LSAT Test Exam Questions and Answers

QUESTION: 154

President of the Regional Chamber of Commerce: We are all aware of the painful fact that almost no new businesses have moved into our region or started up here over the last ten years. But the Planning Board is obviously guilty of a gross exaggeration in its recent estimate that businesses are leaving the region at the rate of about four a week. After all, there were never more than about one thousand businesses in the region, so if they were really leaving at such a rate, they would all have been gone long ago.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the ground that it

focuses on what is going out of a system while ignoring the issue of what is coming into the system
confuses a claim about a rate of change within a system with a claim about the absolute size of the system
argues against a position simply by showing that the position serves the interest of the Planning Board
treats a claim about what is currently the case as if it were a claim about what has been the case for an extended period
attacks what was offered as an estimate on the ground that it is not precise

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

If this guy is the President of the Chamber of Commerce, then the region can expect a lot more businesses to leave. The question stem tells you that his argument is flawed. The President concludes that the Planning Board is guilty of exaggerating the rate of businesses leaving the region. His evidence is that there have never been more than a thousand businesses in the region, and if they were really leaving at the rate of four per week over the past 10 years, then there wouldn't be any businesses left in the region. Did you spot the scope shift? The Planning Board, in its estimate of businesses leaving, said nothing about how long this had been occurring.
So the President seems to assume that the Board is claiming that this rate has been accurate for a long time.
Once you identified this flaw, it should have been easy to skim the choices for the correct answer. Businesses are currently leaving at four per week. The Planning Board did not say they've been leaving at four per week for 10 years. Option [treats a claim about what is currently the case...] points out the President's misrepresentation.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 155

It is inaccurate to say that a diet high in refined sugar cannot cause adult-onset diabetes, since a diet high in refined sugar can make a person overweight, and being overweight can predispose a person to adult-onset diabetes.

The argument is most parallel, in its logical structure, to which one of the following?

It is inaccurate to say that being in cold air can cause a person to catch a cold, since colds are caused by viruses, and viruses flourish in warm, crowded places.
It is accurate to say that no airline flies from Halifax to Washington. No airline offers a direct flight, although some airlines have flights from Halifax to Boston and others have flights from Boston to Washington.
It is correct to say that over fertilization is the primary cause of lawn disease, since fertilizer causes lawn grass to grow rapidly and rapidly growing grass has little resistance to disease.
It is incorrect to say that inferior motor oil cannot cause a car to get poorer gasoline mileage, since inferior motor oil can cause engine valve deterioration, and engine valve deterioration can lead to poorer gasoline mileage,
It is inaccurate to say that Alexander the Great was a student of Plato; Alexander was a student of Aristotle and Aristotle was a student of Plato.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

The author of the stimulus is evidently responding to someone claiming that a diet high in refined sugar can't cause diabetes. "That's inaccurate," says he. How come? Because such a diet can make one overweight, which in turn can lead to diabetes. This can be broken down algebraically: It's wrong to say that X can't cause Y, because X can lead to Z, which in turn can lead to Y.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 156

During the recent economic downturn, banks contributed to the decline by loaning less money. Prior to the downturn, regulatory standards for loan making by banks were tightened. Clearly, therefore, banks will lend more money if those standards are relaxed.

The argument assumes that

the downturn did not cause a significant decrease in the total amount of money on deposit with banks which is the source of funds for banks to lend
the imposition of the tighter regulatory standards was not a cause of the economic downturn
the reason for tightening the regulatory standards was not arbitrary
no economic downturn is accompanied by a significant decrease in the amount of money loaned out by banks to individual borrowers and to businesses
no relaxation of standards for loan making by banks would compensate for the effects of the downturn

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

This is a pretty straightforward example of a causal argument. The conclusion is that banks will lend more money if regulatory standards are relaxed. The evidence for this is that before the downturn, the standards were tightened. In other words, according to this author, the tightening of the standards is what caused the banks to loan less money. And remember, one of the assumptions inherent in a causal argument is that no other factor caused the result in question, in this case, loaning less money. And that's the assumption that correct answer [the downturn did not cause a...] identifies -- it rules out an alternative explanation, namely that the downturn itself, not the regulations, caused the banks to have less money to lend.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 157

Zoos have served both as educational resources and as entertainment. Unfortunately, removing animals from their natural habitats to stock the earliest zoos reduced certain species' populations, endangering their survival. Today most new zoo animals are obtained from captive breeding programs, and many zoos now maintain breeding stocks for continued propagation of various species. This makes possible efforts to reestablish endangered species in the wild.

Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by the information above?

Zoos have played an essential role in educating the public about endangered species.
Some specimens of endangered species are born and bred in zoos.
No zoos exploit wild animals or endanger the survival of species.
Nearly all of the animals in zoos today were born in captivity.
The main purpose of zoos has shifted from entertainment to education.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

This is an Inference question. Because the right answer must be supported by statements in the passage, you should avoid answer choices using extreme language. There usually won't be enough information in the passage to support choices that speak in terms of "all" or "every" or "never". Only option [Some specimens of endangered species are...] is supported by the passage, specifically the last two sentences of the paragraph.
The stimulus tells us that zoos maintain breeding stocks for continued propagation of various species, and that this makes possible efforts to reestablish endangered species in the wild. Therefore, you can infer that some (though not all, or even most) specimens of endangered species are born and bred in zoos.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 158

Only a very small percentage of people from the service professions ever become board members of the 600 largest North American corporations. This shows that people from the service professions are underrepresented in the most important corporate boardrooms in North America.

Which one of the following points out a flaw committed in the argument?

Six hundred is too small a sample on which to base so sweeping a conclusion about the representation of people from the service professions.
The percentage of people from the service professions who serve on the boards of the 600 largest North American corporations reveals little about the percentage of the members of these boards who are from the service professions.
It is a mistake to take the 600 largest North American corporations to be typical of corporate boardrooms generally.
It is irrelevant to smaller corporations whether the largest corporations in North America would agree to have significant numbers of workers from the service professions on the boards of the largest corporations.
The presence of people from the service professions on a corporate board does not necessarily imply that that corporation will be more socially responsible than it has been in the past

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

As soon as you see percentages being discussed, you should pay close attention. And since the question stem tells you that there is a flaw in the argument, it's a good bet that the author is going to confuse the numbers in some way. The author concludes that people from the service professions are underrepresented in boardrooms because only a very small percentage of people from the service professions ever become board members of the largest corporations. Well, that doesn't make much sense. There are probably millions of people in any industry you can think of, including the service industry; but there are only a few people (relatively speaking) that are board members of the largest corporations. So by the author's reasoning, virtually every industry would be underrepresented. Therefore, the author's conclusion doesn't logically follow from the evidence. Option [The percentage of people from the service professions] correctly identifies this flaw; it points out that the way you tell whether a group is Underrepresented is to look at the percentage of board members who come from a particular group -- not by looking at what percentage of the group become board members.
Once you have identified this fundamental flaw, none of the other answer choices should have distracted you.
Note that options [It is a mistake to take the 600 largest...], [It is irrelevant to smaller corporations whether...] and [The presence of people from the service professions on...] have outside the scope elements, namely, corporate boardrooms generally, smaller corporations, and social responsibility.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 159

If there are any inspired musical performances in the concert, the audience will be treated to a good show. But there will not be a good show unless there are sophisticated listeners in the audience, and to be a sophisticated listener one must understand one's musical roots.

If all of the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

If there are no sophisticated listeners in the audience, then there will be no inspired musical performances in the concert.
No people who understand their musical roots will be in the audience if the audience will not be treated to a good show.
If there will be people in the audience who understand their musical roots, then at. least one musical performance in the concert will be inspired.
The audience will be treated to a good show unless there are people in the audience who do not understand their musical roots.
If there are sophisticated listeners in the audience, then there will be inspired musical performances in the concert.

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

This Inference question clearly has a formal logic feel to it, so you can bet that you'll need to know your contrapositives to find the correct answer. Here's the chain of statements: Inspired musical performances guarantee a good show. So IMP--> GS. But there won't be a good show unless there are sophisticated listeners. "X cannot be true unless Y" is logically equivalent to "X implies Y," and so the second statement means that if there is a good show, there must be sophisticated listeners. Combining this with the first sentence gives us IMP --> GS --> SL. Now, being a sophisticated listener requires one to know one's musical roots. So if there are sophisticated listeners out there, they must understand their musical roots. Throwing this in gives us IMP --> GS --> SL --> UMR. From here, many statements are deducible.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 160

Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases one's risk of lung cancer. But no one thinks the government should impose financial impediments on the owning of parrots because of this apparent danger. So by the same token, the government should not levy analogous special taxes on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles.

Each of the following principles is logically consistent with the columnist's conclusion EXCEPT:

The government should fund education by taxing nonessential sports equipment and recreational gear.
The government should not tax those who avoid dangerous activities and adopt healthy lifestyles.
The government should create financial disincentives to deter participation in activities it deems dangerous.
The government should not create financial disincentives for people to race cars or climb mountains, even though these are dangerous activities.
The government would be justified in levying taxes to provide food and shelter for those who cannot afford to pay for them.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

The stem tells us we need to find the principle that's inconsistent (i.e., logically conflicts) with the columnist's conclusion. So the first step is to identify that conclusion. The Keyword "so" signals the conclusion: we shouldn't apply taxes on a bunch of things connected to dangerous activities.
What choice contradicts this conclusion? Only option [The government should create financial disincentives to...], according to which, we should use financial incentives (like taxes) to discourage dangerous activities (like parachuting, etc.).

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 161

Scientist: Some critics of public funding for this research project have maintained that only if it can be indicated how the public will benefit from the project is continued public funding for it justified. If the critics were right about this, then there would not be the tremendous public support for the project that even its critics acknowledge.

If the scientist's claims are true, which one of the following must also be true?

The benefits derived from the research project are irrelevant to whether or not its funding is justified.
Continued public funding for the research project is justified.
Public support for the research project is the surest indication of whether or not it is justified.
There is tremendous public support for the research project because it can be indicated how the public will benefit from the project.
That a public benefit can be indicated is not a requirement for the justification of the research project's continued public funding.

Answer(s): E

Explanation:

This one's tricky, and might have been a good candidate to skip during your first pass through the section. It's an Inference question, a kind that's typically not vulnerable to prephrasing, and it has a formal logic element jumbling together the terms "some," "only," "not," and the hypothetical "if." Eeek! Surely no picnic. But there is a clever way into this, and it involves working backwards, beginning at the end. That's where the most concrete information appears, so it makes sense to note that and work from there. Here's what we know: There is public support for the project; the critics acknowledge it. "If the critics were right about this" (referring to something that comes earlier), then there would NOT be support. But there is support, so guess what? The critics must be wrong. About what? About "this." What's "this"? It's what the critics "maintain" in the first sentence: Public funding for the project is justified only if the public can see the benefit. In other words, the critics believe that the public seeing the benefit is required for public funding to be justified -- the "only if" tells us that. And if the critics are wrong in thinking so, as we deduced above from the latter part of the stimulus, then the public seeing a benefit is NOT required for the justification of the public funding.

Reveal Solution Next Question

Test Prep LSAT Test Exam (page: 20) Test Prep Law School Admission Test: Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension, Analytical Reasoning Updated on: 09-Feb-2026

QUESTION: 154

Explanation:

QUESTION: 155

Explanation:

QUESTION: 156

Explanation:

QUESTION: 157

Explanation:

QUESTION: 158

Explanation:

QUESTION: 159

Explanation:

QUESTION: 160

Explanation:

QUESTION: 161

Explanation:

Test Prep LSAT Test Exam (page: 20)
Test Prep Law School Admission Test: Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension, Analytical Reasoning
Updated on: 09-Feb-2026