High school students who feel that they are not succeeding in school often drop out before graduating and go to work. Last year, however, the city's high school dropout rate was significantly lower than the previous year's rate. This is encouraging evidence that the program instituted two years ago to improve the morale of high school students has begun to take effect to reduce dropouts.Which one of the following, if true about the last year, most seriously weakens the argument?
Answer(s): A
After reading the question stem, we know to look for something that "if true about the last year," weakens the author's argument. The author's conclusion, stated in the last sentence, is that the program instituted two years ago has reduced the dropout rate. That's certainly possible, since there's a reasonable connection between morale and dropout rates, but is this argument really airtight? No. The author has assumed a causal relationship between the program and the dropout Rate but it's our job to weaken that connection. As is often the case with Weaken questions, an alternative explanation could be responsible for the change observed.Option [There was a recession that caused a...] suggests that last year there was a recession with high unemployment. With a high level of unemployment, high school students couldn't expect to drop out and simply "go to work." So it's possible that the recession, and not the program, kept kids in school.
The television show Henry was not widely watched until it was scheduled for Tuesday evenings immediately after That's Life, the most popular show on television. During the year after the move, Henry was consistently one of the ten most-watched shows on television. Since Henry's recent move to Wednesday evenings, however, it has been watched by far fewer people. We must conclude that Henry was widely watched before the move to Wednesday evenings because it followed That's Life and not because people especially liked it.Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
Answer(s): C
Henry was a bomb until piggybacked with the popular That's Life. Then Henry became popular. Then it was moved to another night and began to tank again. The author's conclusion is the obvious one that Henry's sudden Tuesday night success can be attributed to its following That's Life and not to any merits of its own.Anything that reinforces this general pattern would help strengthen the argument. If option [The show that now follows That's Life on...] is true, and the new show following That's Life has suddenly doubled its ratings, then it seems even more reasonable to believe that the factor governing Henry's popularity was its proximity to That's Life, as the author maintains.
Joseph: My encyclopedia says that the mathematician Pierre de Fermat died in 1665 without leaving behind any written proof for a theorem that he claimed nonetheless to have proved. Probably this alleged theorem simply cannot be proved, since as the article points out no one else has been able to prove it. Therefore, it is likely that Fermat was either lying or else mistaken when he made his claim. Laura: Your encyclopedia is out of date. Recently someone has in fact proved Fermat's theorem. And since the theorem is provable, your claim that Fermat was lying or mistaken clearly is wrong.Joseph's statement that "this alleged theorem simply cannot be proved" plays which one of the following roles in his argument?
Answer(s): B
We get a chance at two questions for this dialogue stimulus; let's scan them before we read the stimulus. A Method of Argument question, asks us for the role played by a statement of Joseph, and a Flaw question, asks us to identify a flaw in Laura's argument. Joseph introduces us to Fermat, and tells us that Fermat was lying or wrong in claiming to have proved the theorem. Laura responds that the theorem has been recently proved and, so, Fermat was not lying or wrong about having proved the theorem. Joseph's statement that "this alleged theorem . . ." is a conclusion of his argument, but not his overall main point. This statement is supported by the evidence that immediately follows it that no one else has proved it. The use of that evidence to support the statement in question makes it a conclusion, but not the main conclusion. Joseph's main conclusion is that Fermat was either lying or wrong, which is supported by his statement that the theorem cannot be proved.Choice [a subsidiary conclusion on which his...] states just that.
Joseph: My encyclopedia says that the mathematician Pierre de Fermat died in 1665 without leaving behind any written proof for a theorem that he claimed nonetheless to have proved. Probably this alleged theorem simply cannot be proved, since as the article points out no one else has been able to prove it. Therefore, it is likely that Fermat was either lying or else mistaken when he made his claim. Laura: Your encyclopedia is out of date. Recently someone has in fact proved Fermat's theorem. And since the theorem is provable, your claim that Fermat was lying or mistaken clearly is wrong.Which one of the following most accurately describes a reasoning error in Laura's argument?
Laura's evidence is that someone has proved the theorem, and her conclusion is that Fermat was not lying nor mistaken. She assumes that because the theorem has now been proven, Fermat must have also proved it. For her conclusion to be correct that Fermat was not lying or mistaken, it is necessary that the theorem be proved,but the fact that someone has proved the theorem isn't sufficient to make her case. With all due respect to Fermat, the fact that someone else has proved the theorem does not necessarily mean that Fermat has.Choice [mistakes something that is necessary for its...] identifies the necessary/sufficient flaw in Laura's argument.
It is not good for a university to have class sizes that are very large or very small, or to have professors with teaching loads that are very light or very heavy. After all, crowded classes and overworked faculty cripple the institution's ability to recruit and retain both qualified students and faculty.Which one of the following, if added as a premise to the argument, most helps to justify its conclusion?
This Strengthen question stem takes a strange form. As with any Strengthen/Weaken question, we must first identify the evidence and conclusion. The conclusion is the entire first sentence and can be considered as four separate conclusions:1) Very large classes are bad for a university.2) Very small classes are bad for a university.3) Very light teaching loads are bad for a university.4) Very heavy teaching loads are bad for a university.The evidence, however, only relates to points (1) and (4). We should therefore expect the correct answer to address points (2) and/or (3). Choice C., in shoring up the argument, explains the problem with small classes and light teaching loads, points (2) and (3).
Sales manager: The highest priority should be given to the needs of the sales department, because without successful sales the company as a whole would fail.Shipping manager: There are several departments other than sales that also must function successfully for the company to succeed. It is impossible to give the highest priority to all of them.The shipping manager criticizes the sales manager's argument by pointing out
Answer(s): D
The stem is packed with clues. It tells us 1) what the shipping manager does (criticize the sales manager) and what we're to do (recognize the basis for the criticism). Let's start with the person being criticized: The evidence Keyword "because" bisects the sales manager's argument, the conclusion preceding it and the evidence naturally following it. Sales should get the highest priority, because without a successful sales department, the company is sunk. And it's not too hard to anticipate a criticism of this line of reasoning: There are other necessary departments whose success are crucial to the company, the shipping manager points out. They can't all get highest priority. option [an absurd consequence of its apparent...] gets at this issue: The sales manager bases her argument on the necessity of the sales department, without considering the possible necessity of other departments.If necessity alone is the criterion, then the "absurd consequence" is having to award the highest priority to a bunch of different departments, which is by definition impossible.
Researchers have found that people who drink five or more cups of coffee a day have a risk of heart disease 2.5 times the average after corrections are made for age and smoking habits. Members of the research team say that, on the basis of their findings, they now limit their own daily coffee intake to two cups.Which one of the following, if true, indicates that the researchers' precaution might NOT have the result of decreasing their risk of heart disease?
Although the question stem doesn't make it obvious, this is a weaken question. We're asked to find the choice which, if true, suggests that cutting down on coffee might not lower the risk of heart disease. Given that coffee drinkers tend to get heart disease more often than the average, it might seem prudent to cut down on coffee. It certainly appears as if the researchers have interpreted the evidence to mean that coffee drinking causes increased risk of heart disease. But for all we know, the connection between coffee drinking and heart disease could be a coincidence. Maybe there's something about coffee drinkers other than their coffee drinking that makes them more likely to get heart disease. C. provides such a factor: stress. It tells us that we don't know what the relationship between coffee consumption and stress is, and that stress definitely causes heart disease. IfC.is true, it's just as likely that coffee is not causally related to heart disease at all, but is simply correlated with the real cause, stress. If that's the case, cutting down on the java may very well not decrease the risk of heart disease as the researchers seem to expect.
People who have political power tend to see new technologies as a means of extending or protecting their power, whereas they generally see new ethical arguments and ideas as a threat to it. Therefore, technical ingenuity usually brings benefits to those who have this ingenuity, whereas ethical inventiveness brings only pain to those who have this inventiveness.Which one of the following statements, if true, most strengthens the argument?
The relationship of power to ethics and new technologies is the subject here, and we're charged with finding the statement that would bolster the author's contention. The politically powerful see new technologies as a means to help them keep and expand their rule. Those who create new technological marvels, therefore, benefit from their ingenuity. Not so for ethical trailblazers, who suffer for their contributions because new ethical arguments and ideas threaten those in power. Did you recognize the chunk missing from this argument? The author makes no explicit link between the use to which the powerful can put new techno marvels and the benefits to those who create them; or, for that matter, between the harm new ideas can have on the powerful and the pain such new ideas can cause their creators. Evidently, the author assumes such links, but the argument is fairly weak unless these connections are made explicit. B. fills in the gaps: If powerful politicians reward those who can help them, and punish those who threaten their rule, then it seems more reasonable to believe that the techno geeks will benefit while the beacons of morality will suffer.
Share your comments for Test Prep LSAT Test exam with other users:
expository experience
52 should be b&c. controller failure has nothing to do with this type of issue. degraded state tells us its a raid issue, and if the os is missing then the bootable device isnt found. the only other consideration could be data loss but thats somewhat broad whereas b&c show understanding of the specific issues the question is asking about.
great help!!!
very useful tools
looks a good platform to prepare az-104
want to pass the exam
good resource
question 11 : d
only the free dumps will be enough for pass, or have to purchase the premium one. please suggest.
good questions. thanks.
good for practice.
great case study
the questions in this exam dumps is valid. i passed my test last monday. i only whish they had their pricing in inr instead of usd. but it is still worth it.
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
Keeping this site free takes real effort. We constantly battle automated scraping and unauthorized content copying. A quick account helps us protect the community and keep the site free.
To continue studying for your LSAT Test, please sign in or create a free account.