Assumption
Help Questions
LSAT Logical Reasoning › Assumption
A law degree is necessary to practice as an attorney. Further, no one who has demonstrated moral turpitude may be admitted to practice law. Consequently, Smith, who was convicted of embezzlement several years ago, cannot be admitted to practice law.
The argument follows logically if which of the following is assumed?
Embezzlement demonstrates moral turpitude.
Embezzlement raises issues of integrity which can bar someone from practicing as an attorney.
Embezzlement is a serious crime.
Behavior that demonstrates moral turpitude includes the commission of certain crimes.
Smith's conviction is nor revocable.
Explanation
To answer this question, it is necessary to realize that the criteria to practice law requires that a person not demonstrate moral turpitude. Therefore, there has to be a link between Smith's embezzlement and the moral turpitude. Therefore, if embezzlement demonstrates moral turpitude, then the argument flows logically.
A law degree is necessary to practice as an attorney. Further, no one who has demonstrated moral turpitude may be admitted to practice law. Consequently, Smith, who was convicted of embezzlement several years ago, cannot be admitted to practice law.
The argument follows logically if which of the following is assumed?
Embezzlement demonstrates moral turpitude.
Embezzlement raises issues of integrity which can bar someone from practicing as an attorney.
Embezzlement is a serious crime.
Behavior that demonstrates moral turpitude includes the commission of certain crimes.
Smith's conviction is nor revocable.
Explanation
To answer this question, it is necessary to realize that the criteria to practice law requires that a person not demonstrate moral turpitude. Therefore, there has to be a link between Smith's embezzlement and the moral turpitude. Therefore, if embezzlement demonstrates moral turpitude, then the argument flows logically.
A law degree is necessary to practice as an attorney. Further, no one who has demonstrated moral turpitude may be admitted to practice law. Consequently, Smith, who was convicted of embezzlement several years ago, cannot be admitted to practice law.
The argument follows logically if which of the following is assumed?
Embezzlement demonstrates moral turpitude.
Embezzlement raises issues of integrity which can bar someone from practicing as an attorney.
Embezzlement is a serious crime.
Behavior that demonstrates moral turpitude includes the commission of certain crimes.
Smith's conviction is nor revocable.
Explanation
To answer this question, it is necessary to realize that the criteria to practice law requires that a person not demonstrate moral turpitude. Therefore, there has to be a link between Smith's embezzlement and the moral turpitude. Therefore, if embezzlement demonstrates moral turpitude, then the argument flows logically.
A medical degree is necessary for appointment to the hospital's board of directors. Further, no one having more than a five-percent equity stake in a pharmaceutical company can be appointed to the board of directors. Consequently, Dell, a practicing physician with a PhD in bioethics, cannot be appointed the hospital's treasurer, since he owns fifteen percent of PillCo, a pharmaceutical company.
The argument’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
Only those eligible for appointment to the hospital's board of directors can be appointed as the hospital's treasurer.
Anyone with a medical degree who does not hold more than a five-percent stake in any pharmaceutical company is eligible for appointment to the hospital's board of directors.
A PhD is not necessary for appointment to the position of treasurer.
If Dell sold his stake in PillCo, he would be appointed treasurer.
PillCo is one of the hospital's pharmaceutical vendors.
Explanation
To answer this question, it is necessary to recognize that while appointment criteria are set forth for the board of directors, they are applied to the position of Treasurer. We are never told that a Treasurer is a member of the board of directors. Thus, the conclusion is only warranted if eligibility for appointment to the board is a necessary condition for appointment to the position of Treasurer.
Live theater has been in competition with more modern media options for years. Today, there are a vast number of entertainment options and there is easy access to high quality entertainment technology, such as sophisticated home theater systems. Fewer people watch live theater than in the past. As a result, live theater has lost the competition with modern media.
Which of the following, if true, would allow the conclusion to be logically drawn?
Live theater has lost the competition with modern media only if it has fewer viewers than in the past
In the past, there were very few entertainment options other than live theater
Live theater performances are not performed as often as they once were
Home theater systems provide the same entertainment quality as live theater
Some people who once attended live theater now use sophisticated home theater systems
Explanation
The argument concludes that live theater has lost a competition with modern media. The conclusion does not logically follow from the assertions in the argument as they are presented. It is not clear how the competition would be lost. The additional premise allows the conclusion to be drawn.
A medical degree is necessary for appointment to the hospital's board of directors. Further, no one having more than a five-percent equity stake in a pharmaceutical company can be appointed to the board of directors. Consequently, Dell, a practicing physician with a PhD in bioethics, cannot be appointed the hospital's treasurer, since he owns fifteen percent of PillCo, a pharmaceutical company.
The argument’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
Only those eligible for appointment to the hospital's board of directors can be appointed as the hospital's treasurer.
Anyone with a medical degree who does not hold more than a five-percent stake in any pharmaceutical company is eligible for appointment to the hospital's board of directors.
A PhD is not necessary for appointment to the position of treasurer.
If Dell sold his stake in PillCo, he would be appointed treasurer.
PillCo is one of the hospital's pharmaceutical vendors.
Explanation
To answer this question, it is necessary to recognize that while appointment criteria are set forth for the board of directors, they are applied to the position of Treasurer. We are never told that a Treasurer is a member of the board of directors. Thus, the conclusion is only warranted if eligibility for appointment to the board is a necessary condition for appointment to the position of Treasurer.
A medical degree is necessary for appointment to the hospital's board of directors. Further, no one having more than a five-percent equity stake in a pharmaceutical company can be appointed to the board of directors. Consequently, Dell, a practicing physician with a PhD in bioethics, cannot be appointed the hospital's treasurer, since he owns fifteen percent of PillCo, a pharmaceutical company.
The argument’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
Only those eligible for appointment to the hospital's board of directors can be appointed as the hospital's treasurer.
Anyone with a medical degree who does not hold more than a five-percent stake in any pharmaceutical company is eligible for appointment to the hospital's board of directors.
A PhD is not necessary for appointment to the position of treasurer.
If Dell sold his stake in PillCo, he would be appointed treasurer.
PillCo is one of the hospital's pharmaceutical vendors.
Explanation
To answer this question, it is necessary to recognize that while appointment criteria are set forth for the board of directors, they are applied to the position of Treasurer. We are never told that a Treasurer is a member of the board of directors. Thus, the conclusion is only warranted if eligibility for appointment to the board is a necessary condition for appointment to the position of Treasurer.
Live theater has been in competition with more modern media options for years. Today, there are a vast number of entertainment options and there is easy access to high quality entertainment technology, such as sophisticated home theater systems. Fewer people watch live theater than in the past. As a result, live theater has lost the competition with modern media.
Which of the following, if true, would allow the conclusion to be logically drawn?
Live theater has lost the competition with modern media only if it has fewer viewers than in the past
In the past, there were very few entertainment options other than live theater
Live theater performances are not performed as often as they once were
Home theater systems provide the same entertainment quality as live theater
Some people who once attended live theater now use sophisticated home theater systems
Explanation
The argument concludes that live theater has lost a competition with modern media. The conclusion does not logically follow from the assertions in the argument as they are presented. It is not clear how the competition would be lost. The additional premise allows the conclusion to be drawn.
Live theater has been in competition with more modern media options for years. Today, there are a vast number of entertainment options and there is easy access to high quality entertainment technology, such as sophisticated home theater systems. Fewer people watch live theater than in the past. As a result, live theater has lost the competition with modern media.
Which of the following, if true, would allow the conclusion to be logically drawn?
Live theater has lost the competition with modern media only if it has fewer viewers than in the past
In the past, there were very few entertainment options other than live theater
Live theater performances are not performed as often as they once were
Home theater systems provide the same entertainment quality as live theater
Some people who once attended live theater now use sophisticated home theater systems
Explanation
The argument concludes that live theater has lost a competition with modern media. The conclusion does not logically follow from the assertions in the argument as they are presented. It is not clear how the competition would be lost. The additional premise allows the conclusion to be drawn.
It is wrong to condemn the eating of lobster. Lobsters do not have the kind of cognitive abilities that permits meaningful self-awareness, and that sort of cognitive ability is essential to experience suffering.
The conclusion above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
Only sentient beings that can experience suffering ought to be considered outside the realm of edible food for humans.
Any sentient beings that can experience suffering deserve to be treated respectfully.
Only organisms that are self-aware can experience suffering.
Any sentient being that can experience suffering must necessarily have highly developed cognitive abilities.
If lobsters ought not to be eaten because they can experience suffering, then the same is true with respect to pigs.
Explanation
The assumption must speak to the issue of “experiencing suffering,” since that is the missing term in the conclusion. The correct answer links that new term to the conclusion regarding what humans ought to eat and not eat. Thus, the correct answer is: Only sentient beings that can experience suffering ought to be considered outside the realm of edible food for humans.