Parent: I had tried without success to get my young child to brush her teeth. I had hoped that she would imitate me, or that she would be persuaded by reason to brush her teeth. Then, I made a point of brushing her teeth for her immediately before reading her a story before her naps and at night. After several weeks, when I would pick up a storybook at these times, she began automatically to retrieve her toothbrush and brush her teeth herself.The parent's experience with the child most closely conforms to which one of the following generalizations?
Answer(s): B
The question stem tells us to find the generalization that captures the parent's experience, so we're looking for a principle: an abstract account covering the situation at hand. In this case, imitation didn't work, reason didn't work, but making brushing part of her story time routine did the trick. Habit and repetition can be more effective than other means.
The student body at this university takes courses in a wide range of disciplines. Miriam is a student at this university, so she takes courses in a wide range of disciplines.Which one of the following arguments exhibits flawed reasoning most similar to that exhibited by the argument above?
Some students reported having trouble with this one on test day in December 1999. For some, it was because the logic struck them as correct, not "flawed" at all (even though the question stem is quite clear on that point)."Hey," they protested, "the students there take a wide range of courses and Miriam's a student--she must take a wide range too!"Nosiree! This is an example of a classic whole-to-part miscalculation. It is true of the student body taken in the aggregate that they take a wide range of courses. This doesn't have an impact on any one individual. It is eminently possible for a student, Miriam for instance, to take nothing but literature courses, and yet the generalization would remain true. So we're looking for a choice containing a similar error.
Opponent of offshore oil drilling: The projected benefits of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster. The oil already being extracted from these areas currently provides only 4 percent of our country's daily oil requirement, and the new wells would only add one-half of 1 percent.Proponent of offshore oil drilling: Don't be ridiculous! You might just as well argue that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for more than a few minutes.The drilling proponent's reply to the drilling opponent proceeds by
Answer(s): D
"Don't be ridiculous!" begins the proponent's reply to the opponent--no punches pulled here. The opponent of offshore oil drilling argues that drilling in certain areas is not worth the risk; these areas contribute only a small amount of oil overall to the country, and new wells there would contribute only a small percentage of that.Obviously, the proponent doesn't agree that the new wells shouldn't be drilled simply because they will add very little to the country's oil supply. If that reasoning held, he argues, we wouldn't allow new farms, because no one farm is capable of feeding the entire country for long. The farm example is meant to sound ridiculous, and by extension imply that the opponent's reasoning regarding the new wells is ridiculous as well. Option [citing as parallel to the argument made by...] describes this method: The farm example is provided as a parallel argument, the implausibility of which is meant to highlight the "ridiculous" nature of the opponent's argument.
Opponent of offshore oil drilling: The projected benefits of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster. The oil already being extracted from these areas currently provides only 4 percent of our country's daily oil requirement, and the new wells would only add one-half of 1 percent.Proponent of offshore oil drilling: Don't be ridiculous! You might just as well argue that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for more than a few minutes.Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the drilling proponent's reply?
Answer(s): A
Now we get to debunk the debunker -- the proponent's implication that the opponent's argument is ridiculous ain't so hot after all, and perhaps you spotted the problem your first time through: The opponent doesn't pooh- pooh the new wells simply because of their measly output, but because such a small amount is "not worth the risk of environmental disaster." What's analogous to this risk in the proponent's farm example? Nothing. The proponent ignores this aspect of the opponent's argument. If, as option [New farms do not involve a risk analogous to that...] has it, new farms pose no such analogous risk, then the supposedly parallel example that's meant to refute the opponent's argument isn't parallel after all, rendering its implication meaningless. If option [New farms do not involve a risk analogous to that...] is true, the first line of the proponent's response can be thrown back at him.
A running track with a hard surface makes for greater running speed than a soft one, at least under dry conditions, because even though step length is shorter on ' a hard surface, the time the runner's foot remains in contact with the running surface is less with a hard surface.Which one of the following, if true, is evidence that the explanation given above is only a partial one?
Answer(s): C
This question stem requires some translation. We're looking for something that, if true, would show that the author's explanation is only a partial one. So we're looking for a weakener of the explanation: something that points to another factor. Another way of thinking about this question is to recognize that the stem is telling you that the author is arguing that X (and only X) causes Y. You need to look for the answer choice that says Z also causes Y. The author's conclusion is that hard tracks are faster; the author says this is because the runner's foot is in contact with a hard surface for a shorter period of time. The correct answer choice will therefore give you another reason why hard tracks are faster. And that's what option [Hard tracks enhance a runner's speed by...] does. It tells you that hard tracks also make it possible for runners to minimize the effect of wind resistance, again making their times faster. If option [Hard tracks enhance a runner's speed by...].is true, then the author's explanation of why hard tracks are fast is only a partial explanation.
Goswami: I support the striking workers at Ergon Foods. They are underpaid. The majority of them make less than $20,000 per year.Nordecki: If pay is the issue, I must disagree. The average annual salary of the striking workers at Ergon Foods is over $29,000.Goswami and Nordecki disagree over the truth of which one of the following statements?
This is a Point-at-Issue question. Goswami concludes that the striking workers are underpaid. His evidence is that the majority of the workers make less than $20,000 per year. Nordecki counters that if pay is the issue then he disagrees with Goswami. Disagrees about what? In order to answer that question, look at the evidence Nordecki uses to disagree with Goswami. The evidence that he offers relates directly to the pay of the workers:he says that the average salary is $29,000. So Nordecki must be disagreeing with Goswami on the issue of whether the workers are underpaid.
Teacher to a student: You agree that it is bad to break promises. But when we speak to each other we all make an implicit promise to tell the truth, and lying is the breaking of that promise. So even if you promised Jeanne that you would tell me she is home sick, you should not tell me that, if you know that she is well.Which one of the following is an assumption on which the teacher's argument depends?
On this question you needed to find the teacher's assumption. So that means you should have found the missing link between her conclusion and evidence. Her conclusion is that the student should not lie and say that Jeanne is home sick, even if the student had promised Jeanne that he would say that. The teacher supports this conclusion by saying that whenever we speak to each other we make an implicit promise to tell the truth, and lying is the implicit breaking of that promise. Did you see the double standard? The teacher concludes that the student should not break his promise to tell the truth to the teacher, even if that means breaking his promise to Jeanne. Therefore, the teacher must be assuming that it's OK to break some promises, but not others.
Despite the fact that antilock brakes are designed to make driving safer, research suggests that people who drive cars equipped with antilock brakes have more accidents than those who drive cars not equipped with antilock brakes.Each of the following, if true, would help resolve the apparent discrepancy described above EXCEPT:
Answer(s): E
Four viable resolutions, one clunker, states the stem. This tells us that the apparent discrepancy must not be a great mystery after all, considering there are four valid solutions to it right on the page. Our job is to find the odd man out. The argument is simple enough: Antilock brakes are designed for safety, but those who drive cars with these brakes have more accidents than those who drive cars without them. Why? Each wrong choice posits a reasonable explanation of why this may be so.
Share your comments for LSAC LSAT SECTION 1: LOGICAL REASONING exam with other users:
q40 the answer is not d, why are you giving incorrect answers? snapshot consolidation is used to merge the snapshot delta disk files to the vm base disk
thanks, very relevant
wrong answer. it is true not false.
please i need the mo-100 questions
very good use full
very valid questions
will these question help me to clear pl-300 exam?
please provide me with these dumps questions. thanks
in the pdf downloaded is write google cloud database engineer i think that it isnt the correct exam
i think you have the answers wrong regarding question: "what are three core principles of web content accessibility guidelines (wcag)? answer: robust, operable, understandable
these questions are not valid , they dont come for the exam now
question looks valid
good for practice
need more q&a to go ahead
question 59 - a newly-created role is not assigned to any user, nor granted to any other role. answer is b https://docs.snowflake.com/en/user-guide/security-access-control-overview
just passed my exam today. i saw all of these questions in my text today. so i can confirm this is a valid dump.
needed dumps
very helpful
will post once the exam is finished
relevant questions
just clear exam on 10/06/2202 dumps is valid all questions are came same in dumps only 2 new questions total 46 questions 1 case study with 5 question no lab/simulation in my exam please check the answers best of luck
q.112 - correct answer is c - the event registry is a module that provides event definitions. answer a - not correct as it is the definition of event log
good and useful.
good questions
good content
totally not correct answers. 21. you have one gcp account running in your default region and zone and another account running in a non-default region and zone. you want to start a new compute engine instance in these two google cloud platform accounts using the command line interface. what should you do? correct: create two configurations using gcloud config configurations create [name]. run gcloud config configurations activate [name] to switch between accounts when running the commands to start the compute engine instances.
kindly upload the dumps
still learning
excellent way to learn
help so much
understand sql col.
i would give 5 stars to this website as i studied for az-800 exam from here. it has all the relevant material available for preparation. i got 890/1000 on the test.
this is nice.
q55- the ridac workflow can be modified using flow designer, correct answer is d not a