To solve this question see the first sentence and you will automatically complete the next one.

The difficulty of determining whether a food product contained nutritious ingredients was resolved by requiring food manufacturers to print nutritional information on their products' packaging..

So the second sentence should be written in the same way. Similarly, many consumers are interested in conserving energy, and since there is no easy way for consumers to determine how much energy was required to manufacture a product. The answer should be related to Manufacturer and also should tell the amount of energy used to produce those products. This is why option E is correct.

On Resolve the Paradox questions, we must find two propositions that do not seem to make sense simultaneously. In other words, there is a paradoxical situation or some kind of unexpected discrepancy for which we must build a bridge.

Isolate and describe these two situations:

1. Playing "dead" has survival value.
2. The predators planned to eat the animal anyways.

Ask yourself, "How could it be possible that playing 'dead' has survival value even though the predators planned to eat these animals?"

The expected outcome would be that the limp animal would just get gobbled up. We need something in an answer that indicates with a playing "dead" animal, meat is back off the menu for the predator.

Answer choice (A), if true, might indicate another circumstance in which the animals play "dead." However, first, this actually makes the playing "dead" behavior somewhat more inexplicable. Not only do we not understand the survival value of playing "dead" with a predator but also now have another weird playing "dead" situation for which we have not accounted.

Second, even with this explanation, it's still chow time for the predators. We're left still wondering how this behavior could have survival value. We're back at square one.

Answer choice (B), bridges the gap between these two circumstances. We may assume by plausible commonsense standards that a once-playing "dead" animal may, upon finding itself left in a hiding place, make its escape. While there are no guarantees, the information in this answer does give the "most help to resolve the apparent paradox."

QUESTION TYPE: Argument Evaluation

CONCLUSION: Domestic seafood is more likely to be safe to eat than imported seafood.

REASONING: Most imported seafood (98%) is not subjected to health safety inspections.

ANALYSIS: The author has given us a reason why imported seafood might be unsafe. But we don’t know enough about domestic seafood to know if it is any safer – it could be subjected to even lower rates of health safety inspections!.

To evaluate the argument, we need to be able to compare the two types of seafood.

___________

1. This sounds relevant, but remember that we don’t know anything about domestic seafood. So knowing more about health inspections doesn’t help us.
2. This answer does not draw a distinction between domestic and imported seafood. Knowing the health risks is useless to us if we still can’t compare the two.
3. Completely irrelevant. Non-seafood imports have nothing to do with whether or not domestic seafood would be safer than imported seafood.
4. Also completely irrelevant, for the same reason as answer C.
5. CORRECT. Knowing the health inspection rate of domestic seafood allows us to compare the two and actually determine whether domestic is safer than imported.

Recap: The question begins with “Food columnist: Only 2 percent of imported seafood”. It is a Argument Evaluation question. Learn how to master LSAT Evaluate questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: Large dogs will likely be less troublesome than small dogs if the owner has limited time to exercise them.

REASONING: When dogs don’t get intensive enough exercise, they get troublesome. Large dogs need less intensive exercise than small dogs.

ANALYSIS: This argument is based on the intensity of exercise needed by different dogs. But if you look at the final conclusion, it never mentions intensity – only time commitment. So the necessary assumption is that more intensive exercise requires more time.

___________

1. Our argument is based on an apartment dweller who wants a dog. Knowing more about what makes them likely or unlikely to want a dog is irrelevant to us. Additionally, apartment size is never mentioned in the argument.
2. CORRECT. This answer provides the link between intensity of exercise and the time requirement that we are looking for. When we negate it, the conclusion makes no sense as the large/small dogs would not require different time commitment.
   Negation: Providing a dog with more intensive exercise does not require more time than providing a dog with less intensive exercise.
3. Whether someone should own a dog is irrelevant to our question. We are comparing different dogs on the assumption that the apartment dweller is getting a dog
   Negation: Time limitations never mean an apartment dweller should not own a dog.
4. The argument never relies on apartment size as a metric, so this is irrelevant.
   Negation: Of dogs owned by apartment dwellers, dogs that live in large apartments are not less likely to be troublesome than those that live in small apartments.
5. This answer might be appealing because it mentions frequency of exercise, which is a time measurement. But it relates it to fitness, and we are not looking at fitness of the dog – we want to know about intensity of exercise because that’s our link to how troublesome a dog will be.
   Negation: There is no evidence that dogs who exercise more often are more likely to stay fit.

Recap: The question begins with “Dog owner: In general, large dogs need less intensive exercise”. It is a Necessary Assumption question. Learn more about LSAT Necessary Assumption questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.

QUESTION TYPE: Most Strongly Supported

FACTS:

1. Vitamin C is important for producing and maintaining collagen.

2. Collagen is a protein in bones and connective tissue.

3. Because of facts 1 and 2, some doctors believe that vitamin C can help treat symptoms of common illnesses.

ANALYSIS: The key in this question will be figuring out the link between fact 3 and facts 1 and 2. Why do these two facts lead some doctors to believe that vitamin C could alleviate symptoms of common illnesses?

It must be something the vitamin C does. We are told that vitamin C is crucial in the production and function of collagen. So we can predict that the doctors are using vitamin C to treat collagen deficiencies or similar problems. And because collagen is found almost exclusively in bone and connective tissue, we can deduce that these problems exist in those areas.

___________

1. CORRECT. Vitamin C is important for collagen, which almost exclusively exists in bones and connective tissue. So if some doctors think vitamin C can treat symptoms of some illnesses, they must think there are some illnesses that affect those areas.
2. We know that vitamin C plays a crucial role, but none of the information suggests that any doctors think it is the only substance that produces or maintains collagen.
3. This answer is a bit backwards. Vitamin C is important for collagen, which appears in these areas of the body, but as far as we know this is a one-way cause and effect. The passage never refers to the body’s ability to use any vitamins.
4. We know that some doctors believe that vitamin C can be a useful treatment, but “most effective” is stretching it further than we have reason to believe. The argument never addresses the efficacy of other treatments.
5. This answer takes a logical misstep. Vitamin C is important for collagen, but this doesn’t mean that vitamin C only works with collagen. There may be other functions.

Think of it this way: the principle provides the rule (or, the law for the case). The application lays out some of the facts of the case, and a judgment that is supposed to be based on the rule. In a sense, the application is sort of like a judge using the rule, plus some facts, to decide the case. But, in all questions like these, the application will be missing some fact (or facts) that, if we knew them, would make us more sure that the judge actually followed the rule the way she should.

In this question, the rule is that "if someone makes an error, it is unethical for a coworker to use that error to his or her own advantage." In the application we know that the coworker (Mark) used email addresses to his own advantage, which sounds like it should lead to the conclusion that Mark was unethical. But, notice that this specific rule only applies "if someone makes an error." So, we can't tell from the application whether someone (specifically Rashmi) made an error. We need to know that to make sure we can apply the rule. Answer choice D makes us more sure we can apply the rule, because it gives us a fact that fits the notion of Rashmi making an error: she "unintentionally left the [email addresses] visible in an e-mail that she sent to both Mark and her clients." Thus, the fact in answer choice D strengthens the application by making us more sure that the application followed the rule in its entirety.

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The herbal supplement does not work as Kevin’s barber claims.

REASONING: Kevin’s barber has a financial incentive to convince him to buy the supplement.

ANALYSIS: Sabine’s argument here makes an ad hominem error, which is common on the LSAT. It’s based on the motives of the barber – “He makes money if you buy it, so he must be lying to convince you”.

But that doesn’t work. The barber’s motives have nothing to do with the actual product itself. Sure, you might be a bit skeptical, but it’s extreme to definitively declare that the barber is lying.

Suppose you’re looking to buy a sports drink. One brand has packaging that reads, “Contains electrolytes to keep you hydrated!”. The manufacturer makes money when you buy the drink, but that isn’t enough to conclude that there are no electrolytes or that you won’t be hydrated. The same idea applies here.

___________

1. This is not why Sabine discounts the barber’s claim.
2. Sabine never claimed that the supplement was harmful, only that it was not effective.
3. Sabine is not rejecting the explanation of how the product works, she is rejecting the claim altogether. So this answer doesn’t apply.
4. Sabine is drawing a conclusion about the barber’s motives for the claim, but her flaw isn’t that there’s no evidence that he made the claim. Kevin already provided evidence for the claim.
5. CORRECT. Sabine’s only given reason for rejecting the barber’s claim is that he benefits when someone buys the product. But, as explained above, this isn’t good enough.

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Justify

CONCLUSION: Johnson’s campaign runners do not actually believe that the quote was more damaging in context.

REASONING: Johnson’s campaign keeps using the quote out of context, and never in context (despite opportunities to do so).

ANALYSIS: To solve this question, we need to make a principle. The author believes that because the campaign hasn’t used the quote in context, they must not actually believe it to be more damaging in context. We can deduce that in the author’s point of view, if it was more damaging, they would use it in context. We want an answer that, if true, makes it impossible for the campaign to be telling the truth.

___________

1. CORRECT. If a campaign always did the most damaging thing, and the quote was more damaging in context, the campaign would use it in context. But they don’t, so they must not believe it to be more damaging in context.
2. This answer makes us question why the campaign continues to use the quote out of context, but it doesn’t give us any insight on whether the campaign is lying or not. The campaign could still be telling the truth that the quote is more damaging in context.
3. So voters don’t like quotes being taken out of context. That doesn’t tell us why the analyst thinks the campaign is lying. Maybe voters have an even greater dislike for campaigns who use immensely damaging quotes in context! It’s possible that the campaign is telling the truth.
4. Again, this answer doesn’t prove that the campaign is lying. In either case, whether they’re lying or not, the words were said by the opponent. We don’t have enough information to connect the dots about what they think.
5. We still don’t have enough to know whether or not the campaign is lying. Sure, this provides a possible justification for why they would lie, but it doesn’t mean they are lying.

QUESTION TYPE: Point at Issue

ARGUMENTS: Ellen says conservation of the Earth’s biosphere should be a high priority because experts valued its “services” at $33 trillion per year.

Santiago replies that they dislike the use of an economic calculation as an argument for conservation, as it implies that the biosphere is most useful for its “services” to humanity.

ANALYSIS: Ellen clearly views this economic value as a compelling argument for conservation. Santiago is uncomfortable with the argument and the implications it brings. This is where they disagree.

___________

1. CORRECT. Ellen likes the economic value as a rationale (because she uses it), but Santiago thinks it is not appropriate.
2. Ellen never compares the value of the “services” to other value from the biosphere.
3. Santiago never argued that Ellen’s rationale would be ineffective, only that it carried problematic implications.
4. Santiago doesn’t indicate that they think calculating the dollar value is unrealistic. They just think it’s wrong.
5. Santiago clearly thinks it does, but we don’t know whether Ellen agrees or disagrees. Maybe she agrees, but thinks that the biosphere’s most important value is in the “services” it provides

QUESTION TYPE: Complete the Argument

CONCLUSION: Smokers with the most common form of the enzyme tend to smoke more frequently than others.

REASONING: If nicotine is eliminated faster, the smoker will crave a cigarette sooner in order to replace it.

ANALYSIS: People smoke more because nicotine is eliminated faster. We know the most common enzyme makes you smoke more often, so people with the most common enzyme must be eliminating the nicotine faster than others.

___________

1. CORRECT. This answer links the most common form of the enzyme with faster elimination of nicotine. This matches our reasoning above.
2. We are only comparing individual smokers to other individual smokers. So this fact about non-smokers does not help us.
3. This answer doesn’t give us a frame of reference for “very slow”. Your brain may have been tricked into thinking it meant slow in comparison to the people with the enzyme, but maybe the most common form is also very slow. We don’t actually know, and it’s important to avoid assumptions.
4. The amount of the enzyme produced is not useful to us in completing the argument, as it is never brought up in the text. We are focused on comparing CYP2A6 to other forms.
5. This is a question specifically about CYP2A6 and nicotine. Other functions are irrelevant.

QUESTION TYPE: Most Strongly Supported

FACTS:

1. Early clocks were more complex than later clocks.

2. Early clocks were complex because they were actually primarily used to predict astronomical phenomena.

3. Later clocks began to focus more on timekeeping than astronomical functions.

ANALYSIS: We are given a comparison between different eras of clocks. Early clocks served more astrological functions than more recent clocks, and are more complex. It’s hard to deduce more information here, so we should look at the answers and find something that is most supported.

___________

1. We know the astronomical functions diminished in more recent clocks, but that’s not enough to conclude that they were eliminated altogether.
2. This answer isn’t talking about modern clocks at all! “More recent mechanisms used for this function” is referring to modern devices that are used to predict astronomical phenomena. The passage never told us anything about those.
3. We don’t know enough about “clocks used only for keeping time” to make this conclusion.
4. CORRECT. We know that early clocks are more complex than modern clocks. We also know that the early clocks were actually made to predict astronomical phenomena, while modern clocks are made primarily to tell time. So making those predictions back then must have been more complicated than telling time now.
5. We don’t know anything about interest in predicting astrological phenomena. We know that the timekeeping function became more important, but this could be for other reasons, such as an increase in timekeeping interest.

QUESTION TYPE: Point at Issue

ARGUMENTS: Regina says that the new funds gained from leases will not reduce shortfalls in non-transportation areas because the money is only used for the transportation budget.

Amal points out that the extra transportation money means the previous transportation money can be used elsewhere. This means that the leases will ultimately reduce the shortfalls.

ANALYSIS: Regina’s conclusion is that the new funds will not help reduce the shortfalls in non-transportation areas. Amal concludes the opposite. The difference is Amal’s belief that new transportation money means the existing transportation money gets reallocated to other areas.

___________

1. Both parties agree that the shortfalls will exist.
2. We don’t know if they disagree on this. We just know they disagree on what happens when more funds are added to the transportation budget.
3. Nobody makes a claim on where the funds should go.
4. CORRECT. Amal believes the new revenue will result in reallocation of the previous transportation funds. Regina believes they will not be reallocated.
5. Neither party claims that the government plan is beneficial or not.

Recap: The question begins with “Regina: The additional revenue obtained from leasing government”. It is a Point at Issue question. Learn more about LSAT Point at Issue questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.

QUESTION TYPE: Weaken

CONCLUSION: The use of ordinary dictionaries for interpreting the law is justified.

REASONING: Chemists use the periodic table, which they all agree on. Dictionaries can be used the same way for legal interpretation.

ANALYSIS: This argument is founded on the comparison of dictionaries to the periodic table. But note that the periodic table is a source of “agreed-upon background information”, which makes it useful as a reference. If we had evidence that dictionaries were less agreed-upon, it would weaken the argument.

___________

1. The dictionary being in alphabetical order doesn’t weaken the argument, because the argument doesn’t compare the dictionary’s organizational structure to that of the periodic table.
2. CORRECT. If we know that the use of different dictionaries would result in different legal interpretations, it certainly weakens the comparison to the “agreed-upon” information in the periodic table.
3. The relative ages of these materials is not relevant to the argument.
4. The ease of memorization isn’t what the argument is founded on, so this is incorrect.
5. Who typically uses the reference doesn’t matter when we’re talking about its usefulness. This would be like saying “a calculator is not useful to a lawyer because they’re used primarily by mathematicians”.

Recap: The question begins with “The use of ordinary dictionaries in interpreting the law”. It is a Weaken question. Learn how to master LSAT Weaken questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.

QUESTION TYPE: Identify the Conclusion

CONCLUSION: The fossil record does not provide direct evidence of the course of human evolution.

REASONING: Fossil interpretation is subjective and based on the scientists’ theories. One example is the identification of pelvises.

ANALYSIS: The key to these questions is to look for words that indicate what part of the argument is being expressed. Here, “For example” tells us that what follows is an example and not the conclusion or a premise. So we can rule out the pelvis bit.

The colon after “Fossils cannot be interpreted objectively” indicates that the rest of that sentence is explaining why not. This leaves us with two possible conclusions: “Fossils cannot be interpreted objectively” and “Biologists are mistaken…”. The inability to interpret fossils objectively is a premise that supports the idea that the fossil record does not provide direct evidence of the course of human evolution. We can deduce, then, that the latter is the conclusion.

___________

1. This is part of an example that is used for illustration. It is not the conclusion.
2. This might be implied by the argument, but it is not the conclusion of the argument. The conclusion will always be stated directly.
3. This is part of the example – not the conclusion.
4. CORRECT. The rest of the passage works as an argument for this conclusion – see analysis above.
5. This is part of the premise that supports the conclusion.

Recap: The question begins with “Biologists are mistaken in thinking that the fossil record”. It is a Identify The Conclusion question. Learn more about LSAT Identify questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.

QUESTION TYPE: Complete the Argument

CONCLUSION: It is harder to gain sufficient understanding to save an endangered species as it gets more endangered.

REASONING: Understanding a species makes it more likely that we can save it. Studying more individuals helps us understand a species better.

ANALYSIS: The “Therefore,” before the blank tells us that we are providing the argument’s conclusion. We are told two things: more understanding means it’s easier to save the endangered species, and more individuals studied means a better understanding. We can easily deduce that studying more individuals would make it easier to save an endangered species.

But we can go further. Remember that these are endangered species, so there are few individuals and those numbers are at risk. When the species gets more endangered, there are less individuals and therefore it’s harder to get the understanding to save it. This is likely to be our conclusion.

___________

1. This is too strong. We don’t know if they can or cannot be saved; only that it becomes harder as the number of individuals decreases.
2. Too strong a conclusion. See A.
3. CORRECT. See analysis above.
4. This doesn’t follow. We haven’t been comparing what’s “more important”.
5. This REALLY doesn’t follow. It is never indicated that study of endangered species can be harmful.

Recap: The question begins with “The better we understand the behavior and ecological niche”. It is a Complete the Argument question. Learn how to master LSAT Complete the Argument questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: People should not choose to be artists.

REASONING: An artist’s pay is based on others’ subjective opinions, which is unacceptable.

ANALYSIS: This argument is based on the idea that you should not take a job where your pay is based on what others subjectively think about your work. But is that reasonable? Think of all the different jobs out there. If you find a hairdresser that does a great job, you’ll be willing to pay more for that haircut than a bad one – even though it’s your subjective opinion. A tutor you subjectively think is great will be paid more than a bad one. If your boss at the office thinks you’re doing a great job, you might get a raise based on her subjective opinion.

The premise of this argument is flawed in that it’s hard to find a job that doesn’t have that subjective element to some extent, so counting them all out for that is unreasonable.

___________

1. “Solely” is the key word here. The author never says pay should be the only consideration, just that jobs with this subjective element should be avoided.
2. The argument actually never takes this for granted at all.
3. CORRECT. If you followed the author’s principle, you would end up not being able to work any job! That’s ridiculous.
4. Sure, some artists are paid well. But “some” could mean .01% of artists, or even just one. Either way, this doesn’t change anything for the argument as even well-paid artists are paid based on a subjective evaluation.
5. The argument isn’t doing this. Yes, we are told that only jobs that satisfy the criterion are good jobs, but we are never told that any job satisfying the criterion is good.

Recap: The question begins with “Art may make the world more beautiful, but one should choose”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

CONCLUSION: The trend of humanizing vampires is unfortunate.

REASONING: The overall trend in entertainment toward moral complexity is good, but it’s unfortunate that vampires are being humanized. Evil exists in the world, and vampires are one of the most powerful symbols of that.

ANALYSIS: The author’s conclusion is that the trend of humanizing vampires is unfortunate. So why are they saying that the overall trend of moral complexity is good? Isn’t humanizing vampires making them more morally complex?

The key is the word “but” after the claim that the overall trend is good. In this argument, the statement actually acts as a sort of disclaimer. The author is saying “I do agree with the overall trend, but I find this specific instance unfortunate”. The author is telling us that their thoughts are specific to the humanization of vampires.

___________

1. This claim does not support the author’s conclusion. In fact, if all you knew was that the author liked moral complexity, you might assume that they would appreciate humanization of vampires.
2. CORRECT. The author is telling us that their conclusion is specifically about vampires.
3. If this were true, the author would have said something like “the overall trend is good, so that’s why the humanization of vampires is unfortunate”. It makes no sense.
4. The author never rejects this claim – in fact, the author endorses it by stating it.
5. The claim about the overall trend is not supported by the rest of the passage, so it is not the conclusion.

Recap: The question begins with “Critic: Vampires have traditionally been symbols of pure evil”. It is a Role in Argument question. Learn how to master LSAT Role questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.

QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen

CONCLUSION: Young harbor seals have an inherent aversion to all killer whales, but eventually learn to ignore those that only eat fish.

REASONING: Killer whales that eat seals chatter in different dialects than those that don’t. Harbor seals can tell these dialects apart and use this to avoid the seal-eating whales.

ANALYSIS: We know that harbor seals avoid seal-eating whales. But the passage doesn’t provide any evidence that young harbor seals avoid all kinds of killer whales. Based on the evidence passage, maybe all harbor seals know which to avoid from birth. If we had evidence that harbor seals learn to discern between the two types of chatter, the biologists’ conclusion would be more supported.

___________

1. This answer doesn’t provide any evidence that the seals’ behaviour is not innate.
2. This answer tells us that fish can’t hear the chatter, but that won’t help us show that the seals learn to distinguish it.
3. CORRECT. This answer gives us a scenario where harbor seals are hearing unfamiliar chatter. Even though the whale doesn’t eat fish, the seals swim away. This shows that harbor seals avoid unfamiliar chatter until they can determine whether the source is a seal-eating killer whale. All chatter will be unfamiliar to a young harbor seal, so this supports the hypothesis.
4. This answer doesn’t tell us anything useful. We learn that young harbor seals don’t show aversion to any seal predator that isn’t a killer whale. But we don’t know if they show aversion to all killer whales, or just the seal-eating ones.
5. This answer might have tricked you, because it looks like the seals are learning. However, this answer depicts seals learning to be afraid, when we are looking for evidence that they start afraid and learn to be comfortable around fish-eating whales.

Recap: The question begins with “Some killer whales eat fish exclusively, but others also eat”. It is a Strengthen question. Learn more about LSAT Strengthen questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: In general, heating pads will be more effective than stretching at relieving lower back pain.

REASONING: An athlete developed lower back pain, and several days of stretching did not solve it. She used a heating pad and the pain disappeared after a few days.

ANALYSIS: When you are dealing with a Flawed Reasoning “EXCEPT:” question, you know that it’ll be a pretty bad argument. There will be four different answers as to why the author’s reasoning is bad! Of course, we are looking for the one answer that isn’t a fair criticism of the argument and we can’t predict what that will be until we read it. But when you’re practicing it can be a good exercise to try to identify weaknesses before even looking at the answers.

___________

1. CORRECT. This is half true in that the argument indeed doesn’t consider whether each solution is effective at healing the underlying injury. But that’s not what the author is trying to do! The argument is only about how effective the methods are at relieving pain.
2. If the pain was going to disappear after a week or so regardless of what the athlete did, then the heating pad and the stretching were both equally ineffective. This is a valid criticism.
3. This is criticizing the author’s use of the word “generally”. If the only evidence we have is an athlete, that’s not enough to extend our conclusion to the general population.
4. This answer also criticizes the author’s general application. Different sources of back pain might be more effectively solved in different ways. One case isn’t enough to draw a general conclusion.
5. This is a valid criticism. The author could have said “heating pads are more effective than the stretching attempted by the athlete” (not that that would be correct either). The conclusion is applied too generally.

Recap: The question begins with “Trainer: An athlete developed lower back pain after a strenuous”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flaw questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

CONCLUSION: Some literary theorists argue against a viewpoint they themselves adopt.

REASONING: Some literary theorists say that aesthetic value cannot be assigned to literary works because they are expressions of ideology. But these theorists view some works as more interesting or successful in expressing their ideology.

ANALYSIS: Here it will be important to keep track of who is making which arguments. The structure is actually simple when you break it down. The author is basically saying “These people think X is naive. But they also do X. So they are guilty of the thing they say is wrong.”

These literary theorists believe that it’s naive to view works as embodying aesthetic value. The author’s conclusion is that the literary theorists actually believe the idea they are trying to refute, and the author supports this by pointing out that these literary theorists assign aesthetic value to these works. Note that the author never argues that the theorists’ argument is wrong, only that they are guilty of it themselves.

___________

1. This conclusion is actually the theorists’ conclusion, not the authors. The claim in question is supporting the author’s conclusion.
2. The author doesn’t actually argue against the theorists’ argument. And they certainly don’t use the claim in the question to refute the idea.
3. The claim in question is not itself a conclusion, but is the support for the author’s conclusion.
4. CORRECT. The author uses this claim to support the conclusion that the theorists are exhibiting the behaviour they were criticizing.
5. The author does not try to refute the claim that literary works are expressions of ideology.

Recap: The question begins with “Some literary theorists argue that since literary works”. It is a Role in Argument question. Learn more about LSAT Role questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.

QUESTION TYPE: Must be True

FACTS:

1. Landowners are required to clear their sidewalks within 24 hours of a snowstorm ending.

2. If they don’t, the city has the right to clear it and will bill them for the service.

3. 48 hours after the snowstorm, any landowners with uncleared sidewalks receive citations.

4. Citations result in fines unless the landowners demonstrate extenuating circumstances.

ANALYSIS: A timeline of what could/will happen might be useful for this question. Remember not to assume anything that isn’t stated! Here’s mine:

A. Less than 24 hours after storm: landowners can shovel snow. City does not have the right.

B. More than 24 hours: City has the right to clear the sidewalks, and will bill if they do. Landowners can still clear sidewalks themselves.

C. More than 48 hours: All from B still applies. Landowners will receive citations and will be fined if they can’t demonstrate extenuating circumstances.

___________

1. CORRECT. The city can clear sidewalks “more than 24 hours” after the end of a snowstorm. The landowner will be billed, because the city always bills after clearing a sidewalk. The landowner receives a citation even if there are extenuating circumstances.
2. The city doesn’t always clear sidewalks after 24 hours. They just have the right to.
3. There may be sidewalks that are not cleared after 50 hours. We are not told that the city clears all sidewalks that landowners do not clear.
4. “Nearly all” is too strong. It’s possible that most or even all landowners who get citations can demonstrate extenuating circumstances and do not receive fines.
5. Landowners with extenuating circumstances will still be billed if the city clears their sidewalk – the extenuating circumstances only save them from the fine.

Recap: The question begins with “City official: Landowners must clear the snow from”. It is a Must be True question. Learn how to master LSAT MBT questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: Blue Irises cannot be considered part of the city’s art movement.

REASONING: Almost all of the paintings in the movement exhibit bold brushwork and a sharp contrast of light and shadow. Those that do not are all abstract paintings that do not depict light or shadow. Blue Irises does not exhibit the sharp contrast.

ANALYSIS: The critic has set up two categories of paintings in the city’s art movement: paintings with bold brushwork and a sharp contrast, and abstract paintings (which have no sharp contrast).

The author then says that Blue Irises has no sharp contrast, so it cannot be considered part of the movement. But this only excludes it from the first category; if it were abstract, it could still make the cut. We want an answer that, when negated, means the author is incorrect and Blue Irises does fit with the movement.

___________

1. The critic’s argument requires this to not be true! If this is true, then Blue Irises doesn’t need a sharp contrast to be included.
   Negation: Blue Irises isn’t nonrepresentational.
2. The critic does not assume this. It’s possible that there are shadows but no sharp contrast.
   Negation: Blue Iris depicts some shadows.
3. CORRECT. If this were not true, the critic’s argument would fall apart as Blue Irises would be suitable for the second category of paintings. Negation: Blue Irises is an abstract painting.
4. It doesn’t matter if this is true or not. There can be nonrepresentational paintings without bold brushwork, but it wouldn’t necessarily make Blue Irises part of the art movement.
   Negation: Some of the nonrepresentational paintings produced in the critic’s city do not display bold brushwork.
5. The critic does not assume this. It doesn’t matter anyway, because Blue Irises does not have the contrast.
   Negation: Some paintings in the critic’s city with a sharp contrast of light and shadow did not emerge from the city’s art movement.

Recap: The question begins with “Critic: Almost all of the paintings from our city’s art”. It is a Necessary Assumption question. Learn more about LSAT Necessary questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.

QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Journalists should have reasonable statistics knowledge.

REASONING: If they do not have this knowledge, they can make mistakes. One journalist misinterpreted data and made an erroneous report.

ANALYSIS: Let’s boil this down as close to the base structure as possible. The author essentially says:

1. I think X should be true.

2. If X were not true, something bad could happen.

3. Here is an example of when X was not true and something bad happened.

We can skim the answers to find one following all three parts of this structure. We want an answer where the author cites a specific past example to demonstrate that not following their conclusion would be bad.

___________

1. This argument uses a future example of what could go wrong, not a past example of what did go wrong.
2. CORRECT. The author says schools should have recess (#1 in analysis above), that children might incur health risks if they don’t (#2), and gives an example of a school without recess (#3).
3. This answer is missing a specific past example, which was present in the critic’s argument.
4. This answer is missing both #2 and #3 from the analysis above. Instead, we get “X should be true. It would be good if X were true”, which is not the same pattern of reasoning.
5. This answer is missing a specific past example, which was present in the critic’s argument.

Recap: The question begins with “Critic: Journalists should have reasonable knowledge of statistics”. It is a Parallel Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Parallel questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.

QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption

CONCLUSION: Landis violated his official duties by spending $10,000 to redecorate his office.

REASONING: It is immoral to spend $10,000 while many people in the city live in poverty.

ANALYSIS: The editorialist argues that Landis has violated his official duties regardless of where the money came from. This tells us that any information about the money’s source is irrelevant.

There is a clear missing link in this argument. The editorialist argues that Landis acted immorally, and uses that to support the claim that he violated his official duties. To bridge the gap, we need to link immoral behaviour with a violation of Landis’ duties. If we skim for an answer that mentions Landis’ official duties, we will find that there is only one.

___________

1. The editorialist says Landis is guilty of a violation regardless of the money’s source, so this doesn’t help us draw the conclusion.
2. This solidifies the claim that Landis acted immorally, but does not help connect immoral behaviour to a violation of his duties.
3. Knowing Landis was aware of the redecorating project still doesn’t tell us why it’s a violation of his duties.
4. CORRECT. If Landis has an official duty to act morally, then we can properly conclude that because he acted immorally, he violated his official duties.
5. This answer provides more evidence that redecorating might have been immoral, but doesn’t show us why that is a violation of his duties.

Recap: The question begins with “Editorialist: Landis, one of this city’s top elected officials”. It is a Sufficient Assumption question. Learn more about LSAT Sufficient questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Katelin probably thinks the antique car show will be cancelled.

REASONING: Katelin thinks there will be a major snowstorm, and the car show will be cancelled if there is a major snowstorm.

ANALYSIS: In the abstract, this argument is saying:

1. [Person] thinks X is true.

2. If X is true, Y is true.

3. Therefore, [Person] probably believes Y is true.

The flaw here is that we don’t know if Katelin is even aware of the car show, let alone that it will be cancelled if there is a major snowstorm. We’ll look for an answer that follows the structure above and shares the same flaw.

___________

1. This answer messes with the structure too much. There isn’t really a conditional statement! Jorge says Y will happen, based on X. X is unlikely to change, so Jorge probably thinks Y will happen. See the difference?
2. CORRECT. This answer matches our structure perfectly. Bo makes a statement and the author infers what Bo might believe based on the potentially incorrect assumption that Bo has the same knowledge as the author.
3. This answer follows a different structure and doesn’t make the same flaw. Wanda says X. Most people who say X believe Y. Therefore, Wanda probably believes Y.
4. This answer doesn’t match our structure. The conditional statement is important: the author has to say that if X is true, Y is true. That doesn’t appear here.
5. This answer matches our basic structure, but not our flaw! This is actually an incorrect reversal – we are told that things which improve circulation (sufficient condition) also improve your alertness (necessary condition). The author mistakenly extrapolates this to mean that garlic (which improves alertness) also improves circulation.

Recap: The question begins with “Katelin says that we will be hit by a major snowstorm”. It is a Flawed Parallel Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flawed Parallel questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.