LSAC LSAT-TEST Online Practice Questions and Exam Preparation

LSAC LSAT-TEST Online Questions & Answers

• Question 301:

  Birds need so much food energy to maintain their body temperatures that some of them spend most of their time eating. But a comparison of a bird of a seed-eating species to a bird of a nectar-eating species that has the same overall energy requirement would surely show that the seed-eating bird spends more time eating than does the nectar-eating bird, since a given amount of nectar provides more energy than does the same amount of seeds.

  The argument relies on which one of the following questionable assumptions?

  A. Birds of different species do not generally have the same overall energy requirements as each other.
  B. The nectar-eating bird does not sometimes also eat seeds.
  C. The time it takes for the nectar-eating bird to eat a given amount of nectar is not longer than the time it takes the seed-eating bird to eat the same amount of seeds.
  D. The seed-eating bird does not have a lower body temperature than that of the nectar-eating bird.
  E. The overall energy requirements of a given bird do not depend on factors such as the size of the bird, its nest-building habits, and the climate of the region in which it lives.
  C. The time it takes for the nectar-eating bird to eat a given amount of nectar is not longer than the time it takes the seed-eating bird to eat the same amount of seeds.

  ---

  The argument compares seed-eating birds with nectar-eating birds, both of which have the same overall energy requirement. Based on the evidence that a given amount of nectar provides more energy than does the same amount of seeds, the author concludes that seed-eating birds must spend more time eating. What's missing here? The relationship between how much time it takes to eat a given amount of nectar with the time it takes to eat a given amount of seeds. For the author's conclusion to be valid, it must be assumed that those times are equal. That's answer choice [The time it takes for the nectar-eating bird to...]. If you don't see that, use the Denial Test. If it does take longer for birds to eat a given amount of nectar, let's say 10 times longer, then it's very possible that nectar-eating birds will spend more of their free time eating.

• Question 302:

  Movies that contain persistent violence are usually given R rating. R rated movies can be viewed in a theater by a child or an under-17 adolescent only in the company of a parent or an adult guardian. Mr. Smith and Mr. Green are two directors whose every movie has been given an R rating, while only some of Ms. Abbott's movies are R rated.

  Which one of the following logically follows from the statements above, if they are true?

  A. The movies made by female directors are more often viewed alone in the theaters by children or under-17 adolescents than the movies made by male directors.
  B. An under-17 adolescent cannot view a movie of Mr. Green by himself in a theater.
  C. No movie of Mr. Smith can be viewed by a child or an under-17 adolescent in a theater.
  D. A child is more likely to view a movie made by Ms. Abbott in a theater than a movie made by Mr. Green.
  E. Some of Ms. Abbott's movies do not contain persistent violence.
  B. An under-17 adolescent cannot view a movie of Mr. Green by himself in a theater.

  ---

  Argument construction

  Premise 1: Movies that contain persistent violence are usually given R rating.

  Two points to note in the above premise:

  The word "usually": From this, we may infer that though most movies that contain persistent violence are given R rating, there may be some movies that contain persistent violence but are not given R rating. Had R rating been given to

  100% of the movies that contain persistent violence, Premise 1 would have read differently, for example:

  1.

  Movies that contain persistent violence are given R rating.

  2.

  Movies that contain persistent violence are always given R rating.

  3.

  Every movie that contains persistent violence is given R rating.

  This premise only states one feature of a movie (containing persistent violence) that may result in a R rating. We cannot infer on the basis of this statement that this is the only feature that results in a R Rating. There may be other features too

  that result in a R rating. For example, the list of features of a movie, having one or more of which results in the movie getting a R rating, might read as follows:

  1.

  Persistent violence

  2.

  Gruesome scenes that are revolting to watch, even if their number is a small percentage of all scenes in the movie

  3.

  Persistent use of obscene language

  4.

  Glorification of immorality, etc.

  So, a movie may get R rated despite not having persistent violence if it has one or more of the other features on this list.

  Premise 2: R rated movies can be viewed in a theater by a child or an under-17 adolescent only in the company of a parent or an adult guardian.

  Note that this premise does not say that a child or an under-17 cannot watch R rated movies in a theater. These movies are not banned for the under-17 age group. The requirement is only that the under-17s be accompanied by their parents or adult guardians.

  Further, note that the restriction for the under-17s is only for viewing an R rated movie in a theater. We do not know ?and cannot infer - from the argument if similar restrictions apply to other, non-theatrical ?avenues (such as, say, television or screenings in a community hall, etc.) that may be available to view R rated movies.

  Also, this premise applies to 100% of the R rated movies. We know this because the wording of the statement is not something like "R rated movies are usually viewed in a theater...." Or "Most R rated movies are viewed in a theater...." but a definite "can be viewed in a theater..." without any qualifications like "most" or "some" or "usually," etc.

  Premise 3: Mr. Smith is a director whose every movie has been given an R rating.

  Premise 4: Mr. Green is a director whose every movie has been given an R rating.

  Premise 5: Ms. Abbott is a director only some of whose movies are R rated.

  Because several inferences may be drawn by combining Premises 3-5 with the other premises of the argument, we cannot determine the correct answer without reading the answer choice. So, let's go through the answer choices to find the one that must be true, given the premises of the argument.

  Let us analyze the options one by one.

  Answer choices explanation

  [The movies made by female directors are more often viewed alone in...] This option is incorrect. From Premise 2, we know that under-17s simply cannot view an R rated movie alone in the theaters. Therefore, the frequency of viewing a movie alone will be zero among the under-17 age group for 'R rated movies.' Presumably, for movies that have non-R ratings, this frequency might be non-zero. So, this option statement may be simplified as: 'The movies made by female directors are less likely to be R rated than the movies made by male directors.' Now, this is a gross generalization of the specific facts mentioned in the argument. From such a small sample size as just one female director and two male directors, it is plainly wrong to generalize that movies made by female directors are less likely to be R rated than those of male directors.

  [An under-17 adolescent cannot view a movie of Mr. Green...] This option is correct. By combining Premise 4 with Premise 2, we may infer that an under-17 adolescent can view a movie made by Mr. Green in a theater only in the company of a parent or an adult guardian. Therefore, we may infer that he cannot view a movie made by Mr. Green in a theater alone (by himself, without an accompanying a parent or an adult guardian).

  [No movie of Mr. Smith can be viewed by a child or...] This option is incorrect. By combining Premise 3 with Premise 2, we may infer that a child or an under-17 adolescent can view a movie made by Mr. Smith in a theater only in the company of a parent or an adult guardian. Therefore, it is wrong to say that he cannot view Mr. Smith's movies in a theater. He can watch all of those movies in a theater if he wants to, the requirement is only that he be accompanied by a parent or an adult guardian.

  [A child is more likely to view a movie made by...] This option is incorrect. By combining Premise 4 with Premise 2, we may infer that a child can view a movie made by Mr. Green in a theater only in the company of a parent or an adult guardian. Similarly, by combining Premise 5 with Premise 2, we may infer that to view some of Ms. Abbott's movies in a theater, a child needs to be accompanied by a parent or an adult guardian. Just this information is not sufficient to make a comparison of the likelihood of children to watch the movies by the two directors. For example, it is possible that the movies of Mr. Green, though R rated, are wildly popular among children and so they urge their parents to take them to theaters to view the movies. On the other hand, Ms. Abbott's movies may have such content or presentation style that does not appeal to children and so they do not like to view any of her movies, even if the rating of a movie is such that they are allowed to view that movie alone. In such a scenario, the likelihood of a child watching Mr. Green's movie will be higher than his watching Ms. Abbott's movie. In other words, the likelihood of a child watching a movie by either director in a theater depends not just on the rating of the movie but also on the popularity of that director and that particular movie among children, and therefore, just on the basis of a movie's rating, we cannot infer a "must be true" statement about the likelihood of its being watched by children.

  [Some of Ms. Abbott's movies do not contain persistent violence.] This option is incorrect. Premise 5 only tells us that some movies of Ms. Abbott are R rated. We cannot infer from this that these movies got R rated because they had persistent violence. As discussed in the 'Argument Construction' part of the solution, there may be other reasons for an R rating. For example, Ms. Abbott's R rated movies may have zero violence but may have persistent use of obscene language. So, among Ms. Abbott's R rated movies, it is possible that all of them contain persistent violence, and it is also possible that none of them contain persistent violence. What about her non-R rated movies? Are they the "some" movies referred to in this answer choice? Imagine a scale that rates movies on their suitability to be viewed by children and under-17 adolescents. Let's suppose that R rating lies at the middle of this scale. At one end of this scale are, say, Z movies ?movies that can be watched by children and under-17 adolescents alone in a theater. At the other end of this scale lie, say, J movies ?movies that are so disturbing that the entry of children and under-17 adolescents in the theater is prohibited, even if they are accompanied by adults. Just from knowing that some of Ms. Abbott's movies are not R rated, can we make a "must be true" inference about what the ratings of those movies is? For all we know, they may all be Z rated, with absolutely zero occurrence of persistent violence. Or they may all be J rated, with gruesome violence in every scene. Or they may have zero violence and still be J rated for another reason. Therefore, the information given in the argument is not sufficient to infer whether some of Ms. Abbott's movies contain persistent violence, all of her movies contain persistent violence, or none of them do. To restate this conclusion in the wording used in this answer choice: we cannot infer whether "some of Ms. Abbott's movies do not contain persistent violence," all of her movies do not contain persistent violence, or there is no movie of hers that does not contain persistent violence.

• Question 303:

  Parent: I had tried without success to get my young child to brush her teeth. I had hoped that she would imitate me, or that she would be persuaded by reason to brush her teeth. Then, I made a point of brushing her teeth for her immediately before reading her a story before her naps and at night. After several weeks, when I would pick up a storybook at these times, she began automatically to retrieve her toothbrush and brush her teeth herself.

  The parent's experience with the child most closely conforms to which one of the following generalizations?

  A. Children are most effectively taught to do something by someone's setting an example.
  B. Children more readily adopt a behavior through habit and repetition than through other means.
  C. Children are too young to understand rational arguments for adopting a behavior.
  D. Children often imitate the behavior of others rather than listening to reason.
  E. Children ordinarily act contrary to their parents' expectations in order to get more attention.
  B. Children more readily adopt a behavior through habit and repetition than through other means.

  ---

  The question stem tells us to find the generalization that captures the parent's experience, so we're looking for a principle: an abstract account covering the situation at hand. In this case, imitation didn't work, reason didn't work, but making brushing part of her story time routine did the trick. Habit and repetition can be more effective than other means.

• Question 304:

  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.

  The passage is primarily concerned with which one of the following?

  A. suggesting the advantages and limitations of a legal reform
  B. summarizing certain deficiencies of an outmoded legal system
  C. justifying the apparent inadequacies of current evidence law
  D. detailing objections to the nonexclusion principle
  E. advocating reexamination of a proposal that has been dismissed by the legal profession
  A. suggesting the advantages and limitations of a legal reform

  ---

  Correct choice [suggesting the advantages and...] has its priorities straight; this passage exists because the author wants to show the usefulness as well as the limitations of Bentham's principle of nonexclusion of relevant evidence.

• Question 305:

  Thurgood Marshall's litigation of Brown v. Board of Education in 1952 ?the landmark case, decided in 1954, that made segregation illegal in United States public schools ?was not his first case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Some legal scholars claim that the cases he presented to the court in the sixteen years before his successful argument for desegregation of public schools were necessary forerunners of that case: preliminary tests of legal strategies and early erosions of the foundations of discrimination against African Americans that paved the way for success in Brown.

  When Marshall joined the legal staff of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1936, the organization was divided on how to proceed against the legal doctrine that for forty years had promoted "separate but equal" facilities for African Americans in educational institutions, in public transportation, and various other civic amenities. One approach was to emphasize that facilities were not in fact equal and to pursue litigation whose practical goal was the improvement both of opportunity for African Americans and of the facilities themselves. A second, more theoretical, approach was to argue that the concept of separate but equal facilities for the races was by its very nature impossible to fulfill, rendering the doctrine self-contradictory and hence legally unsound. Marshall correctly believed that the latter approach would eventually be the one to bring repeal of the doctrine, but felt it necessary in the short term to argue several cases using the former approach, in order to demonstrate the numerous ways in which segregation prevented real equality and thus to prepare the courts to recognize the validity of the theoretical argument.

  While Marshall enjoyed several successes arguing for the equalization of facilities and opportunities in such areas as voting practices and accommodations for graduate students at public universities, it would be twelve years before he evolved a strategy for arguing against pervasive discriminatory practices that enabled him to make the leap from individual instances of inequality to the broader social argument needed to later invalidate "separate but equal." In 1948, Marshall litigated Shelley v. Kraemer, in which he convinced the court to outlaw housing discrimination practiced by private parties. Although the court had previously supported such practices implicitly under a doctrine that excused private dealings from the legal requirement for equal protection of citizens under law, Marshall presented sociological data demonstrating that, in sum and over time, these individual transactions constituted a pattern of insupportable discrimination. Marshall later used this strategy when arguing against individual schools' enrollment restrictions in Brown; scholars argue that his successful use of the strategy in Shelley prepared the court to accept such data as convincing evidence for finding "separate but equal" insupportable on its face.

  According to the passage, sociological data presented by Marshall in Shelley v. Kraemer showed that

  A. numerous examples of individual discriminatory enrollment policies in public schools amounted to a general pattern of discrimination
  B. numerous examples of individual discriminatory transactions by private parties amounted to a general pattern of housing discrimination
  C. the legal requirement for equal treatment of citizens was not applicable to private transactions
  D. the pattern of discrimination in housing transactions was due to inequities in financial resources
  E. the pattern of discrimination in the enrollment policies of public schools was similar to the pattern of insupportable discrimination in housing transactions
  B. numerous examples of individual discriminatory transactions by private parties amounted to a general pattern of housing discrimination

  ---

  "According to the passage" and the categorical "showed that" signal a Detail question. The italicized Shelley v. Kraeme sends us to ?, and the buzzwords "sociological data" The "individual transactions" were instances of housing discrimination that revealed a "pattern of...discrimination."

• Question 306:

  During a single week, from Monday through Friday, tours will be conducted of a company's three divisions -- Operations, Production, Sales. Exactly five tours will be conducted that week, one each day. The schedule of tours for the week

  must conform to the following restrictions:

  Each division is toured at least once.

  The Operations division is not toured on Monday.

  The Production division is not toured on Wednesday.

  The Sales division is toured on two consecutive days, and on no other days.

  If the Operations division is toured on Thursday, then the Production division is toured on Friday.

  If in addition to the Sales division one other division is toured on two consecutive days, then it could be true of the week's tour schedule both that the

  A. Production division is toured on Monday and that the Operations division is toured on Thursday
  B. Production division is toured on Tuesday and that the Sales division is toured on Wednesday
  C. Operations division is toured on Tuesday and that the Production division is toured on Friday
  D. Sales division is toured on Monday and that the Operations division is toured on Friday
  E. Sales division is toured on Wednesday and that the Production division is toured on Friday
  B. Production division is toured on Tuesday and that the Sales division is toured on Wednesday

  ---

  So besides "SS," we have another consecutive pair, yes? Well, your job is to figure out which one! And it must mean that either the sequence will contain "SS,""PP," and "O," or "SS,""OO," and "P." Having figured that out, we are well armed to try out the choices.

• Question 307:

  Professor Beckstein: American Sign Language is the native language of many North Americans. Therefore, it is not a foreign language, and for that reason alone, no student should be permitted to satisfy the university's foreign language

  requirement by learning it.

  Professor Sedley: According to your argument, students should not be allowed to satisfy the university's foreign language requirement by learning French or Spanish either, since they too are the native languages of many North Americans.

  Yet many students currently satisfy the requirement by studying French or Spanish, and it would be ridiculous to begin prohibiting them from doing so.

  Professor Sedley uses which one of the following strategies of argumentation in responding to Professor Beckstein's argument?

  A. attempting to demonstrate that the reasoning used to reach a certain conclusion leads to another conclusion that is undesirable
  B. trying to show that a certain conclusion contradicts some of the evidence used to support it
  C. questioning an opponent's authority to address the issue under discussion
  D. offering an alternative explanation of the facts used to arrive at a specific conclusion
  E. agreeing with the conclusion of a particular argument while rejecting the evidence used to support the conclusion
  A. attempting to demonstrate that the reasoning used to reach a certain conclusion leads to another conclusion that is undesirable

  ---

  Now to this business of Sedley's "strategy of argumentation"; this is, as mentioned above, LSAT-speak for a Method of Argument question. This is actually not an uncommon line of reasoning: Sedley tries to show that if Beckstein's argument holds (if a language shared by many North Americans can't be used to satisfy the university's foreign language requirement), French and Spanish would not be able to satisfy the requirement either, based on Beckstein's criterion. But that, in Sedley's words, would be "ridiculous." The elements in option [attempting to demonstrate that the reasoning...] match his method perfectly: He's trying to show that the reasoning (stated above) used to form a conclusion (ASL should not be allowed to satisfy the requirement) would lead to another conclusion (don't allow French or Spanish either) that's undesirable (it would be ridiculous to prohibit French or Spanish from satisfying the requirement).

• Question 308:

  Dietician: "The French Paradox" refers to the unusual concurrence in the population of France of a low incidence of heart disease and a diet high in fat. The most likely explanation is that the French consume a high quantity of red wine, which

  mitigates the ill effects of the fat they eat. So North Americans, with nearly the highest rate of heart disease in the world, should take a cue from the French: if you want to be healthier without cutting fat intake, drink more red wine.

  Which one of the following statements, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion of the dietician's argument?

  A. French men consume as much red wine as French women do, yet French men have a higher rate of heart disease than do French women.
  B. A greater intake of red wine among North Americans would likely lead to a higher incidence of liver problems and other illnesses.
  C. Not all French people have a diet that includes large amounts of fat and a high quantity of red wine.
  D. All evidence suggests that the healthiest way to decrease the chance of heart disease is to exercise and keep a diet low in fat.
  E. Many other regions have much lower rates of heart disease than France, though their populations consume even less red wine than do North Americans.
  B. A greater intake of red wine among North Americans would likely lead to a higher incidence of liver problems and other illnesses.

  ---

  Drink red wine, North America, if you want to keep eating fatty foods and yet get healthier. So sayeth the author. The evidence is the combination of low incidence of heart disease and high fat diet common to a nation of heavy red wine drinkers. Sounds miraculous. But if B. is true, then North Americans are certainly not going to get healthier, as the conclusion states, on a heavy red wine regimen.

• Question 309:

  Until 1985 all commercial airlines completely replenished the cabin air in planes in flight once every 30 minutes. Since then the rate has been once every hour. The less frequently cabin air is replenished in a plane in flight, the higher the level of carbon dioxide in that plane and the easier it is for airborne illnesses to be spread.

  Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

  A. In 1985 there was a loosening of regulations concerning cabin air in commercial airline flights.
  B. People who fly today are more likely to contract airborne illnesses than were people who flew prior to 1985.
  C. Low levels of carbon dioxide in cabin air make it impossible for airborne illnesses to spread.
  D. In 1980 the rate at which the cabin air was replenished in commercial airliners was sufficient to protect passengers from the effects of carbon dioxide buildup.
  E. In 1980 the level of carbon dioxide in the cabin air on a two-hour commercial airline flight was lower than it is today on a similar flight.
  E. In 1980 the level of carbon dioxide in the cabin air on a two-hour commercial airline flight was lower than it is today on a similar flight.

  ---

  Next up is another Inference question, and the stimulus, not surprisingly, consists of a bunch of statements but no real argument perse. Let's see what we can deduce from them. Up until 1985, cabin air in commercial plane flights was replenished every half hour; since then, every hour. Two things are correlated with less frequent replenishings: higher CO2 levels, and greater ease for illness to be spread. (Note that technically, we can't tell whether these two things are related to each other; maybe increased CO2 makes it easier for illness to spread, but maybe these things are independent results. That's likely to be the basis of a wrong choice or two.) A simple prephrase here is possible: We can combine the statements to infer that since 1985, commercial plane rides have contained more CO2 than they did before, and that it's also easier to contract airborne illnesses on them. Let's look for either of those things among the choices.

• Question 310:

  Arbitrator: The shipping manager admits that he decided to close the old facility on October 14 and to schedule the new facility's opening for October 17, the following Monday. But he also claims that he is not responsible for the business that was lost due to the new facility's failing to open as scheduled. He blames the contractor for not finishing on time, but he, too, is to blame, for he was aware of the contractor's typical delays and should have planned for this contingency.

  Which one of the following principles underlies the arbitrator's argument?

  A. A manager should take foreseeable problems into account when making decisions.
  B. A manager should be able to depend on contractors to do their jobs promptly.
  C. A manager should see to it that contractors do their jobs promptly.
  D. A manager should be held responsible for mistakes made by those whom the manager directly supervises.
  E. A manager, and only a manager, should be held responsible for a project's failure.
  A. A manager should take foreseeable problems into account when making decisions.

  ---

  Next up is the tale of the shipping manager, as told by The Arbitrator. The question stem instructs us to locate a principle underlying the argument, so we'd be well served to read the argument with an eye towards forming a general paraphrase. The arbitrator tells of a shipping manager who admits to making a decision (close the old facility on the 14th, open the new on the 17th). But he shirks responsibility for the consequences of this decision (the new facility failed to open on time; business was lost). He shifts the blame, but the arbitrator concludes that he too is responsible because he was aware of possible delays and should have planned ahead for them. It's very difficult to predict the principle we seek word for word, but we can look for something that speaks to personal responsibility stemming from a proactive awareness of the various angles of a situation. In other words: plan ahead, or don't complain when things go wrong. And that's what we get in option [A manager should take foreseeable problems...]: The "typical delays" were foreseeable, and by insisting that the manager take some blame for the lost business, the arbitrator acts according to the principle that such foreseeable circumstances should be taken into account by a manager when making decisions. Option [A manager should take foreseeable problems...] states in general terms what the arbitrator specifically says: The manager should have known there may have been a delay when he made the decision to close the old plant, and therefore he should own up to part of the blame.