LSAT Logical Reasoning Answers
The argument concludes that global warming is not as serious as environmentalists claim, because this year the global temperature did not rise. However, the environmentalists’ argument is that on average the temperature has risen 2 degrees over the past 30 years. When dealing with averages, it is completely possible to have a year when the temperature stays the same or even drops, while the overall average temperature over 30 years rises. A general average cannot be refuted with a single counterexample.
Choice A is incorrect because the argument does not conclude that global warming is more serious than any other threat. Nor does the argument conclude that global warming does not exist, as stated in choice C. Choice D is incorrect because at no point in the argument is a key term used ambiguously to mean two different things, and choice E is incorrect because the argument’s evidence about the difference in temperature between the this year and last year is a fact and does not rely upon the truth of its conclusion.
The argument makes a conclusion about overall safety by considering only brakes. However, there are other possible factors one might consider when trying to buy a safe car, and choice E mentions one such factor, which weakens the conclusion that Griffon mini-vans are the best choice for safety. Choice A is incorrect because the conclusion specifically references “any consumer who is purchasing a mini-van…,” so whether other types of automobiles are safer will have no impact on the conclusion. Likewise, choice B is incorrect because the conclusion references “any consumer who is purchasing… based solely on the criteria of safety…” so whether some consumers buy cars for other reasons is irrelevant to the conclusion of the argument. Choice D would strengthen the argument.
The argument tells us that a rule for journalistic reporting cannot invite artistic interpretation. If choice B is true, and using words ambiguously invites artistic interpretation, then it would also have to be true that journalists cannot use words ambiguously, since they cannot invite artistic interpretation.
Choice A is the opposite of the assumption in the argument: the argument assumes that ambiguous words and artistic interpretation are linked, whereas choice A says that they are not linked. Choice C is backwards: the argument assumes that using words ambiguously leads to artistic interpretation, not that artistic interpretation leads to ambiguous words. Also, it is worth noting that the second half of this answer choice says that journalists sometimes use words ambiguously, which contradicts the conclusion and thus cannot be an assumption. Choice D states that any journalist either uses words ambiguously, or invites artistic interpretation; however, the argument indicates that journalists do not do either. Choice E is incorrect because it discusses what is necessary in order to become a great journalist.
Choice A explains why home alarm systems would make homes safer, even though homes with such alarms are broken into more often than homes without such alarms. Choices B, C, and D all explain why the alarms might not be effective, but fail to explain why the break-in rate for such houses would be higher than the break-in rate for houses without such alarms. Choice E is incorrect because the home owners’ feelings would not explain the burglary rates.
The passage states that “a species in general will survive only if its overall resource requirement to maintain its strength does not outweigh the resources available…” Thus, if the resource requirement outweighs the resources, the species will not survive. Choice B is incorrect because, although the passage lists three advantages for strength (breeding, fighting for food, and running from predators), nothing in the passage indicates that these are the only advantages. Strength may provide a survival advantage for hunting. Choice B is incorrect because nothing indicates that the phrase should be discarded, only that it is incorrect when interpreted in a certain way. Choice D is incorrect because, although strength can be a disadvantage in some way according to the passage, nothing supports the inference that the species with the least strength is the most likely to survive. The weakest species might not die because of its strength, but it still might get eaten by its slightly less weak competitors. By this same logic, Choice E is also incorrect; a species might die for many reasons during an ecological disaster. A lack of resources is one possible reason, but not the only reason.