LSAC LSAT-TEST Online Practice Questions and Exam Preparation

LSAC LSAT-TEST Online Questions & Answers

• Question 151:

  Some philosophers find the traditional, subjective approach to studying the mind outdated and ineffectual. For them, the attempt to describe the sensation of pain or anger, for example, or the awareness that one is aware, has been surpassed by advances in fields such as psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science. Scientists, they claim, do not concern themselves with how a phenomenon feels from the inside; instead of investigating private evidence perceivable only to a particular individual, scientists pursue hard data ?such as the study of how nerves transmit impulses to the brain ?which is externally observable and can be described without reference to any particular point of view. With respect to features of the universe such as those investigated by chemistry, biology, and physics, this objective approach has been remarkably successful in yielding knowledge. Why, these philosophers ask, should we suppose the mind to be any different?

  But philosophers loyal to subjectivity are not persuaded by appeals to science when such appeals conflict with the data gathered by introspection. Knowledge, they argue, relies on the data of experience, which includes subjective experience. Why should philosophy ally itself with scientists who would reduce the sources of knowledge to only those data that can be discerned objectively?

  On the face of it, it seems unlikely that these two approaches to studying the mind could be reconciled. Because philosophy, unlike science, does not progress inexorably toward a single truth, disputes concerning the nature of the mind are bound to continue. But what is particularly distressing about the present debate is that genuine communication between the two sides is virtually impossible. For reasoned discourse to occur, there must be shared assumptions or beliefs. Starting from radically divergent perspectives, subjectivists and objectivists lack a common context in which to consider evidence presented from each other's perspectives. The situation may be likened to a debate between adherents of different religions about the creation of the universe. While each religion may be confident that its cosmology is firmly grounded in its respective sacred text, there is little hope that conflicts between their competing cosmologies could be resolved by recourse to the texts alone. Only further investigation into the authority of the texts themselves would be sufficient. What would be required to resolve the debate between the philosophers of mind, then, is an investigation into the authority of their differing perspectives. How rational is it to take scientific description as the ideal way to understand the nature of consciousness? Conversely, how useful is it to rely solely on introspection for one's knowledge about the workings of the mind? Are there alternative ways of gaining such knowledge? In this debate, epistemology ?the study of knowledge ?may itself lead to the discovery of new forms of knowledge about how the mind works.

  Which one of the following is most closely analogous to the debate described in the hypothetical example given by the author in the fourth paragraph?

  A. a debate among investigators attempting to determine a criminal's identity when conflicting physical evidence is found at the crime scene
  B. a debate among jurors attempting to determine which of two conflicting eyewitness accounts of an event is to be believed
  C. a debate between two archaeologists about the meaning of certain written symbols when no evidence exists to verify either's claim
  D. a debate between two museum curators about the value of a painting that shows clear signs of both genuineness and forgery
  E. a debate between two historians who draw conflicting conclusions about the same event based on different types of historical data
  E. a debate between two historians who draw conflicting conclusions about the same event based on different types of historical data

  ---

  One last analogy, one last Parallel Logic-type question, this one stemming from 4. Remember, in that the author uses an analogous example (people of different religions debating the creation of the universe, but at an impasse because of each group's sense of rightness) in order to illuminate the issue at hand. Now, we need to find an analogy to the analogy! Remember the key point: A debate is at an impasse because each side is certain of its own separate evidence, and that evidence conflicts.

• Question 152:

  The indigenous people of Tasmania are clearly related to the indigenous people of Australia, but were separated from them when the land bridge between Australia and Tasmania disappeared approximately 10,000 years ago. Two thousand

  years after the disappearance of the land bridge, however, there were major differences between the culture and technology of the indigenous Tasmanians and those of the indigenous Australians. The indigenous Tasmanians, unlike their

  Australian relatives, had no domesticated dogs, fishing nets, polished stone tools, or hunting implements like the boomerang and the spear-thrower.

  Each of the following, if true, would contribute to an explanation of differences described above EXCEPT:

  A. After the disappearance of the land bridge the indigenous Tasmanians simply abandoned certain practices and technologies that they had originally shared with their Australian relatives.
  B. Devices such as the spear-thrower and the boomerang were developed by the indigenous Tasmanians more than 10,000 years ago,
  C. Technological innovations such as fishing nets, polished stone tools, and so on, were imported to Australia by Polynesian explorers more recently than 10,000 years ago.
  D. Indigenous people of Australia developed hunting implements like the boomerang and the spear-thrower after the disappearance of the land bridge.
  E. Although the technological and cultural innovations were developed in Australia more than 10,000 years ago, they were developed by groups in northern Australia with whom the indigenous Tasmanians had no contact prior to the disappearance of the land bridge.
  B. Devices such as the spear-thrower and the boomerang were developed by the indigenous Tasmanians more than 10,000 years ago,

  ---

  The question stem tells us that we need to explain the differences, just a variation on the resolve the paradox theme. But remember, if an answer choice does explain the difference, it's incorrect. We're looking for the one that has no effect. We know that the Tasmanians and Australians are related, and we know that they were separated about 10,000 years ago when a land bridge disappeared. Within two thousand years, there were significant differences between the Tasmanians and Australians. Each one of the incorrect answer choices will explain how those differences came about, but option [Devices such as the spear-thrower and...] doesn't, so it's correct. If the Tasmanians developed those weapons over 10,000 years ago, that doesn't explain why they don't have them now. It does explain why the Australians have them, since the Australians were linked to the Tasmanians by the land bridge when the weapons were developed. But it doesn't explain why the Tasmanians no longer have them. So option [Devices such as the spear-thrower and...] is the correct answer.

• Question 153:

  Recently discovered prehistoric rock paintings on small islands off the northern coast of Norway have archaeologists puzzled. The predominant theory about northern cave paintings was that they were largely a description of the current diets of the painters. This theory cannot be right, because the painters must have needed to eat the sea animals populating the waters north of Norway if they were to make the long journey to and from the islands, and there are no paintings that unambiguously depict such creatures.

  Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument against the predominant theory about northern cave paintings EXCEPT:

  A. Once on these islands, the cave painters hunted and ate land animals.
  B. Parts of the cave paintings on the islands did not survive the centuries.
  C. The cave paintings that were discovered on the islands depicted many land animals.
  D. Those who did the cave paintings that were discovered on the islands had unusually advanced techniques of preserving meats.
  E. The cave paintings on the islands were done by the original inhabitants of the islands who ate the meat of land animals.
  C. The cave paintings that were discovered on the islands depicted many land animals.

  ---

  In essence we have to find four ways to weaken the argument against the predominant theory, meaning that we have to weaken the view of the author. He says that the paintings cannot have depicted the diets of their creators, because of the absence of depictions of sea creatures that would've been necessary to the painters' diets. He doesn't say what creatures are depicted in the caves, but option [The cave paintings that...] does, and by asserting the predominance of land animals on the cave walls option [The cave paintings that...] leaves the author's objection untouched at least, and bolsters it at most.

• Question 154:

  A music store carries exactly ten types of CDs -- both new and used of each of jazz, opera, pop, rap, and soul. The store is having a sale on some of these types of CDs. The following conditions must apply:

  Used pop is on sale; new opera is not.

  If both types of pop are on sale, then all soul is.

  If both types of jazz are on sale, then no rap is.

  If neither type of jazz is on sale, then new pop is.

  If either type of rap is on sale, then no soul is.

  Which one of the following could be a complete and accurate list of the types of CDs that are on sale?

  A. new jazz, used jazz, used opera, used pop, newrap
  B. new jazz, used pop, used rap, new soul
  C. used opera, used pop, new rap, used rap
  D. used opera, new pop, used pop, new soul
  E. used jazz, used pop, new soul, used soul
  E. used jazz, used pop, new soul, used soul

  ---

  After all that work we would expect a bit of a "gimme," and we get one. It's Acceptability! Even those baffled by the interplay of the rules can get a point for this question by merely comparing the rules to the choices and tossing out the violators. Remember that each choice is a list of circled letters! Rule 1 is never violated, but there's always Rule 2. Scan the choices for "both types of pop on sale." Option [used opera, new pop, used pop, new soul] has it. Following Rule 2, this option should have "all soul on sale" -- yet only new soul is on.

• Question 155:

  Some biologists believe that the capacity for flight first developed in marine reptiles, claiming that feathers are clearly developed from scales. Other biologists rightly reject this suggestion, pointing out that bats have no scales and that

  nonmarine reptiles also have scales. Those who believe that flight first developed in tree-dwelling reptiles reject the claim that the limbs of land-dwelling reptiles might have developed into wings. They insist that it is more likely that tree-

  dwelling reptiles developed wings to assist their leaps from branch to branch.

  Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the passage by the claim that nonmarine reptiles have scales?

  A. It is cited as evidence against the claim that the capacity for flight first developed in marine reptiles.
  B. It is cited as evidence against the claim that the capacity for flight first developed in land-dwelling animals.
  C. It is cited as evidence against the claim that the capacity for flight first developed in tree-dwelling reptiles.
  D. It weakens the claim that tree-dwelling reptiles were the first kind of reptile to develop the capacity for flight.
  E. It corroborates the observation that some mammals without scales, such as bats, developed the capacity to fly.
  A. It is cited as evidence against the claim that the capacity for flight first developed in marine reptiles.

  ---

  The stem alerts us that we have to work out the role played by a part of the argument, so it behooves us to first try to categorize the claim in question as either evidence or conclusion. Let's look at the claim in context: "Other biologists rightly reject this suggestion, pointing out that . . . nonmarine reptiles also have scales." Sure sounds like evidence, right? -- something that's "pointed out" to "rightly reject a suggestion." The suggestion is the one that precedes this, which means that the claim in the stem is simply used as evidence against the claim that flight first developed in marine reptiles.

• Question 156:

  A rich business man runs a prosperous company. He is disappointed in his two children, Violet and Hazen, because he believes that neither of them presents the potential of having the ability to take control of his company, he thinks that both of his children lack common sense.

  This belief formulates from the opinion that:

  A. Violet and Hazen are ignorant to the experience of controlling the company.
  B. Even a person who is not brilliant can control a company, if she or he has been able to obtain an MBA.
  C. In order to run a factory, a person needs common sense.
  D. If Hazen showed any sign of common sense, he would have the ability to aid Violet in controlling the company.
  E. A committee with an average of three trained personal, could assist either Violet or Hazen in controlling the company.
  C. In order to run a factory, a person needs common sense.

• Question 157:

  Donna Haraway's Primate Visions is the most ambitious book on the history of science yet written from a feminist perspective, embracing not only the scientific construction of gender but also the interplay of race, class, and colonial and postcolonial culture with the "Western" construction of the very concept of nature itself. Primatology is a particularly apt vehicle for such themes because primates seem so much like ourselves that they provide ready material for scientists' conscious and unconscious projections of their beliefs about nature and culture.

  Haraway's most radical departure is to challenge the traditional disjunction between the active knower (scientist/historian) and the passive object (nature/history). In Haraway's view, the desire to understand nature, whether in order to tame it or to preserve it as a place of wild innocence, is based on a troublingly masculinist and colonialist view of nature as an entity distinct from us and subject to our control. She argues that it is a view that is no longer politically, ecologically, or even scientifically viable. She proposes an approach that not only recognizes diverse human actors (scientists, government officials, laborers, science fiction writers) as contributing to our knowledge of nature, but that also recognizes the creatures usually subsumed under nature (such as primates) as active participants in creating that knowledge as well. Finally, she insists that the perspectives afforded by these different agents cannot be reduced to a single, coherent reality ?there are necessarily only multiple, interlinked, partial realities.

  This iconoclastic view is reflected in Haraway's unorthodox writing style. Haraway does not weave the many different elements of her work into one unified, overarching Story of Primatology; they remain distinct voices that will not succumb to a master narrative. This fragmented approach to historiography is familiar enough in historiographical theorizing but has rarely been put into practice by historians of science. It presents a complex alternative to traditional history, whether strictly narrative or narrative with emphasis on a causal argument.

  Haraway is equally innovative in the way she incorporates broad cultural issues into her analysis. Despite decades of rhetoric from historians of science about the need to unite issues deemed "internal" to science (scientific theory and practice) and those considered "external" to it (social issues, structures, and beliefs), that dichotomy has proven difficult to set aside. Haraway simply ignores it. The many readers in whom this separation is deeply ingrained may find her discussions of such popular sources as science fiction, movies, and television distracting, and her statements concerning such issues as nuclear war bewildering and digressive. To accept her approach one must shed a great many assumptions about what properly belongs to the study of science.

  Which one of the following best exemplifies the type of "traditional history" mentioned at the end of 3rd paragraph

  A. a chronological recounting of the life and work of Marie Curie, with special attention paid to the circumstances that led to her discovery of radium
  B. a television series that dramatizes one scientist's prediction about human life in the twenty-second century
  C. the transcript of a series of conversations among several scientists of radically opposing philosophies, in which no resolution or conclusion is reached
  D. a newspaper editorial written by a scientist trying to arouse public support for a certain project by detailing the practical benefits to be gained from it
  E. detailed mathematical notes recording the precise data gathered from a laboratory experiment
  A. a chronological recounting of the life and work of Marie Curie, with special attention paid to the circumstances that led to her discovery of radium

  ---

  This particular Logic question hearkens back to the Parallel Reasoning question type in Logical Reasoning. That sentence asserts that "It" ?Haraway's fragmented approach ?is to be distinguished from two traditional forms: strict narrative, and the narrative that emphasizes causality. As it happens, correct choice gives us both: the "chronological recounting" is strict narrative, and "the circumstances...[leading] to radium" implies a causal argument. Certainly such a life of Marie Curie would be in sharp contrast to the kind of prose described in 3rd paragraph.

• Question 158:

  The victory of the small Greek democracy of Athens over the mighty Persian empire in 490 B. C. is one of the most famous events in history. Darius, king of the Persian empire, was furious because Athens had interceded for the other Greek city-states in revolt against Persian domination. In anger the king sent an enormous army to defeat Athens. He thought it would take drastic steps to pacify the rebellious part of the empire. Persia was ruled by one man. In Athens, however, all citizens helped to rule. Ennobled by this participation, Athenians were prepared to die for their city-state. Perhaps this was the secret of the remarkable victory at Marathon, which freed them from Persian rule. On their way to Marathon, the Persians tried to fool some Greek city-states by claiming to have come in peace. The frightened citizens of Delos refused to believe this. Not wanting to abet the conquest of Greece, they fled from their city and did not return until the Persians had left. They were wise, for the Persians next conquered the city of Etria and captured its people. Tiny Athens stood alone against Persia. The Athenian people went to their sanctuaries. There they prayed for deliverance. They asked their gods to expedite their victory. The Athenians refurbished their weapons and moved to the plain of Marathon, where their little band would meet the Persians. At the last moment, soldiers from Plataea reinforced the Athenian troops. The Athenian army attacked, and Greek citizens fought bravely. The power of the mighty Persians was offset by the love that the Athenians had for their city. Athenians defeated the Persians in archery and hand combat. Greek soldiers seized Persian ships and burned them, and the Persians fled in terror. Herodotus, a famous historian, reports that 6400 Persians died, compared with only 192 Athenians.

  The Athenians were ______________ by some soldiers who arrived from Plataea.

  A. welcomed
  B. strengthened
  C. held
  D. captured
  E. answer not available
  B. strengthened

• Question 159:

  By refusing to ban smoking in restaurants, the city council has put the financial wellbeing of restaurant owners above the health of the citizens of this city. No doubt, the council would support the restaurants if they decided to use asbestos tablecloths and to barbecue using radioactivity. These devices would be no more risky.

  The author of this paragraph makes her case by arguing

  A. from experience
  B. from example
  C. by authority
  D. from observation
  E. from analogy
  E. from analogy

  ---

  The passage makes its point by analogy, comparing the dangers of smoking to the dangers of asbestos and radioactivity.

• Question 160:

  From among ten stones, a jeweler will select six, one for each of six rings. Of the stones, three -- F, G, and H -- are rubies; three -- J, K, and M -- are sapphires; and four -- W, X, Y, and Z -- are topazes. The selection of stones must meet the

  following restrictions:

  At least two of the topazes are selected.

  If exactly two of the sapphires are selected, exactly one of the rubies is selected.

  If W is selected, neither H nor Z is selected.

  If M is selected, W is also selected.

  If exactly two rubies are selected, which one of the following must be true?

  A. H is selected.
  B. J is selected.
  C. Z is selected.
  D. Exactly one sapphire is selected.
  E. Exactly two topazes are selected
  D. Exactly one sapphire is selected.

  ---

  This is sheer arithmetic. If we choose exactly 2 rubies, we cannot choose 2 topazes -- remember, 2: 2 : 2 is forbidden -- so we need exactly 3 topazes (and have proved thatE.is impossible, incidentally).And 2 rubies + 3 topazes only = 5 stones, so there will be exactly 1 sapphire chosen, choice [Exactly one sapphire...] What that sapphire is, is unclear; it could be J, as option [J is selected.] suggests, but need not. And options [H is selected.]. and [Z is selected.] are much more certain as to the identity of particular stones than we can possibly be, under this question's circumstances.