LSAT Logical Reasoning › Determining which answer is an assumption on which the argument depends
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.
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.
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.
Among the various models of racing cars used in top-level racing competitions, one cannot predict a car's ability to reach maximum speed simply by the horsepower of the motor. The efficiency of a motor's fuel-injection system varies significantly, even between racing cars with motors of comparable horsepower.
The argument's conclusion is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?
For each race car, the efficiency of its fuel-injection system has a significant impact on how quickly it can reach maximum speed.
It is possible to infer the power of a car's motor by examining the efficiency of its fuel-injection system.
All cars that reach maximum speed within six seconds have comparable motors in terms of their horsepower.
For any two race cars with comparable fuel-injection systems, the one with the more powerful motor will reach maximum speed more quickly.
It is not possible to assess how quickly a race car can reach maximum speed without knowing how powerful is its motor.
The conclusion of this argument speaks to the ability to predict a race car's quickness in reaching maximum speed---horsepower alone won't permit an accurate prediction. Why? The argument states that the efficiency of the fuel-injection system varies among comparable cars. This suggests that the fuel-injection system is a critical factor in a car's ability to reach maximum speed. And that indeed is the unstated assumption. The "efficiency of the fuel-injection system" is the key term in the evidence portion of the argument that is not stated in the conclusion, and it is that key term that must be contained in the assumption. Any answer choice that does not mention that key term can be immediately eliminated.
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.
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.
Standard sheets of printer paper do not vary in the amount of wood pulp that they contain. Twenty-five percent of the wood pulp contained in a certain class of sheets of standard printer paper (Class B) was recycled from used sheets of standard printer paper of a different class (Class A). Since all Class A sheets were recycled into Class B sheets and since the amount of material other than wood pulp in a sheet of standard printer paper is negligible, it follows that Class B contains 4 times as many sheets of paper as Class A.
The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
When a sheet of standard printer paper is a recycled, all of its wood pulp is recovered.
Class B sheets of paper cannot be recycled further.
Unrecycled wood pulp is of better quality than recycled wood pulp.
All of the paper in Class A had been made from recycled wood pulp.
The percentage of wood pulp in a sheet of standard printer paper that can be recovered during recycling varies depending on how such paper was used.
Since 25 percent of wood pulp in the Class B sheets comes from recycled Class A sheets, the maximum number of Class B sheets is 4 times the number of Class A sheets. However, the correct answer correctly notices that the maximum number of Class B sheets can be produced only if all pulp from the Class A sheets can be recovered through recycling; if less than all of the pulp can be recovered, the actual number of Class B sheets produced will fall short of the maximum. For example, if there were 100 Class A sheets recycled, but only 25 percent of pulp could be recovered through recycling, only 100 Class B sheets could be produced.
The government of a country mandates that all people who are citizens of that country vote in a general election and only people who are citizens shall vote. Therefore, no people who have immigrated to the country six months or less prior to the general election will vote in the general election, but some immigrants will vote in the general election.
The conclusion above follows logically if which of the following answers is assumed.
The process of becoming a citizen takes longer than six months.
The immigrants do not want to become citizens.
Immigrants cannot become citizens.
If you are an immigrant you are also a citizen of another country.
No person with dual citizenship can vote in the general election.
If the process of becoming a citizen takes longer than six months and only citizens can vote in the general election, then no person who has immigrated in the last six months can vote in the general election. The other answers are intended to throw you off. They all contain facts that are either not relevant, or contradictory of other facts.
It is important that each driver have an insurance policy before driving on the road. Otherwise, people may not be compensated when they are injured in car accidents. Everyone injured in accidents deserves to be compensated.
The argument assumes which of the following?
If every driver is insured, every person injured in an accident will be compensated
All car accidents result in injuries
No one who is in an accident but is uninjured deserves to be compensated
Compensation always requires monetary payment
Those who are injured in accidents are never at fault for those accidents
If injured people might not be compensated even if every driver has insurance, then the argument's conclusion does not follow.
Student: Obtaining student loans will be more beneficial to my future than working full-time while in school. If I obtain student loans for my remaining years in college, I will be in significant debt after I graduate from college. If I do not obtain student loans, and instead secure a full-time job while in school, I will avoid such debt. However, I cannot obtain a job in my chosen field after graduation without good grades, and my grades will suffer greatly if I am working full-time while attending school.
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the student’s argument?
Obtaining a job in the student’s chosen field after graduation is more beneficial to the student’s future than avoiding significant debt.
A full-time job obtained during school will not pay a higher salary than a job obtained after graduation.
The amount of debt incurred by the student as a result of student loans will be lower than the amount of net income attained by working full-time while in school.
Employers in the student’s chosen field consider only good grades when deciding whether to hire new graduates.
Avoidance of significant debt is the most important factor in determining what is beneficial to the student’s future.
The conclusion of the argument, found in the first sentence, is that obtaining student loans will be more beneficial to the student’s future than working-full time while in college. For this conclusion to follow, it must be the case that the consequences of obtaining such loans (significant debt) are less costly – i.e. more beneficial – than the consequences of working full-time while in school (a drop in grades). The remaining answer choices that are either not helpful to the argument, or are helpful to the argument but not required for the conclusion to logically follow.
Soccer players are faster than baseball players because soccer players use more strenuous training programs. Baseball players should use the same training programs as soccer players to become more athletic. More athletic players will be more successful.
Which of the following, if assumed, would allow the conclusion above to be properly drawn?
Players who become faster become more athletic
Fast baseball players sometimes also play soccer
Baseball requires different skills than soccer
Speed is important to success in baseball
Baseball players do not train very often during the season
The argument asserts that different training programs cause soccer players to be faster than baseball players. The next assertion is that baseball players would become more athletic if they used training programs of soccer players. This only follows if becoming faster necessarily makes one more athletic.
The production of pencil sharpeners can no longer be profitable. This is because various factors have decreased demand for pencil sharpeners. First, pens are used far more than they once were. Second, those who use pencils often use mechanical pencils. Finally, increased use of electronics has decreased the need for handwriting. The argument depends on which of the following assumptions?
Production of pencil sharpeners cannot be profitable if there is a decreased demand for them
Anything that can be accomplished with pencils can also be accomplished with electronics
Students no longer prefer pencils over pens for math calculations
Pencil sharpeners are only in demand for the purpose of sharpening pencils
Availability of mechanical pencils has increased
The argument's assertion is that production of pencil sharpeners cannot be profitable. The argument does not link this assertion to the rest of the argument, however. Instead, it supports the claim that demand has decreased. The argument assumes that decreased demand has made production of pencil sharpeners unprofitable.