LSAT Test Exam Questions and Answers

QUESTION: 105

Plant manager: We could greatly reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide our copper-smelting plant releases into the atmosphere by using a new process. The new process requires replacing our open furnaces with closed ones and moving the copper from one furnace to the next in solid, not molten, form. However, not only is the new equipment expensive to buy and install, but the new process also costs more to run than the current process, because the copper must be reheated after it has cooled. So overall, adopting the new process will cost much but bring the company no profit.
Supervisor: I agree with your overall conclusion, but disagree about one point you make, since the latest closed furnaces are extremely fuel-efficient.

The point about which the supervisor expresses disagreement with the plant manager is

whether the new copper-smelting process releases less sulfur dioxide gas into the atmosphere than the current process
whether the new copper-smelting process is more expensive to run than the current process
whether the new process should be adopted in the copper-smelting plant
whether closed copper-smelting furnaces are more fuel-efficient than open furnaces
whether cooling and reheating the copper will cost more than moving it in molten form

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

The plant manager describes a process that would reduce pollution. Unfortunately, the new process is more expensive than the current process in two ways (initial cost and maintenance). The plant manager then concludes that the new process will increase costs and not increase profits. The supervisor expresses overall agreement, with one exception, pointing out that the new process is fuel efficient.
What's the relevance of this? Well, if the new process is more fuel efficient, perhaps that will help to offset its increased initial cost and its maintenance costs. The first question is a Point at Issue, so we should scan the choices looking for the issue of overall costs. Remember, the supervisor commented on this issue only, so we don't know what the supervisor thinks about anything else. The plant manager says that the new process will increase costs, whereas the supervisor points out why that need not be so.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 106

Plant manager: We could greatly reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide our copper-smelting plant releases into the atmosphere by using a new process. The new process requires replacing our open furnaces with closed ones and moving the copper from one furnace to the next in solid, not molten, form. However, not only is the new equipment expensive to buy and install, but the new process also costs more to run than the current process, because the copper must be reheated after it has cooled. So overall, adopting the new process will cost much but bring the company no profit.
Supervisor: I agree with your overall conclusion, but disagree about one point you make, since the latest closed furnaces are extremely fuel-efficient.

The plant manager's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

The overall conclusion is about a net effect but is based solely on evidence about only some of the factors that contribute to the effect.
The support for the overall conclusion is the authority of the plant manager rather than any independently verifiable evidence.
The overall conclusion reached merely repeats the evidence offered.
Evidence that is taken to be only probably true is used as the basis for a claim that something is definitely true.
Facts that are not directly relevant to the argument are treated as if they supported the overall conclusion

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

Now we need to identify the flaw in the plant manager's reasoning. The plant manager concludes that the new process is more expensive, but he's only taken two factors into consideration. Other factors, such as fuel efficiency, might be important as well, but the plant manager ignores them.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 107

Ambiguity inspires interpretation. The saying "We are the measure of all things," for instance, has been interpreted by some people to imply that humans are centrally important in the universe, while others have interpreted it to mean simply that, since all knowledge is human knowledge, humans must rely on themselves to find the truth.

The claim that ambiguity inspires interpretation figures in the argument in which one of the following ways?

It is used to support the argument's conclusion.
It is an illustration of the claim that we are the measure of all things.
It is compatible with either accepting or rejecting the argument's conclusion.
It is a view that other statements in the argument are intended to support.
It sets out a difficulty the argument is intended to solve.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

The phrase mentioned in the question stem (ambiguity inspires interpretation) is the very first line of the stimulus. So what role does it play? There's only one more sentence to the stimulus, and it's an extended example, signaled by the evidence Keyword phrase "for instance." So the phrase "ambiguity inspires interpretation" is the conclusion, supported by the example of the differing interpretations of the phrase "we are the measure of all things."

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 108

Franklin: It is inconsistent to pay sports celebrities ten times what Nobel laureates are paid. Both have rare talents and work hard.
Tomeka: What you've neglected to consider is that unlike Nobel laureates, sports celebrities earn millions of dollars for their employers in the form of gate receipts and TV rights.

Franklin's and Tomeka's statements provide the most support for holding that they disagree about the truth of which one of the following?

Nobel laureates should be taken more seriously.
Nobel laureates should be paid more than sports celebrities.
Sports celebrities and Nobel laureates work equally hard for their employers.
There is no rational basis for the salary difference between sports celebrities and Nobel laureates.
The social contributions made by sports celebrities should be greater than they currently are.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

The stem tells us to find the point at issue here. Franklin says that it doesn't make sense to pay sports celebrities more than Nobel laureates. Tomeka points out a relevant distinction: sports stars earn lots of cash for their employers in ways that laureates can't. So Tomeka suggests a line of reasoning for paying the sports stars more, whereas Franklin says there is no rational basis for doing so.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 109

Studies of the reliability of eyewitness identifications show little correlation between the accuracy of a witness's account and the confidence the witness has in the account. Certain factors can increase or undermine a witness's confidence without altering the accuracy of the identification. Therefore, police officers are advised to disallow suspect lineups in which witnesses can hear one another identifying suspects.

Which one of the following is a principle underlying the advice given to police officers?

The confidence people have in what they remember having seen is affected by their awareness of what other people claim to have seen.
Unless an eyewitness is confronted with more than one suspect at a time, the accuracy of his or her statements cannot be trusted.
If several eyewitnesses all identify the same suspect in a lineup, it is more likely that the suspect committed the crime than if only one eyewitness identifies the suspect.
Police officers are more interested in the confidence witnesses have when testifying than in the accuracy of that testimony.
The accuracy of an eyewitness account is doubtful if the eyewitness contradicts what other eyewitnesses claim to have seen.

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

The question stem tells us to identify the principle behind the advice given to police officers. So what's the advice? It's signaled by the Keyword "therefore": cops are told not to trust identifications made when witnesses can hear one another. The rest of the stimulus explains why not. There's no connection between confidence and accuracy when it comes to identification, and some factors increase confidence without increasing accuracy. So we can understand why police officers would want to avoid these factors. Based on this information, police officers are advised to disallow identifications in which witnesses can hear one another, and so witnesses being able to hear each other must be one of those factors that increase confidence without increasing accuracy. So option [The confidence people have in what they remember...] is the principle lying behind the advice police officers receive.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 110

All actions are motivated by self-interest, since any action that is apparently altruistic can be described in terms of self-interest. For example, helping someone can be described in terms of self-interest: the motivation is hope for a reward or other personal benefit to be bestowed as a result of the helping action.

Which one of the following most accurately describes an error in the argument's reasoning?

The term "self-interest" is allowed to shift in meaning over the course of the argument.
The argument takes evidence showing merely that its conclusion could be true to constitute evidence showing that the conclusion is in fact true.
The argument does not explain what is meant by "reward" and "personal benefit."
The argument ignores the possibility that what is taken to be necessary for a certain interest to be a motivation actually suffices to show that that interest is a motivation.
The argument depends for its appeal only on the emotional content of the example cited

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

Getting the right answer to this question requires you to spot a scope shift. The author concludes that all actions are motivated by self-interest.
Why? Because any action that is apparently altruistic can be described in terms of self-interest. As additional support, the author then gives an example of an altruistic act, and proceeds to describe it in terms of self-interest.
Do you see how this is a subtle scope shift? The author is using evidence of how an action might be described to support a conclusion of what is actually motivating the action. These two things are not identical. Option [The argument takes evidence showing merely that...] gets at this discrepancy. Just because it could be true that helping someone was motivated by self-interest, (in other words, you could describe it that way) doesn't mean that it is in fact true that the action was motivated by self-interest.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 111

In the decade from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, large corporations were rocked by mergers, reengineering, and downsizing. These events significantly undermined employees' job security. Surprisingly, however, employees' perception of their own job security hardly changed over that period. Fifty-eight percent of employees surveyed in 1984 and 55 percent surveyed in 1994 stated that their own jobs were very secure.

Each of the following contributes to an explanation of the surprising survey results described above EXCEPT:

A large number of the people in both surveys work in small companies that were not affected by mergers, reengineering, and downsizing.
Employees who feel secure in their jobs tend to think that the jobs of others are secure.
The corporate downsizing that took place during this period had been widely anticipated for several years before the mid-1980s.
Most of the major downsizing during this period was completed within a year after the first survey.
In the mid-1990s, people were generally more optimistic about their lives, even in the face of hardship, than they were a decade before.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

The question stem tells us that we're looking to explain surprising survey results. This just means that we have to resolve the paradox. So you should have first identified the paradox: even though massive downsizing occurred from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s, which the author tells us undermined employees' job security, results from surveys taken in 1984 and 1994 asking employees about their job security were surprisingly similar. The reason this is surprising is that we would expect the workers in 1994 to feel much less secure, having experienced so many mergers, layoffs, etc. All of the incorrect answer choices will help to explain how the results could be similar. The one that doesn't is option [Employees who feel secure in their jobs...]. How the employees feel about the jobs of others is irrelevant. The argument concerns one's confidence in one's own job security.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 112

Amphibian populations are declining in numbers worldwide. Not coincidentally, the earth's ozone layer has been continuously depleted throughout the last 50 years. Atmospheric ozone blocks UV-B, a type of ultraviolet radiation that is continuously produced by the sun, and which can damage genes. Because amphibians lack hair, hide, or feathers to shield them, they are particularly vulnerable to UV-B radiation. In addition, their gelatinous eggs lack the protection of leathery or hard shells. Thus, the primary cause of the declining amphibian population is the depletion of the ozone layer.

Each of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument EXCEPT:

Of the various types of radiation blocked by atmospheric ozone, UV-B is the only type that can damage genes.
Amphibian populations are declining far more rapidly than are the populations of non-amphibian species whose tissues and eggs have more natural protection from UV-
Atmospheric ozone has been significantly depleted above all the areas of the world in which amphibian populations are declining.
The natural habitat of amphibians has not become smaller over the past century.
Amphibian populations have declined continuously for the last 50 years.

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

The question stem says that all of the answer choices would strengthen the argument EXCEPT the correct one.
Therefore, the correct answer choice will either weaken the argument or have no effect at all. The conclusion of this argument is helpfully introduced by the Keyword "Thus": the primary cause of the declining amphibian population is the depletion of the ozone layer. The evidence is that populations have been declining at the same time the ozone layer has been depleted. Additionally, the ozone protects against UVB radiation, which can damage the genes of amphibians, who have no natural shields against the radiation. Option [Of the various types of radiation blocked by...], which suggests that no other type of ozone-blocked radiation damages genes, would strengthen the notion that UV-B is the primary cause of the declining amphibian population. After all, it rules out other causes. But that isn't the conclusion here. The author's conclusion is that ozone depletion is the primary cause of the declining amphibian population. That conclusion is unaffected by option [Of the various types of radiation blocked by...].
Whether the ozone caused damage to amphibian genes comes from one type of radiation or many doesn't matter to the author. He's only trying to show that it's ozone depletion and not something else.

Reveal Solution Next Question

Test Prep LSAT Test Exam (page: 14) Test Prep Law School Admission Test: Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension, Analytical Reasoning Updated on: 09-Feb-2026

QUESTION: 105

Explanation:

QUESTION: 106

Explanation:

QUESTION: 107

Explanation:

QUESTION: 108

Explanation:

QUESTION: 109

Explanation:

QUESTION: 110

Explanation:

QUESTION: 111

Explanation:

QUESTION: 112

Explanation:

Test Prep LSAT Test Exam (page: 14)
Test Prep Law School Admission Test: Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension, Analytical Reasoning
Updated on: 09-Feb-2026