LSAT Test Exam Questions and Answers

QUESTION: 178

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?

There was a recession that caused a high level of unemployment in the city.
The morale of students who dropped out of high school had been low even before they reached high school.
As in the preceding year, more high school students remained in school than dropped out.
High schools in the city established placement offices to assist their graduates in obtaining employment.
The antidropout program was primarily aimed at improving students' morale in those high schools with the highest dropout rates.

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

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.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 179

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?

Henry has been on the air for three years, but That's Life has been on the air for only two years.
The show that replaced Henry on Tuesdays has persistently had a low number of viewers in the Tuesday time slot.
The show that now follows That's Life on Tuesdays has double the number of viewers it had before being moved.
After its recent move to Wednesday, Henry was aired at the same time as the second most popular show on television.
That's Life was not widely watched during the first year it was aired.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

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.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 180

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?

an assumption for which no support is offered
a subsidiary conclusion on which his argument's main conclusion is based
a potential objection that his argument anticipates and attempts to answer before it is raised
the principal claim that his argument is structured to refute
background information that neither supports nor undermines his argument's conclusion

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

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.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 181

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?

It purports to establish its conclusion by making a claim that, if true, would actually contradict that conclusion.
It mistakenly assumes that the quality of a person's character can legitimately be taken to guarantee the accuracy of the claims that person has made.
It mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion to follow for something that ensures that the conclusion follows.
It uses the term "provable" without defining it.
It fails to distinguish between a true claim that has mistakenly been believed to be false and a false claim that has mistakenly been believed to be true.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

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.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 182

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?

Professors who have very light teaching loads tend to focus their remaining time on research.
Classes that have very low numbers of students tend to have a lot of classroom discussion.
Very small class sizes or very light teaching loads indicate incompetence in classroom instruction.
Very small class sizes or very light teaching loads are common in the worst and the best universities.
Professors with very light teaching loads have no more office hours for students than professors with normal teaching loads.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

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).

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 183

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

that the sales department taken by itself is not critical to the company's success as a whole
the ambiguity of the term "highest priority"
that departments other than sales are more vital to the company's success
an absurd consequence of its apparent assumption that a department's necessity earns it the highest priority
that the sales manager makes a generalization from an atypical case

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

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.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 184

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?

The study found that for people who drank three or more cups of coffee daily, the additional risk of heart disease increased with each extra daily cup.
Per capita coffee consumption has been declining over the past 20 years because of the increasing popularity of soft drinks and also because of health worries.
The study did not collect information that would show whether variations in level of coffee consumption are directly related to variations in level of stress, a major causal factor in heart disease.
Subsequent studies have consistently shown that heavy smokers consume coffee at about 3 times the rate of nonsmokers.
Subsequent studies have shown that heavy coffee consumption tends to cause an elevated blood- cholesterol level, an immediate indicator of increased risk of heart disease.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

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.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 185

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?

Those who offer new ways of justifying current political power often reap the benefits of their own innovations.
Politically powerful people tend to reward those who they believe are useful to them and to punish those who they believe are a threat.
Ethical inventiveness and technical ingenuity are never possessed by the same individuals.
New technologies are often used by people who strive to defeat those who currently have political power.
Many people who possess ethical inventiveness conceal their novel ethical arguments for fear of retribution by the politically powerful.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

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.

Reveal Solution Next Question

Test Prep LSAT Test Exam (page: 23) Test Prep Law School Admission Test: Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension, Analytical Reasoning Updated on: 09-Feb-2026

QUESTION: 178

Explanation:

QUESTION: 179

Explanation:

QUESTION: 180

Explanation:

QUESTION: 181

Explanation:

QUESTION: 182

Explanation:

QUESTION: 183

Explanation:

QUESTION: 184

Explanation:

QUESTION: 185

Explanation:

Test Prep LSAT Test Exam (page: 23)
Test Prep Law School Admission Test: Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension, Analytical Reasoning
Updated on: 09-Feb-2026