Diagnostic LSAT Test for Beginners - 10 Questions

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.