Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear power plants are entirely safe and hence that the public's fear of nuclear accidents at these plants is groundless. The government also contends that its recent action to limit the nuclear industry's financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents at power plants is justified by the need to protect the nuclear industry from the threat of bankruptcy. But even the government says that unlimited liability poses such a threat only if injury claims can be sustained against the industry; and the government admits that for such claims to be sustained, injury must result from a nuclear accident. The public's fear, therefore, is well founded.If all of the statements offered in support of the editorial's conclusion correctly describe the government's position, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of those statements?
Answer(s): B
We're to accept that the government's position is accurately portrayed, and need to infer what must be true on the basis of that portrayal. While it's usually difficult to prephrase answers to Inference questions, perhaps a general sense of contradiction jumped out at you? After all, the government does appear to be speaking out of both sides of its PR office. On the one hand we have assurances to the public that nuclear power is perfectly safe. At the same time, however, the government is taking an action that seems to be necessary only if injury claims resulting from a nuclear accident can be sustained. If there's really no danger of injury, then such claims can't be sustained, and no limits to the industry's financial liability in case of accidents would be necessary. But the government has acted to protect the industry. Evidently, the government's pronouncements to the public regarding the safety of the plants doesn't match its own beliefs underlying its action to limit the nuclear industry's financial liability. Something doesn't jibe here. As option [The government's position on] puts it, the government's position on nuclear power plants (specifically relating to the safety issue) is inconsistent.
Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear power plants are entirely safe and hence that the public's fear of nuclear accidents at these plants is groundless. The government also contends that its recent action to limit the nuclear industry's financial liability in the case of nuclear accidents at power plants is justified by the need to protect the nuclear industry from the threat of bankruptcy. But even the government says that unlimited liability poses such a threat only if injury claims can be sustained against the industry; and the government admits that for such claims to be sustained, injury must result from a nuclear accident. The public's fear, therefore, is well founded.Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the editorial's argumentation?
Answer(s): D
Now we need a principle that justifies the editorial's position. Remember, the editorial concludes that the danger of a nuclear accident is real, based on the government's protection of the nuclear industry. But on the other hand, the government also says that there's no danger of a nuclear accident. A principle that would help this argument would explain away this contradiction while preserving the "bankruptcy" argument made in the last half of the stimulus. That's what option [The government sometimes makes unsupported claims about...]. does.Option [The government sometimes makes unsupported claims about...] addresses the government claim in the first sentence of the stimulus, but then goes on to identify what's really important. Sure, the government sometimes talks nonsense, but here's what you can count on: the government doesn't take preventative steps unless there's a real risk. Here, the government has taken preventative steps, since they've limited the liability of the nuclear industry, and so, given the principle in option [The government sometimes makes unsupported claims about...], we would be able to infer that there is a real danger, and so the public's fears would be well- founded. So this option supports the argument.
Linda says that, as a scientist, she knows that no scientist appreciates poetry. And, since most scientists are logical, at least some of the people who appreciate poetry are illogical.Which one of the following is most parallel in its reasoning to the flawed reasoning above?
A quick scan of the stimulus and choices reveals a remarkable similarity therein. All, for instance, begin with evidence in the form of No A (scientists/marsupials/fathers/wine aged in metal/color film/corporate execs) are B (appreciate poetry/lay eggs/want kids to eat candy at bedtime/is equal in quality to oak-aged wine/produces equally sharp images/like to pay taxes). The only wrong answer that can be quickly discarded after a quick scan is [Yuri says that, as a wine connoisseur, he knows that...]: Of the stimulus and the five choices, only option [Yuri says that, as a wine connoisseur, he knows that...] fails to present a conclusion that includes the phrase At least some X. So this option cannot be correct.
Automobile-emission standards are enforced through annual inspection. At those inspections cars are tested while idling; that is, standing still with their engines running. Testing devices measure the levels of various pollutants as exhaust gases leave the tail pipe.Which one of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that current enforcement of automobile-emission standards might be ineffective in controlling overall pollutant levels?
Answer(s): C
This is a tricky question stem. What's really going on here is that you're going to be questioning the logic of the enforcement program. The stimulus tells you that car emission standards are enforced through annual inspection. At inspection, cars are tested while idling, and the test measures the levels of pollutants leaving the tail pipe. You have to determine which answer choice, if true, would show why that particular testing program would not be effective in controlling overall pollutant levels. Option [The adjustments needed to make a car idle cleanly...] does the job by suggesting that reducing "idling" pollution emissions will increase pollution emissions while driving.
The indigenous people of Tasmania are clearly related to the indigenous people of Australia, but were separated from them when the land bridge between Australia and Tasmania disappeared approximately 10,000 years ago. Two thousand years after the disappearance of the land bridge, however, there were major differences between the culture and technology of the indigenous Tasmanians and those of the indigenous Australians. The indigenous Tasmanians, unlike their Australian relatives, had no domesticated dogs, fishing nets, polished stone tools, or hunting implements like the boomerang and the spear-thrower. Each of the following, if true, would contribute to an explanation of differences described above EXCEPT:
The question stem tells us that we need to explain the differences, just a variation on the resolve the paradox theme. But remember, if an answer choice does explain the difference, it's incorrect. We're looking for the one that has no effect. We know that the Tasmanians and Australians are related, and we know that they were separated about 10,000 years ago when a land bridge disappeared. Within two thousand years, there were significant differences between the Tasmanians and Australians. Each one of the incorrect answer choices will explain how those differences came about, but option [Devices such as the spear-thrower and...] doesn't, so it's correct. If the Tasmanians developed those weapons over 10,000 years ago, that doesn't explain why they don't have them now. It does explain why the Australians have them, since the Australians were linked to the Tasmanians by the land bridge when the weapons were developed. But it doesn't explain why the Tasmanians no longer have them. So option [Devices such as the spear-thrower and...] is the correct answer.
On a Tuesday, an accountant has exactly seven bills -- numbered 1 through 7 -- to pay by Thursday of the same week. The accountant will pay each bill only once according to the following rules:Either three or four of the seven bills must be paid on Wednesday, the rest on Thursday.Bill 1 cannot be paid on the same day as bill 5.Bill 2 must be paid on Thursday.Bill 4 must be paid on the same day as bill 7.If bill 6 is paid on Wednesday, bill 7 must be paid on Thursday.If exactly four bills are paid on Wednesday, then those four bills could be
A "partial" acceptability question. As always, we'll check the rules against the choices, crossing out choices that violate a rule. Rule 1 is not violated by any choice. Rule 2 says that bills 1 and 5 can't be paid on the same day.Option [1, 3, 5, and 6] has 1 and 5 together, so it's out. Notice also choice [3, 4, 6, and 7], which leaves 1 and 5 to be paid together on Thursday, another violation of Rule 2. Rule 3 is violated by option [2, 4, 5, and 7], which has bill 2 on Wednesday, and Rule 4 is violated by option [1,3, 4, and 6], which has 4 without 7. With only one choice left, we've found our answer, [3, 4, 5, and 7].
On a Tuesday, an accountant has exactly seven bills -- numbered 1 through 7 -- to pay by Thursday of the same week. The accountant will pay each bill only once according to the following rules:Either three or four of the seven bills must be paid on Wednesday, the rest on Thursday.Bill 1 cannot be paid on the same day as bill 5.Bill 2 must be paid on Thursday.Bill 4 must be paid on the same day as bill 7.If bill 6 is paid on Wednesday, bill 7 must be paid on Thursday.Which one of the following is a complete and accurate list of the bills any one of which could be among the bills paid on Wednesday?
We need to find the choice that lists all of the bills that could possibly be paid on Wednesday, and none of the bills that must be paid on Thursday. Choices [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7] and [1,2,3,4, 5, 6, and 7] can be eliminated, because they both list bill 2, which must be paid on Thursday (Rule 3).
On a Tuesday, an accountant has exactly seven bills -- numbered 1 through 7 -- to pay by Thursday of the same week. The accountant will pay each bill only once according to the following rules:Either three or four of the seven bills must be paid on Wednesday, the rest on Thursday.Bill 1 cannot be paid on the same day as bill 5.Bill 2 must be paid on Thursday.Bill 4 must be paid on the same day as bill 7.If bill 6 is paid on Wednesday, bill 7 must be paid on Thursday.If bill 2 and bill 6 are paid on different days from each other, which one of the following must be true?
Answer(s): A
We know that bill 2 is paid on Thursday, so, bill 6 must therefore be paid on Wednesday.Rule 5 then dictates that the accountant pay bill 7 on Thursday, along with bill 4 (Rule 4).We now have four bills on Thursday (2, 7, 4, and 1/5), so the remaining bill, 3, must be paid on Wednesday.
Share your comments for LSAC LSAT Section 3: Analytical Reasoning exam with other users:
hi i want it please please upload it
am preparing for exam ,just nice questions
please upload c_tadm_23 exam
can we get tdvan4 vantage data engineering pdf?
want to clear the exam.
could you please upload the dumps of sap c_sac_2302
asm management configuration is about storage
kool thumb up
just passed the az-500 exam this last friday. most of the questions in this exam dumps are in the exam. i bought the full version and noticed some of the questions which were answered wrong in the free version are all corrected in the full version. this site is good but i wish the had it in an interactive version like a test engine simulator.
i can practice for exam
please i need this exam.
i need the dump
i want it bad, even if cs6 maybe retired, i want to learn cs6
i hate comptia with all my heart with their "choose the best" answer format as an argument could be made on every question. they say "the "comptia way", lmao no this right here boys is the comptia way 100%. take it from someone whos failed this exam twice but can configure an entire complex network that these are the questions that are on the test 100% no questions asked. the pbqs are dead on! nice work
very good materials
thanks for your support.
iam impressed with the quality of these dumps. they questions and answers were easy to understand and the xengine app was very helpful to use.
not bad but you question database from isaca
awesome contents
answer to 134 is casb. while data loss prevention is the goal, in order to implement dlp in cloud applications you need to deploy a casb.
are these brain dumps sufficient enough to go write exam after practicing them? or does one need more material this wont be enough?
i did attend the required cources and i need to be sure that i am ready to take the exam, i would ask you please to share the questions, to be sure that i am fit to proceed with taking the exam.
why only give explanations on some, and not all questions and their respective answers?
refresh db knowledge
interested for sap certification
could you please upload practice questions for scr exam ?
please upload free oracle cloud infrastructure 2023 foundations associate exam braindumps
sweating! they are tricky
i never use these dumps sites but i had to do it for this exam as it is impossible to pass without using these question dumps.
good practice and well sites.
passed my first exam last week and pass the second exam this morning. thank you sir for all the help and these brian dumps.
does anyone who attended exam csa 8.8, can confirm these questions are really coming ? or these are just for practicing?
kindly share the dumps
very nice content