
(D) is something that the author surely agrees with, but this isn’t an Inference question. It’s a Main Point question, and the main point has to be the end of the author’s reasoning. If (D) were her conclusion, the rest of the paragraph would have to defend the idea that maturity leads to success. But it doesn’t. (D) is actually part of the evidence for the point expressed in (C).
(E) No such comparison—between the elderly’s unwillingness and young folks’ eagerness—is ever implied, let alone presented as the main point.
PT 46, Section 3, Question 5
Question #12
Psychologist: Some people contend that children should never be reprimanded. Any criticism, let alone punishment, they say, harms children’s self-esteem. This view is laudable in its challenge to the belief that children should be punished whenever they misbehave, yet it gives a dangerous answer to the question of how often punishment should be inflicted. When parents never reprimand their children, they are in effect rewarding them for unacceptable behavior, and rewarded behavior tends to recur.
12) The view that children should never be reprimanded functions in the psychologist’s argument as a statement of a position that the psychologist’s argument
Answer:
(D) Role of a Statement
When asked for the role of a statement, underline it in the test booklet so that you can more readily focus on it.
Here, we want to underline the view mentioned in lines 1–2 and addressed in lines 4–7 where we’re told that “This view is laudable…yet it gives a dangerous answer to” a particular question. (D) properly reflects the psychologist’s ambivalence about the blanket contention that kids should never be reprimanded.
(A) The psychologist could not call the view “laudable” were she out to “discredit it entirely.”
(B) Her eagerness to point out a danger within the view indicates that she’s up to far more than a mere effort to “establish [it] as true.”
(C) She lauds not just the view’s intention, but its effect. (Lines 5–6 indicate that she dislikes any tendency to punish all misbehavior, and says that the view in lines 1–2 “challenges” that tendency.)
(E) is a 180, because she emphatically finds the view more reasonable.
PT 46, Section 3, Question 16
Looking for more practice? We've got all the tools you need for success on the LSAT.
Learn more about our self-paced, live online, in person, or private tutoring LSAT test prep options.
Fill out the information below to get the answers and explanations. We’ll also email you free tips, admissions advice, exclusive offers, and other content aimed specifically to help you do better on Test Day.