LSAT Logical Reasoning › Determine the method of reasoning used in the argument
Executive: The new software has outperformed its predecessor in first month sales. The upgrade to the interface is the most obvious change between the two versions. All software should now be outfitted with the same interface.
The best description of the executive’s reasoning is that __________.
a preceding event is necessarily a cause of a following action
a massive change in circumstances must have many causes
the cause of a new event is never easily deduced at first
a singular event has no obvious consequences
the direct effect of any action is not repeatable
The executive's reasoning is extremely straightforward and, in fact, rather crude. This does not make it easy to describe, however, and it is important to note that the executive directly links the new interface to the program's success in a large way. This indicates the executive sees the preceding event of the interface change as causing the software's success.
Joey: We do not need to drink more water. We would only need to drink more water if we were dehydrated.
John: The fact that we are dehydrated is exactly why we need to drink more water.
John's response to Joey functions to:
Deny an implicit premise of Joey's argument in order to arrive at a different conclusion.
Contradict Joey's conclusion without giving any reason to reject his assumptions.
Imply that Joey's argument is invalid by accepting its premise but rejecting its conclusion.
Remaining ambivalent about Joey's conclusion while agreeing with his basic premise.
Proving Joey's example wrong with a counterexample.
John does not accept Joey's implicit premise/assumption, which is that they are not dehydrated. He then concludes, on the basis that Joey's premise of not being dehydratd is false, that in fact their dehydration means they should drink water.
The spread of viral diseases like Ebola is not just a medical problem, but an infrastructure problem. Building more roads and better sewage systems will allow a much easier path to fighting the disease for aid workers and medical professionals. Once the sick and dying can be more readily reached, the disease will be much more easily combatted.
The method of reasoning in this passage is best described as __________.
viewing a single action as the solution to a problem.
seeing a problem as multidimensional and fluid.
creating a larger issue than the one being addressed.
assuming an event will automatically create another event.
working through all possibilities to find a solution.
The passage proposes that the serious problem of a terrible disease can be easily solved by the panacea of better infrastructure, which is then asserted to be easy to place in the countries fighting Ebola. One can articulate the passage's method of reasoning in saying that the passage views the solution to a problem as being found in a single action.
James: Public schools should require students to wear uniforms. Studies have shown that both violence and bullying can be curtailed if such measures are taken.
Violet: I don't agree. Those same studies show that in schools where uniforms are required, there was still an average of 11.6 reported episodes of gang-related incidents and 8.4 reported bullying incidents per month. With those kinds of numbers, uniforms are clearly not worth the loss of student self-expression.
Violet responds to James' argument in which one of the following ways?
She disputes one of James' premises and argues that its refutation justifies disregarding James' conclusion.
She notes an inherent ambiguity in the word "violence" and argues that such a term cannot be effectively quantified.
She cites statistics showing that uniforms actually increase, rather than decrease, gang-related violence and bullying in schools that require uniforms.
She challenges James' conclusion by noting that the value of self-expression is such that it outweighs most concerns regarding violence against the individual.
She criticizes a flaw in James' reasoning and shows how his premises, even when taken at face value, fail to justify his conclusion.
Violet's primary disagreement with James is with his idea that "both violence and bullying can be curtailed" if uniforms are required at schools. She cites statistics showing that they will not be curtailed, thus disputing his premise. With that premise disregarded, she argues that his conclusion does not follow in light of the loss of student self-expression that wearing uniforms entails. The remaining answer choices do not correctly characterize Violet's response.
Publisher: It is usually not a good idea for a first-time author to begin with a novel which the author intends to become part of a series. Most series novels are not published, but publishing companies are more likely to make series deals with authors who have previously published at least one stand-alone novel. If the stand-alone novel is a success, it is a good possibility that a subsequent series by that author will also be successful.
Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the publisher’s argument by the statement that most series novels are not published?
It is a claim that is used to introduce another claim which supports the argument’s main conclusion.
It is one of the argument’s conclusions, but not its main conclusion.
It is an unsupported statement which serves only to weaken the argument.
It is the argument’s only conclusion.
It identifies a condition which, if not met, is fatal to the argument’s main conclusion.
While not vital to the argument, the claim that most series novels are not published is used to lead to the argument’s main premise, which is that publishing a stand-alone novel gives authors a better chance of later publishing a series. The statement does not weaken the argument, but rather puts it in context.
A small shop has a policy that in order to sell fruit at the front of the store, it must be both organic and locally grown. Recently, a producer who has farmland slightly more than a quarter of a mile away wanted to have his persimmons sold at the store and showcased in the store’s large wooden display case. Upon receiving his request, the storeowners did a background check and determined that the farmer’s produce was in fact organic. Therefore, the storeowners allowed the farmer’s persimmons to be sold as he had requested.
The argument’s conclusion follows logically if which of the following is assumed to be true?
Only fruit that would be allowed in the front of the store can be showcased in the store’s large wooden display case.
It can reasonably be inferred that if the farmer’s land is a little more than a quarter of a mile away from the store that he would qualify as a local farmer.
Customers tend to buy organic and locally grown produce much more frequently than other produce that is not labeled as such.
If the farmer did not use organic farming practices, he would not have been allowed to sell his produce in the store.
In order for produce to be deemed organic, it is necessary to conduct a background check on the farming practices.
The passage explains that the farmer’s persimmons are organic, and a reasonable inference can be made that they are also locally grown. Given that the passage states that “…therefore” the farmer may sell the persimmons in the shop, the argument will only logically flow if it is required that the farmer’s persimmons be both organic and locally grown. Given that these are the same prerequisites for selling the fruit at the front of the store, "Only fruit that would be allowed in the front of the store can be showcased in the store’s large wooden display case" is the correct answer. None of the other answer choices make it clear that it is required for the persimmons to be both organic and locally grown.
Shopping in person is an activity that many people loathe. This accounts for the popularity of online shopping, which has few of the hassles of in-person shopping. Online shoppers are able to avoid lines, traffic, and having to hunt around the store for the items they need. With a few keystrokes and a credit card, they can accomplish a task in a few minutes that might have taken hours in "real life."
The claim that shopping in person is an activity that many people loathe plays which of the following roles in the argument?
It is a premise given as a reason for the conclusion that online shopping is popular.
It is a conclusion supported by evidence of the hassles of in-person shopping in comparison to online shopping.
It is a generalization which is based on the premise that in-person shopping takes considerably more time to accomplish than online shopping.
It is a conclusion supported by the premise that online shopping is becoming increasingly popular.
It is a premise supported by the claim that online shoppers can accomplish their task quickly with a few keystrokes and a credit card.
This claim sets up the argument, which concludes that online shopping is popular precisely because many people loathe shopping in person. It is, therefore, a premise and not a conclusion, and is the reason for the conclusion. While it might feasibly be characterized as a generalization, that is not the role the claim plays in the argument.
Unlike his predecessors, the chairman of the board believed in seeking advice from the rest of the board. The company was able to address many of the difficult problems under the chairman’s leadership, particular with a raft of new issues stemming from external forces. Remarkably, the successful company became even more successful on his watch.
The method of reasoning used in the above statement is best expressed as __________.
the business strategies which lead to success are preferable
a manner of dealing with a board is best judged by how open it is
the success of a chairman of the board should be judged on the opinions of the board members
a business should only be judged based on the actions of its chairman of the board
a chairman of the board's impact on a business is limited in scope
The statement ends by remarking on the overall success of the business from a profit standpoint, which is the only value judgment given by the author and is pointed to directly as a result of the chairman's actions. While the strategy of talking to board members is mentioned, it is not remarked upon as inherently a positive or negative.
The government is considering a new round of massive government spending. The opposition party has firmly come out against this new policy. They have argued that an expansion of government spending would both increase the debt and possibly cause inflation. In spite of these arguments, the government should adopt a new round of government spending. The economy remains below its optimal level of output and interest rates are at an all-time low. Only an increase in government spending can reduce the unemployment rate and get people back to work.
The argument proceeds by arguing that
An expansion of government spending will reduce the unemployment rate.
Supporting the position of the opposition party.
Concluding that the goal of reducing inflation and the unemployment rate are mutually exclusive.
Presenting evidence that an expansion of government spending would not cause inflation.
Showing that getting people back to work and reducing the unemployment rate are incompatible.
We are looking for a premise that helps support the conclusion to answer this question. The stimulus has two premises that help support that the new round of government spending is a good idea; it will reduce the unemployment rate and it will get people back to work. The correct answer provides one of those premises.
Andrew: We regulate oil and gas, car exhaust, pesticides, and chemicals because, while companies argue that they are necessary for economic growth, they cause environmental pollution that can be harmful to health. Car alarms also cause environmental pollution in the form of loud noises, but we need cars (and alarms), so we should regulate them the way we do chemicals.
Alicia: Oil and gas, car exhaust, pesticides, and chemicals harm physical health, while car alarms are just annoying. We do not need to regulate them the same way.
Alicia's response to Andrew's argument can best be characterized as:
Challenging the strength of the analogy that forms the basis of Andrew's argument.
Questioning the accuracy of evidence about pollution from cars and chemicals.
Disagreeing with Andrew's argument that both cars and chemicals are necessary.
Questioning the validity of Andrew's sources of information.
Arguing that Andrew's argument is biased towards regulation.
Alicia is questioning Andrew's assertion that the type of harm that comes from car alarms (and justifies regulation in his argument) is similar to the harm that comes from chemical pollution.