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 2: Reading Comprehension exam with other users:
need to refer the questions and have to give the exam
i need it right now if it was possible please
i need it very much please share it in the fastest time.
correct answer is d for student.java program
q:37 c is correct
q6 exam topic: terramearth, c: correct answer: copy 1petabyte to encrypted usb device ???
explained answers
plan to take theaws certified developer - associate dva-c02 in the next few weeks
very helpfull
good questions
help to practice csa exam
nice tip and well documented
i need the exam
please upload
prepping for fsc exam
pd1 with great experience
@t it seems like azure service bus message quesues could be the best solution
helpful to check your understanding.
question 128 the answer should be static not auto
more comments here
great support to appear for exams
useful dumps
making progress
q31 answer should be d i think
is this real?
q10: c and f are also true. q11: this is outdated. you no longer need ownership on a pipe to operate it
good questions with simple explanation
admin guide (windows) respond to malicious causality chains. when the cortex xdr agent identifies a remote network connection that attempts to perform malicious activity—such as encrypting endpoint files—the agent can automatically block the ip address to close all existing communication and block new connections from this ip address to the endpoint. when cortex xdrblocks an ip address per endpoint, that address remains blocked throughout all agent profiles and policies, including any host-firewall policy rules. you can view the list of all blocked ip addresses per endpoint from the action center, as well as unblock them to re-enable communication as appropriate. this module is supported with cortex xdr agent 7.3.0 and later. select the action mode to take when the cortex xdr agent detects remote malicious causality chains: enabled (default)—terminate connection and block ip address of the remote connection. disabled—do not block remote ip addresses. to allow specific and known s
very inciting
question 5, it seems a instead of d, because: - care plan = case - patient = person account - product = product2;
it look like real one
i am taking oracle fcc certification test next two days, pls share question dumps
i need dumps
its time to comptia sec+