LSAC LSAT-TEST Online Practice Questions and Exam Preparation

LSAC LSAT-TEST Online Questions & Answers

• Question 371:

  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.

  Athens had _____________ the other Greek city-states against the Persians.

  A. refused help to
  B. intervened on behalf of
  C. wanted to fight
  D. given orders for all to fight
  E. defeated
  B. intervened on behalf of

• Question 372:

  A new bank has decided to stay open only on weekends - all day Saturday and Sunday - and no other days. The bank has hired two managers (U and V), Four tellers (W,X,Y, and Z), and two operation officers (S and T), for a total of exactly

  eight full-time employees.

  No part-time employees are hired.

  Each employee works a complete day when working.

  A manager must be on duty each day.

  The managers cannot work on the same day.

  At least two tellers must be working on the same day.

  W and X will not work on the same day.

  S and Z will only work on Saturday.

  No employee can work on consecutive days, but each employee must work on Saturday or Sunday.

  If W works on Sunday, then which one of the following must be true?

  A. X works on Saturday
  B. Y works on Saturday
  C. T works on Sunday
  D. Z works on Sunday
  E. U works on Sunday
  A. X works on Saturday

  ---

  Since W and X will not work on the same day, choice [X works on Saturday] must be true. Choice [Y works on Saturday] is false since Y must work on Sunday. Choice [T works on Sunday] could be true. Since W's schedule has no effect on Z and U, choices [Z works on Sunday] and [U works on Sunday] may be true or false.

• Question 373:

  Rossi: It is undemocratic for people to live under a government in which their interests are not represented. So children should have the right to vote, since sometimes the interests of children are different from those of their parents. Smith: Granted, children's interests are not always the same as their parents'; governmental deficits incurred by their parents' generation will later affect their own generation's standard of living. But even if children are told about the issues affecting them, which is not generally the case, their conceptions of what can or should be done are too simple, and their time horizons are radically different from those of adults, so we cannot give them the responsibility of voting.

  Which one of the following most accurately describes Rossi's argument?

  A. It makes an appeal to a general principle.
  B. It denies the good faith of an opponent.
  C. It relies on evaluating the predictable consequences of a proposal.
  D. It substitutes description for giving a rationale fora policy.
  E. It employs a term on two different occasions indifferent senses.
  A. It makes an appeal to a general principle.

  ---

  Our first double question stimulus is up next, and the first is a Method of Argument question that tells us up front to concentrate on how Rossi's argument proceeds. It's a short argument. Sentence 1 is a judgment: Living under a government that doesn't represent people's interests is undemocratic. The second sentence, beginning with the usual conclusion Keyword "so," concludes that children should be allowed to vote, since their interests sometimes differ from those of adults. Here, children are used as an example of a group that's not represented and that should be, at least based on the judgment in the first sentence.

• Question 374:

  Jane works at a fashion design company, and is having problems getting dressed for work.

  She refuses to wear any color combination that does not go well together as many of her clients may look down upon this. She has two pairs of skirts, brown and blue; three blouses, white, sky blue, and gray; four pairs of stockings, red,

  black, brown, and blue; and two pairs of shoes, black and brown.

  The blue skirt cannot be worn with red or brown stockings. Gray does not go well with brown. Black does not go well with brown.

  If Jane is color blind and is unable to determine what outfits went well together, how many possible clothing combinations could she have?

  A. 24
  B. 32
  C. 36
  D. 44
  E. 48
  E. 48

  ---

  There are 48 possible combinations. 4 stockings * 3 blouses * 2 skirts * 2 shoes.

• Question 375:

  Henry: An average American car driver drives a thousand miles per month. If all American car drivers drove only five miles less daily, their monthly mileage would reduce by 15 percent. Five miles is ten thousand steps, the amount of daily walking recommended by doctors for good health. Therefore, if the government could persuade car drivers to drive five miles less daily and walk that distance instead, the total transport-related carbon emissions in the United States would reduce by 15 percent.

  Bill: Cars are responsible for 30 percent of all transport-related carbon emissions in the United States.

  Bill's response to Henry proceeds by

  A. refuting an assumption on which Henry's argument relies
  B. discrediting Henry's argument by giving of erroneous information
  C. arguing that the benefit of Henry's hypothetical measure might also be achieved in another way
  D. citing seemingly irrefutable evidence that contradicts one of the stated premises on which Henry's argument depends
  E. providing additional information in support of Henry's argument
  A. refuting an assumption on which Henry's argument relies

  ---

  Argument construction

  Henry tells us that:

  An average American car driver drives a thousand miles per month.

  1. So, if all American car drivers drove only five miles less daily, their monthly mileage would reduce by 15 percent (5 ?30 = 150 miles = 15% of 1000 miles). Five miles is ten thousand steps, the amount of daily walking recommended by doctors for good health.

  Therefore, if the government can persuade car drivers to drive five miles less daily and walk that distance instead, the total transport-related carbon emissions in the United States would reduce by 15 percent.

  Bill responds to Henry by saying that cars are responsible for only 30 percent of all transport-related carbon emissions in the United States.

  Understanding how the argument proceeds

  Let's dissect the argument.

  When we strip Henry's argument to its essence, it is this:

  'Reducing average monthly mileage of American car owners by 15 percent would reduce the total transport-related carbon emissions in the United States by 15 percent.'

  So, Henry is assuming that only car owners are responsible for transport-related carbon emissions in the United States. In his mind, the formula for transport-related carbon emissions is:

  (Total transport-related carbon emissions per month) = (Average carbon emissions made per car mile) ?(Average monthly miles driven per driver) ?(Number of drivers)

  Note that the right-hand side of this equation would give 'total car-related carbon emissions per month'. Henry assumes that this number is equal to 'total transport-related carbon emissions per month'.

  By pointing out that total car-related carbon emissions are, in fact, only 30 percent of all transport-related carbon emissions in the United States, Bill is telling Henry that his assumption was mistaken. And due to this mistake, Henry's argument

  is incorrect.

  Let's analyze each option one by one.

  Answer choices explanation

  [refuting an assumption on which Henry's argument relies] This is correct. It accords with the discussion done in the argument analysis above.

  [discrediting Henry's argument by giving of erroneous information] This is incorrect. We have no reason to decide that the information given by Bill is erroneous.

  [arguing that the benefit of Henry's hypothetical measure might also be achieved in another way] This is incorrect. The benefit of Henry's hypothetical measure is a 15 percent reduction in the total transport-related carbon emissions in the

  United States. Bill suggests no other way to achieve this benefit.

  [citing seemingly irrefutable evidence that contradicts one of the stated premises on which Henry's argument depends] This is incorrect. The stated premises on which Henry's argument depends are: If all American car drivers drove only five miles less daily, their monthly mileage would reduce by 15 percent. Five miles is ten thousand steps to walk. (The argument also makes use of an unstated premise (that is, an assumption): all transport-related carbon emissions in the United States are made by cars.) Bill's response does not contradict either of the two stated premises listed above. Further, Bill cites evidence that contradicts Henry's claim, not a premise.

  [providing additional information in support of Henry's argument] This is incorrect. As discussed in the analysis section above, Bill's response does not support Henry's argument.

• Question 376:

  Landlord: When are you going to pay last month's rent?

  Renter: First, I've already paid it. Secondly, I don't owe you anything. Third, not until you fix the heater.

  The weakness in the renter's response is best expressed by which one of the following?

  A. He contradicts himself.
  B. He dislikes the landlord.
  C. He assumes the landlord has a poor memory.
  D. He repeats himself.
  E. He makes no sense.
  A. He contradicts himself.

  ---

  The renter's third statement contradicts his second statement.

• Question 377:

  On each of exactly seven consecutive days (day 1 through day 7), a pet shop features exactly one of three breeds of kitten -- Himalayan, Manx, Siamese -- and exactly one of three breeds of puppy -- Greyhound, Newfoundland, Rottweiler.

  The following conditions must apply:

  Greyhounds are featured on day 1.

  No breed is featured on any two consecutive days.

  Any breed featured on day 1 is not featured on day 7.

  Himalayans are featured on exactly three days, but not on day 1.

  Rottweilers are not featured on day 7, nor on any day that features Himalayans.

  Which one of the following could be true?

  A. Greyhounds and Siamese are both featured on day 2.
  B. Greyhounds and Himalayans are both featured on day 7.
  C. Rottweilers and Himalayans are both featured on day 4.
  D. Rottweilers and Manx are both featured on day 5.
  E. Newfoundlands and Manx are both featured on day 6.
  D. Rottweilers and Manx are both featured on day 5.

• Question 378:

  Political opinion and analysis outside the mainstream rarely are found on television talk shows, and it might be thought that this state of affairs is a product of the political agenda of the television stations themselves. In fact, television stations are driven by the same economic forces as sellers of more tangible goods. Because they must attempt to capture the largest possible share of the television audience for their shows, they air only those shows that will appeal to large numbers of people. As a result, political opinions and analyses aired on television talk shows are typically bland and innocuous.

  The explanation offered by the author of the passage makes the assumption that

  A. television station executives usually lack a political agenda of their own
  B. bland and innocuous political opinions and analyses are generally in the mainstream
  C. political analysts outside the mainstream are relatively indifferent to the effect their analyses have on television viewers
  D. most television viewers are prepared to argue against allowing the expression of political opinions and analyses with which they disagree
  E. the political opinions of television station executives are not often reflected in the television shows their stations produce
  B. bland and innocuous political opinions and analyses are generally in the mainstream

  ---

  Same argument. The author says that opinions outside the mainstream aren't on the talk shows, and concludes that TV stations' drive for large audiences makes the shows bland and innocuous. In the last question, we found one missing piece, and option [bland and innocuous political opinions...] provides another: that bland political opinions are within the mainstream. If they aren't, then why would bland TV appeal to the mainstream? Notice how effectively this assumption links the evidence (no views outside the mainstream on talk shows) with the conclusion (the drive for audience share makes talk shows are bland and innocuous).

• Question 379:

  Brewer: All children should be given the opportunity to participate in competitive sports; these activities provide an unsurpassed opportunity to engage children's emotions and so stimulate them to put maximum effort into attaining high athletic

  standards.

  Polanski: I disagree. Competitive athletics does, over time, produce a handful of highly motivated children with a desire to excel at an activity, but many children have no taste for competition, and to make them participate would only cause

  them to develop an antipathy toward athletics.

  Polanski's response most strongly supports the contention that Polanski misunderstood Brewer to be asserting that

  A. characteristics acquired by playing competitive sports carry over into the rest of one's life
  B. winning at competitive sports is essential to motivation to excel at athletics
  C. children should put more effort into athletic activities than any other form of activity
  D. children should be required to participate incompetitive sports regardless of their interests
  E. children cannot be motivated without their emotions being engaged
  D. children should be required to participate incompetitive sports regardless of their interests

  ---

  Polanski argues that kids who don't care for competition could be driven to hate sports if forced to compete. So he must have heard Brewer say [children should be required to...], that a kid should be forced to compete whether s/he like sit or not. Of course Brewer said nothing of the kind; all she said was that all kids should have the chance to compete. But Polanski failed to hear that, and that was his mistake.

• Question 380:

  One way kidney stones can form is when urine produced in the kidneys is overly concentrated with calcium or oxalate. Reducing dietary calcium has been thought, therefore, to decrease the likelihood that calcium will concentrate and form additional stones. Oddly enough, for many people the chances of recurrence are decreased by increasing calcium intake.

  Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?

  A. Laboratory studies on animals with kidney stones reveal that they rarely get additional stones once calcium supplements are added to the diet.
  B. Increasing dietary oxalate while reducing dietary calcium does not reduce the chances of kidney stone recurrence.
  C. Kidney stone development is sometimes the result of an inherited disorder that can result in excessive production of calcium and oxalate.
  D. Increasing calcium intake increases the amount of calcium eliminated through the intestines, which decreases the amount to be filtered by the kidneys.
  E. Some kidney stones are composed of uric acid rather than a combination of calcium and oxalate.
  E. Some kidney stones are composed of uric acid rather than a combination of calcium and oxalate.

  ---

  "Resolve the apparent discrepancy" in the stem signals a Paradox question, so we need to locate the mystery, paraphrase it in user-friendly terms, and think about possible solutions. Why, if excess calcium in the urine forms kidney stones, is the chance of recurrence decreased by adding more calcium to one's diet? It may seem that more calcium in the diet would mean more in the urine, but nowhere does it say that the amount of calcium in the urine is directly proportional to the amount of calcium one consumes. Perhaps there's a mechanism that causes an increase in dietary calcium to lead to a decrease in urinary calcium. Perhaps increasing calcium intake has some other, unmentioned effect, which reduces the chances that calcium in the urine will form stones. Option [Increasing calcium intake increases the amount of...] provides such an alternative: If increasing calcium intake increases calcium elimination in the intestines, and causes less calcium to go to the kidneys, then it's much easier to understand how increasing calcium intake can actually decrease the chances that new stones will form.