LSAT Practice Test 90 – Questions with Answers + Explanations Bundle - LR 1

The first sentence is the conclusion.

Second sentence introduces the premise (hence the premise indicator "after all") but that second sentence is also the intermediate conclusion because the part after "Since" is used to support that part. Whenever I see "Since" I like to think of "Because". Just makes it easier to interpret for me for some reason.

Conclusion: People DONT realize pop music used to express R + P messages

Intermediate conclusion: POP adopted by social movements
Premise ("Since"): potential conversation + increase moral + solidarity

A) intermediate conclusion
B) dont think this is even said
C) It did not say it was the most effective way. it said it was a possible way
D) correct answer. As we can see, it's used for express R + P messages
E) I mean this factually correct based on the argument but not the right answer. This is a premise.

Council president: Councilmember Smith has proposed a new city ordinance prohibiting the use of the “bait-and-switch” sales tactic. Smith must have amnesia. Four years ago he owned an appliance store that was famous for its use of bait-and-switch. Clearly, Smith's proposed ordinance does not even merit consideration

The council president's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the president

(A) dismisses the proposed ordinance because of its source rather than because of its content - CORRECT. The blue text suggests so. It is sub conclusion based on which final conclusion(highlighted text) is made.

(B) takes a single fact that is incompatible with a claim as enough to show that claim to be false - WRONG. Close call. But "incompatible" possibly between the opposite of claim and reasoning presented, and not between claim and reasoning presented.

(C) fails to make a needed distinction between deceptive sales tactics and legitimate methods of increasing sales - WRONG. Altogether wrong. Irrelevant.

(D) draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion - WRONG. Neither there is any reinstatement nor it is in support.

(E) generalizes from a limited number of instances of a certain kind to a instances of that kind - WRONG. "That kind" is not acceptable since the "kinds" are different. Though generalizing is fine.

Answer A.

B is incorrect because the author need not assume it in order for their argument to make sense. It's entirely possible that there are other practices that come before the domestication of animals. Negating answer B to say that this is not necessarily one of the first steps does nothing to undermine the claim that these bovines were domesticated.

Same thing with answer E: the size of the animals is not an issue on which the author relies. What if domesticated bovines need just as much water as wild animals of similar size? Or more? This negation does nothing to attack the argument or undermine the conclusion, and so the author need not assume it in order to draw that conclusion.

Here we are trying to find what must be true based on Cerrato's arguement.

We are told the following facts:
- Part-time workers are more likely dissatisfied with their jobs than full-time workers
- lower paid, part-time workers threaten to take jobs from full-time employees
- job efficiency is higher with job satisfaction
- companies are unlikely to replace satisfied employees with dissatisfied ones

From these facts, we can tie some ideas together, because these ideas are all premises that are supposed to support a conclusion. Even though part-time workers threaten to take jobs from full-time employees, there's some reason companies don't replace all full-time workers with part-time ones - why? Maybe because companies are unlikely to replace satisfied employees with dissatisfied ones and part-time workers are more likely to be dissatisfied.

Looking at the answer choices, this closely matches answer choice (C). Furthermore, with (C) added in as a conclusion, all the information in the stimulus serves as supporting evidence effectively.

The first sentence would not be a sub-conclusion, just a premise. It's simply stating the point of view of many economists.

Here we are trying to resolve the paradox between how zebras survive with this striped coloring against prey who are hunting them.

Answer choice (D) says "When lions hunt, the whole pride shares in the food obtained when a prey animal is successfully brought down by one of the hunting lions".

If we added this information into what we know from the stimulus, we now know that not only are zebras easy to spot, but that when lions hunt them, they share the spoils of the hunt with the whole pride. We are still left puzzled as to why zebras have such seemingly poor camouflage. We also don't know that only one zebra is hunted - (D) tells us lions share their hunt, but maybe each lion in the pack individually takes down a zebra because they are just that easy to see with their black and white stripes.

The only answer choice that provides a survival reason for the zebra's coloring is answer choice (E), which tells us that the stripes actually do serve a purpose - they make it harder for the lions to pick out individual zebras.

This is a Must Be True (MBT) question, meaning the correct answer must align with the information provided in the stimulus. To determine what can be proven using the given facts, let's break down the stimulus step by step.

Here’s what we learn from the stimulus:

• Dark honey generally contains more antioxidants than light-colored honey.
• The most healthful types of honey all have a high antioxidant concentration.
• However, some strains of honey produced by bees that collect sage nectar are light-colored and fall within the category of the most healthful honey.

The stimulus doesn’t include a specific conclusion, which is common in MBT questions. However, we can prephrase the correct answer using the facts presented. From the premises, it’s clear that:

1. Light-colored honey can still be among the most healthful varieties.
2. Since all healthful honey has a high concentration of antioxidants, we can infer that some light-colored honey must also have a high antioxidant concentration.

This inference forms our prephrase, as it logically follows from the stimulus and wasn’t explicitly stated in the last sentence.

Now, let’s evaluate the answer choices:

• Answer (A): This choice claims that some honey made by bees harvesting sage nectar has an unusually high antioxidant concentration. This aligns with the stimulus, as it states that “certain strains of honey from sage nectar are among the most healthful,” and “the most healthful strains of honey are all unusually high in antioxidants.” Since this matches the facts, (A) is correct.
• Answer (B): This option suggests that most plants produce nectar leading to light-colored honey. However, the stimulus doesn’t provide any information about the types of plants bees collect nectar from, nor does it explore the frequency of light-colored honey production. Since it introduces new, unsupported information, (B) is incorrect.
• Answer (C): This choice claims that light-colored honey tends to be more healthful than dark honey. While the stimulus does establish that dark honey tends to have more antioxidants and that some light-colored honey is very healthful, it doesn’t indicate a general trend that light-colored honey is typically more healthful. Therefore, (C) is not supported and can be eliminated.
• Answer (D): This option states that some honey produced from sage nectar is unusually low in antioxidants. However, the stimulus explicitly mentions that honey from sage nectar is among the most healthful, meaning it must have unusually high antioxidant levels. Thus, (D) contradicts the facts and is incorrect.
• Answer (E): This choice uses strong language, asserting that the honey with the highest antioxidant content is definitively light-colored. The stimulus does not support this claim, as it doesn’t rank antioxidant levels by honey color or specify which strain has the most antioxidants. Therefore, (E) fails the Fact Test and is incorrect.

In conclusion, the correct answer is (A), as it logically follows from the information in the stimulus and passes the Fact Test.

To identify the conclusion, we look for specific indicators. In this case, there are two: "Consequently" and "Thus."

Breaking down the stimulus:

• The opening sentence presents a premise about a recent study. This is a premise because it’s a factual statement that isn’t supported by additional evidence.
• The sentence beginning with "Consequently" is a subsidiary conclusion, as it builds on the prior premise. However, it’s not the main conclusion because the author uses this statement to further develop their argument.
• The sentence starting with "Evidently" is another premise, as the author doesn’t offer any support for this claim.
• Finally, the author uses the first conclusion (that children had to crane their necks) to arrive at the main conclusion: children face the same risk as office workers.

Why Answer B is Incorrect:

• The distinction between whether children spend more time at school or home is irrelevant; the argument focuses on the time spent craning their necks at school.
• A major flaw in Answer B is the assumption that home computers have the same ergonomic issues as school computers. The stimulus specifically highlights that school computers are positioned too high, causing children to adopt unhealthy postures. For all we know, home computers might be properly set up and not contributing to the problem.
• Even if home computers do increase the risk of repetitive stress injuries, that would be in addition to the risk posed by school computers, not an alternate cause. School computers would still contribute to the problem and therefore increase the risk for students.
• The conclusion compares students to office workers. It’s possible that office workers also use home computers more than work computers, but the stimulus doesn’t address this, and we shouldn’t make unwarranted assumptions.

A Better Prephrase:

Focus on the biological differences between children and adults. For instance, children’s developing bodies might make them more susceptible to repetitive stress injuries compared to adults. (As someone over 40, I can personally confirm that the body doesn’t function the same way it did in youth!)

Here’s a simpler way to see why answer choice (A) is wrong: it contradicts the author’s point. The stimulus argues that the proposed strategy to preserve a culture is actually self-defeating—it requires actions that would destroy the very culture it’s trying to save. Answer choice (A), however, claims that the strategy "can" succeed in some cases. This directly opposes the stimulus, where the strategy is portrayed as one that never works. Therefore, (A) is incorrect.

Answer choice (E) suffers from the same flaw as (A). The stimulus is clear that the strategy always fails. Any answer suggesting it could succeed is automatically wrong.

Answer choice (B) is correct because it aligns with the reasoning in the stimulus. The strategy to "preserve" a culture involves removing key traditions that are essential to the culture's identity. As a result, the very actions intended to save the culture would instead destroy it, which reflects the self-defeating nature of the strategy.

In the stimulus, the author begins with a claim attributed to experts (anthropologists), who propose that societies can counter cultural decline by abandoning many of their old traditions and adopting new ones. However, the concluding sentence introduces a significant problem with this idea, signaled by the word "but." It raises the concern that if these traditions are integral to a culture's identity, replacing them would undermine the culture itself, leading to its destruction rather than preventing decay. Answer choice (B) captures this objection and effectively completes the reasoning in the stimulus.

For a question like this, the first step is to identify the conclusion. Here, the conclusion is the last sentence, indicated by the word "therefore":

Conclusion: A successful legal system prohibits only the small number of behaviors that citizens find completely intolerable.

Next, let’s evaluate the answer choices. (A), (B), and (E) can be ruled out quickly:

• (A) is irrelevant because the conclusion does not discuss police officers.
• (B) is incorrect because we’ve already identified the conclusion.
• (E) doesn’t work because the argument isn’t focused on disproving the idea that laws deter actions through the threat of punishment.

This leaves (C) and (D). To distinguish between them, consider what makes an "intermediate conclusion." An intermediate conclusion is like a premise, but it also acts as a bridge to support the main conclusion. The first sentence of the stimulus, however, isn’t supported by any other premise—it’s presented as a simple fact. Therefore, it cannot be an intermediate conclusion, ruling out (D). This makes (C) the correct choice.

Here’s how the argument can be structured:

• Premise 1: The purpose of a law is to deter certain actions through the threat of punishment, but this works only if punishment seems likely.
• Premise 2: The likelihood of punishment decreases as the number of prohibited actions increases.
• Conclusion: Therefore, a successful legal system should prohibit only those few behaviors that citizens find completely intolerable.

Answer B is incorrect because the stimulus never states that the Oromo were the first to build their tombs this way. The author’s argument isn’t based on the sequence of events but instead assumes the order, and that assumption is the flaw in the reasoning.

Answer D is also wrong because it’s both false and irrelevant. The argument does not assume that no third culture practiced this burial method before the Oromo or Swahili. Moreover, even if another culture did build tombs this way first, it wouldn’t matter since the stimulus explicitly states that the Swahili had no contact with any such third culture. Therefore, the Swahili could still have been influenced by the Oromo, as the author concludes.

To approach this logically, the best prephrases should focus on classic causal reasoning flaws:

1. A third cause might exist.
2. The cause and effect might be reversed.
3. The effect might occur without the purported cause.

If you were prepared for one of these, E should stand out because it directly addresses the assumed chronology. The argument relies on the idea that the Oromo practiced this burial method before the Swahili, which ties into the possibility of the cause and effect being reversed or the Swahili adopting the practice independently of the Oromo. For a cause to be valid, it must precede its effect—an assumption the author makes without evidence.

It’s also important to note that a correct flaw answer wouldn’t restate a premise of the argument. Instead, it would highlight an overlooked problem or an unwarranted assumption in the reasoning. A good flaw answer, like E, points out what the author failed to consider or wrongly assumed.

If E matched your prephrase but you dismissed it because you felt it didn’t weaken the argument, that suggests a misunderstanding of the prephrase’s purpose. Prephrases guide you to what you’re looking for, and rejecting them undermines the process. It’s like creating a logic game diagram and then ignoring it during the questions—counterproductive!

Ultimately, E identifies the flaw because the author unjustifiably assumes the Oromo practiced this burial method before the Swahili. Without evidence supporting this timeline, the argument falls apart.

Over time, you come to appreciate that the correct answers in LSAT questions—regardless of the type—are those that resolve ambiguities most effectively. Clarity is key. Whether you’re working within the “prove” family, the “help” family, or any other category, the right answer will be the one that leaves the least room for doubt or further questioning. Conversely, an answer that seems plausible but introduces more uncertainty is usually incorrect, especially when another option exists that is unequivocally correct and free of ambiguity.

This question is a good illustration of that principle. Answer D is necessarily true based on the argument. If the chorus sometimes delivers inconsistent information, and this inconsistency is the basis for concluding that the chorus isn’t equivalent to the narrator, then it follows that the narrator must always be consistent.

Like you, I equate being deceptive with being inconsistent, and this may even align with a dictionary definition of deception. However, the term "deceptive" carries a broader connotation—it implies a value judgment beyond merely providing inconsistent information. On the LSAT, it’s essential to avoid value-laden terms unless they’re explicitly used in the stimulus. If another answer directly aligns with the language of the stimulus, that’s the safer and better choice. Similarly, avoid answers that raise additional questions, such as what it would mean for a narrator to "never be deceptive." For example, in a murder mystery like The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, would the narrator qualify as deceptive? It’s unclear. On the LSAT, such speculation isn’t necessary.

The correct answer avoids ambiguity, aligns closely with the stimulus, and does not introduce unnecessary complications or subjective interpretations. That’s why D is the best choice here.

The conclusion of this stimulus is the first sentence: "Some of the rare pygmy bears should be moved from their native island to the neighboring island." One way to recognize this as the conclusion is the presence of the word "should," which signals a recommendation or proposed course of action. Words like "should" or "ought" often indicate that a statement is the conclusion of an argument.

Another method for identifying the conclusion is to determine which statements serve as support for others. Breaking down the stimulus, the second sentence acts as a premise that supports the first. The second sentence explains that the bears face extinction on their native island and that the neighboring island is the only location with a suitable habitat. This information leads directly to the recommendation in the conclusion: the bears "should" be relocated to the neighboring island.

When reading this passage, pay attention to premises, conclusions and subconclusions. We do NOT care about subconclusions as some of these answer choices will outline those.

Notice how the FIRST SENTENCE is the conclusion of this argument. The author then later provides explanation as to why he thinks biographical writing will come to an end.

"The widespread use of encryption software, which makes electronic documents accessible by password only, will bring the writing of biographical history virtually to an end." - is the main conclusion of this argument.

A. Is a prediction, almost a premise. Not the main point of the passage.
B. BINGO. First sentence, restated. Conclusion, restated.
C. Premise restated
D. Premise restated (irrelevant)
E. Assumption required by the argument

E  would be the right answer if we were asked what is the assumption required by the argument to hold true.