LSAC LSAT-TEST Online Practice Questions and Exam Preparation

LSAC LSAT-TEST Online Questions & Answers

• Question 241:

  Philosopher Denise Meyerson views the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) movement as seeking to debunk orthodox legal theory by exposing its contradictions. However, Meyerson argues that CLS proponents tend to see contradictions where none exist, and that CLS overrates the threat that conflict poses to orthodox legal theory.

  According to Meyerson, CLS proponents hold that the existence of conflicting values in the law implies the absence of any uniquely right solution to legal cases. CLS argues that these conflicting values generate equally plausible but opposing answers to any given legal question, and, consequently, that the choice between the conflicting answers must necessarily be arbitrary or irrational. Meyerson denies that the existence of conflicting values makes a case irresolvable, and asserts that at least some such cases can be resolved by ranking the conflicting values. For example, a lawyer's obligation to preserve a client's confidences may entail harming other parties, thus violating moral principle. This conflict can be resolved if it can be shown that in certain cases the professional obligation overrides ordinary moral obligations.

  In addition, says Meyerson, even when the two solutions are equally compelling, it does not follow that the choice between them must be irrational. On the contrary, a solution that is not rationally required need not be unreasonable. Meyerson concurs with another critic that instead of concentrating on the choice between two compelling alternatives, we should rather reflect on the difference between both of these answers on the one hand, and some utterly unreasonable answer on the other ?such as deciding a property dispute on the basis of which claimant is louder. The acknowledgment that conflicting values can exist, then, does not have the far-reaching implications imputed by CLS; even if some answer to a problem is not the only answer, opting for it can still be reasonable.

  Last, Meyerson takes issue with the CLS charge that legal formalism, the belief that there is a quasi-deductive method capable of giving solutions to problems of legal choice, requires objectivism, the belief that the legal process has moral authority. Meyerson claims that showing the law to be unambiguous does not demonstrate its legitimacy: consider a game in which participants compete to steal the item of highest value from a shop; while a person may easily identify the winner in terms of the rules, it does not follow that the person endorses the rules of the game. A CLS scholar might object that legal cases are unlike games, in that one cannot merely apply the rules without appealing to, and therefore endorsing, external considerations of purpose, policy, and value. But Meyerson replies that such considerations may be viewed as part of, not separate from, the rules of the game.

  It can be inferred from the passage that proponents of the Critical Legal Studies movement would be most likely to hold which one of the following views about the law?

  A. It incorporates moral principles in order to yield definitive solutions to legal problems.
  B. It does not necessarily imply approval of any policies or values.
  C. It is insufficient in itself to determine the answer to a legal question.
  D. It is comparable to the application of rules in a game.
  E. It can be used to determine the best choice between conflicting values.
  C. It is insufficient in itself to determine the answer to a legal question.

  ---

  CLS views are discussed at many different points of the passage, so it would have been tough to prephrase an answer here.

• Question 242:

  Some vegetarians have argued that there are two individually sufficient reasons for not eating meat--one based on health considerations, and the other based on the aversion to living at the expense of other conscious creatures. But suppose that eating meat were essential to good health for humans. Then it would be less clear that an aversion to living at the expense of other conscious creatures is enough of a reason to stop eating meat.

  Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the supposition that eating meat is essential to good health?

  A. It is used to disprove the vegetarian position that we should not eat meat,
  B. It is used to show that the two types of reasons cited in favor of vegetarianism are independent.
  C. It is used to disprove the claim that a vegetarian diet is healthy.
  D. It is used to weaken the claim that the consciousness of animals is a sufficient reason for not eating meat.
  E. It is used to show that there is no sufficient reason for not eating meat.
  D. It is used to weaken the claim that the consciousness of animals is a sufficient reason for not eating meat.

  ---

  Here's a Role of a Statement question, which means that we have to focus on the context of a particular idea; in this case, a supposition. We're given two independent sufficient reasons vegetarians advance for not eating meat: it's not healthy, and it's not good to live at the expense of other creatures. "Sufficient" here is meant to imply that either reason can standalone as a reason to avoid meat. But suppose eating meat were essential to good health, says the author. "Then..."-- well, how convenient! The author follows the supposition in question with the word "Then," which clearly signals that what's coming up next must be the reason the supposition was included. Then, claims, the author, it wouldn't be as clear that the other reason, the aversion to living at other creatures' expense, would be a sufficient reason to avoid meat. So by casting doubt on one reason, the author tries to weaken the other reason as well.

• Question 243:

  City council member: Despite the city's desperate need to exploit any available source of revenue, the mayor has repeatedly blocked council members' attempts to pass legislation imposing real estate development fees. It is clear that in doing so the mayor is sacrificing the city's interests to personal interests. The mayor cites figures to show that, in the current market, fees of the size proposed would significantly reduce the number of building starts and thus, on balance, result in a revenue loss to the city. But the important point is that the mayor's family is heavily involved in real estate development and thus has a strong financial interest in the matter.

  Which one of the following most accurately and completely expresses the main conclusion of the city council member's argument?

  A. Imposing real estate development fees is the best way for the city to exploit the available sources of revenue.
  B. The city would benefit financially from the passage of legislation imposing real estate development fees.
  C. In blocking council members' attempts to impose real estate development fees, the mayor is sacrificing the city's interests to personal interests.
  D. Significantly reducing the number of building starts would not, on balance, result in revenue loss to the city.
  E. The mayor's family has a strong financial interest in preventing the passage of legislation that would impose real estate development fees
  C. In blocking council members' attempts to impose real estate development fees, the mayor is sacrificing the city's interests to personal interests.

  ---

  One argument, two questions. First we need to find the main point. The city seems eager for money, but the mayor won't allow legislation imposing fees for real estate. Think ahead! If that's the conclusion, the rest of the argument will be structured to provide evidence that the city wants money but the mayor's blocking said legislation. Is that what we get? Nope; the council member proceeds from there to a new point, and the conclusion Keyword phrase "it is clear that" is a strong clue that what's coming up is at least part of the main point. The council member accuses the mayor of putting his own interests above the city's. The next sentence contains the mayor's rationale for blocking the legislation, but the council member blows right past that, stating that the most important point is that the mayor's family is in the real estate biz and therefore has a financial interest in this matter. Can this last fact stand by itself; that is, can it satisfy the Training One Sentence Test? No; don't be fooled by the phrase "the most important point"; surely the council member didn't speak up merely to point out the mayor's family business and its interest in the matter. This last point relates back to the assertion that by blocking the legislation and not allowing fees on real estate development, the mayor is sacrificing the city's welfare in favor of his own (which, incidentally, allows us to kill option [The mayor's family has a strong financial interest in...]). All the statements point in this direction, and a quick scan for this yields option [In blocking council members' attempts to...].

• Question 244:

  By the time Bentham turned his interest to the subject, late in the eighteenth century, most components of modern evidence law had been assembled. Among common-law doctrines regarding evidence there were, however, principles that today are regarded as bizarre; thus, a well-established (but now abandoned) rule forbade the parties to a case from testifying. Well into the nineteenth century, even defendants in criminal cases were denied the right to testify to facts that would prove their innocence.

  Although extreme in its irrationality, this proscription was in other respects quite typical of the law of evidence. Much of that law consisted of rules excluding relevant evidence, usually on some rational grounds. Hearsay evidence was generally excluded because absent persons could not be cross-examined. Yet such evidence was mechanically excluded even where out-of-court statements were both relevant and reliable, but the absent persons could not appear in court (for example, because they were dead).

  The morass of evidentiary technicalities often made it unlikely that the truth would emerge in a judicial contest, no matter how expensive and protracted. Reform was frustrated both by the vested interests of lawyers and by the profession's reverence for tradition and precedent. Bentham's prescription was revolutionary: virtually all evidence tending to prove or disprove the issue in dispute should be admissible. Narrow exceptions were envisioned: instances in which the trouble or expense of presenting or considering proof outweighed its value, confessions to a Catholic priest, and a few other instances.

  One difficulty with Bentham's nonexclusion principle is that some kinds of evidence are inherently unreliable or misleading. Such was the argument underlying the exclusions of interested-party testimony and hearsay evidence. Bentham argued that the character of evidence should be weighed by the jury: the alternative was to prefer ignorance to knowledge. Yet some evidence, although relevant, is actually more likely to produce a false jury verdict than a true one. To use a modern example, evidence of a defendant's past bank robberies is excluded, since the prejudicial character of the evidence substantially outweighs its value in helping the jury decide correctly. Further, in granting exclusions such as sacramental confessions, Bentham conceded that competing social interests or values might override the desire for relevant evidence. But then, why not protect conversations between social workers and their clients, or parents and children?

  Despite concerns such as these, the approach underlying modem evidence law began to prevail soon after Bentham's death: relevant evidence should be admitted unless there are clear grounds of policy for excluding it. This clear-grounds proviso allows more exclusions than Bentham would have liked, but the main thrust of the current outlook is Bentham's own nonexclusion principle, demoted from a rule to a presumption.

  Which one of the following is the main idea of the passage?

  A. Bentham questioned the expediency of modern rules of legal evidence.
  B. Bentham's proposed reform of rules of evidence was imperfect but beneficial.
  C. Bentham's nonexclusion principle should be reexamined in the light of subsequent developments.
  D. Rules of legal evidence inevitably entail imperfect mediations of conflicting values and constraints.
  E. Despite their impairment of judicial efficiency, rules of legal evidence are resistant to change.
  B. Bentham's proposed reform of rules of evidence was imperfect but beneficial.

  ---

  The right idea here must pick up on the topic and scope, and must reflect the author's view that Bentham had more or less the right idea, with reservations.

• Question 245:

  Reviewer: Although finalism -- the view that there are purposes in nature -- has been universally rejected, this book launches another attack on that view. Its arguments are based on a complete misunderstanding of the operation of pure chance in nature and so it fails as a critique of finalism. Finalism, therefore, is clearly more plausible than people have thought.

  Which one of the following is most closely parallel in its flawed reasoning to the flawed reasoning in the reviewer's argument?

  A. No literary historian still believes the claim that a single author wrote every word of this collection of works. Evidence on which that claim is based can be shown to be false by manuscript dating techniques, but these dating results have not been cited before. Therefore, it is quite likely that a single author did write every word of this collection of works.
  B. Few botanists deny that a recently discovered fernis the same species represented in ancient fossils. The botanists who first discovered this specimen deny that it is the same species as the ancient one, but they have spent little time studying the specimen. Therefore, the specimen is likely to be the same species represented in the ancient fossils.
  C. Bicycle engineers no longer believe that aluminum is as good a frame material as titanium. An engineer at Ace Bicycles has argued that aluminum is not as good as titanium because it breaks under pressure. But he is confused about the kind of pressure exerted on bicycles. Therefore, the claim that aluminum is as good a frame material as titanium makes more sense than bicycle engineers believe.
  D. Experts agree that red wines from France's Bordeaux region are the best in the world, and five are on this year's list of the world's top ten red wines. However, the best currently available Bordeaux wines are more than one year old, whereas other countries' best are not. Therefore, it is false that Bordeaux red wines are the best in the world this year.
  E. Sociologists agree that the psychological development of children may be impaired by watching too much television, though researchers argued recently that the quality of the parent-child relationship is more developmentally significant than television viewing. These researchers did not consider the long-term impact of television on children, so it is quite likely that the psychological development of children is impaired by watching too much television.
  C. Bicycle engineers no longer believe that aluminum is as good a frame material as titanium. An engineer at Ace Bicycles has argued that aluminum is not as good as titanium because it breaks under pressure. But he is confused about the kind of pressure exerted on bicycles. Therefore, the claim that aluminum is as good a frame material as titanium makes more sense than bicycle engineers believe.

  ---

  Considering the sheer length of this Parallel Reasoning question, we have to believe that there are some shortcuts possible; after all, there's simply no time to slog through every word here. And indeed, the Training strategies cut it down to size. First, compare conclusions: The original conclusion, signaled by the trusty Keyword "therefore," is that finalism must be "more plausible" than previously thought. Scanning the choices, we see that four of them match this structure well enough, but option [Experts agree that red wines from...]. concludes that something "is false" and can be cut for that reason alone. In fact, the phrase "Therefore it is false" is all you need to read of option [Experts agree that red wines from..... Similarly, the evidence in the original begins with a view that has been "universally rejected." That's a totally unqualified statement that's not matched by option [Few botanists deny that a recently discovered...]'s "Few...deny" or option [Sociologists agree that the psychological development of...]'s notion that sociologists agree that something maybe the case.

• Question 246:

  At a concert, exactly eight compositions -- F, H, L, O, P, R, S, and T -- are to be performed exactly once each, consecutively and one composition at a time. The order of their performance must satisfy the following conditions:

  T is performed either immediately before F or immediately after R.

  At least two compositions are performed either after F and before R, or after R and before F. O is performed either first or fifth. The eighth composition performed is either L or H. P is performed at some time before S. At least one composition is performed either after O and before S, or after S and before O.

  If T is performed fifth and F is performed sixth, then S must be performed either

  A. fourth or seventh
  B. third or sixth
  C. third or fourth
  D. second or seventh
  E. first or fourth
  A. fourth or seventh

• Question 247:

  Historian: The spread of literacy informs more people of injustices and, in the right circumstances, leads to increased capacity to distinguish true reformers from mere opportunists. However, widespread literacy invariably emerges before any comprehensive system of general education; thus, in the interim, the populace is vulnerable to clever demagogues calling for change. Consequently, some relatively benign regimes may ironically be toppled by their own "enlightened" move to increase literacy.

  Which one of the following is an assumption on which the historian's argument depends?

  A. A demagogue can never enlist the public support necessary to topple an existing regime unless a comprehensive system of general education is in place.
  B. Without literacy there can be no general awareness of the injustice in a society.
  C. Any comprehensive system of general education will tend to preserve the authority of benign regimes.
  D. A lack of general education affects the ability to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate calls for reform.
  E. Any benign regime that fails to provide comprehensive general education will be toppled by a clever demagogue.
  D. A lack of general education affects the ability to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate calls for reform.

  ---

  The historian believes that a country's move towards literacy, a condition that makes the public more informed and skeptical of opportunists, can ironically make the country more vulnerable to opportunists. His reasoning is that widespread literacy tends to predate the establishment of general education, and during that middle period, the public is ripe to be hoodwinked. This assessment hinges on the premise that there is something about general education that, when combined with literacy, renders protection against scoundrels, and option [A lack of general education affects...] points out that very premise.

• Question 248:

  Human intelligence is not possible without human emotions. A computer is something that can never have emotions, so for that reason alone a computer will never be able to display intelligence.

  Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

  A. A computer could have emotions only if it could display intelligence.
  B. Computer technology will not greatly advance beyond its current state.
  C. Someone or something is intelligent only if it can identify its emotions.
  D. The greater the capacity to feel emotions, the more intelligence there is.
  E. Being intelligent requires the capacity to have emotions.
  E. Being intelligent requires the capacity to have emotions.

  ---

  Did you pick up on the scope shift in this Assumption question? Did you notice the mismatched terms? If not, take another look before reading on. Hint: look closely. Okay: Human intelligence requires human emotions. A computer can't have human emotions. Therefore, a computer can't display human intelligence. What's wrong with that? Nothing -- but that's not what the author says. She concludes that computers can't display intelligence period; she leaves out the word "human," and therein lays the shift. What if there are other kinds of intelligence that don't require emotions? Then the author couldn't argue that computers can never display intelligence based solely on the fact that they don't have emotions. If the author wants to make a case about intelligence in general based on the evidence given, then she needs the connection cited in option [Being intelligent requires the capacity to...]. (Note: If you missed the distinction between human intelligence and intelligence in general, option [Being intelligent requires the capacity to...] probably looked to you like a restatement of the first sentence.)

• Question 249:

  There are exactly ten stores and no other buildings on Oak Street. On the north side of the street, from west to east, are stores 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9; on the south side of the street, also from west to east, are stores 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10. The stores on

  the north side are located directly across the street from those on the south side, facing each other in pairs, as follows: 1 and 2; 3 and 4; 5 and 6; 7 and 8; 9 and 10. Each store is decorated with lights in exactly one of the following colors:

  green, red, and yellow. The stores have been decorated with lights according to the following conditions:

  No store is decorated with lights of the same color as those of any store adjacent to it.

  No store is decorated with lights of the same color as those of the store directly across the street from it.

  Yellow lights decorate exactly one store on each side of the street.

  Red lights decorate store 4.

  Yellow lights decorate store 5.

  If green lights decorate store 7, then each of the following statements could be false EXCEPT:

  A. Green lights decorate store 2.
  B. Green lights decorate store 10.
  C. Red lights decorate store 8.
  D. Red lights decorate store 9.
  E. Yellow lights decorate store 2.
  D. Red lights decorate store 9.

  ---

  A mini-sketch for this question should recopy what we know and add "G" to store 7. Store 9, which we knew was "G/R," is now definitively "R." And that's it; we cannot confirm anything more on the south side. But that's enough: store 9 has to

  be red, so option [Red lights decorate store 9.] cannot be false.

  Of options [Green lights decorate store 2.] and [Yellow lights decorate store 2.], exactly one is true -- store 2 is green or yellow -- but we don't know which. Store 8could be red or yellow, so [Red lights decorate store 8.] can be false. And store

  10 remains uncertain, so option [Green lights decorate store 10.] can be false too.

• Question 250:

  Each of seven television programs--H, J, L, P, Q, S, V--is assigned a different rank: from first through seventh (from most popular to least popular). The ranking is consistent with the following conditions:

  J and L are each less popular than H.

  J is more popular than Q.

  S and V are each less popular than L.

  P and S are each less popular than Q.

  S is not seventh.

  If J is more popular than L, and S is more popular than P, then which one of the following must be true of the ranking?

  A. J is second.
  B. J is third.
  C. L is third.
  D. Q is third.
  E. P is seventh
  A. J is second.

  ---

  For the purposes of this question, we can refine the Master Sketch in line with the two new if's (take them one at a time) by showing that Q and L both rank below J and above S, and that P falls below S. The wild card is V, about which we (as usual) know nothing except that it falls below L on the sketch

  

  Option [J is second.] has it right and option [J is third.] has it wrong: J is second, not third. Either options [L is third.] or [Q is third.] is true -- one of the Q / L pair must be third -- but we cannot tell which. P is a contender for seventh place option [P is seventh], but then so is V.