LSAT Logical Reasoning : Determining which answer most strengthens the argument
Study concepts, example questions & explanations for LSAT Logical Reasoning
All LSAT Logical Reasoning Resources
Example Questions
Example Question #11 : Determining Which Answer Most Strengthens The Argument
Transcriptionist: To be a successful transcriptionist, you must focus on improving your typing speed. But “words per minute” alone is not the best measure. You should instead focus on being able to quickly and accurately type long passages of at least five hundred words. You need to encounter a variety of different words, numbers, and types of punctuation. Shorter passages, while useful to obtain a higher maximum speed, are insufficient to sustain speed over the long term.
Which one of the following statements, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the transcriptionist’s argument?
One’s typing speed over the course of one hundred words will drop by an average of 20% after typing for five hundred words.
Most passages encountered by transcriptionists in their job are over five hundred words long and contain a variety of different words, numbers, and types of punctuation.
Most transcriptionist jobs are obtained by persons with at least a year of formal training.
Most successful transcriptionists type, on average, faster than 90% of the population.
When asked what factors are considered in hiring transcriptionist applicants, the majority of employers stated that typing speed was the single most important factor.
Most passages encountered by transcriptionists in their job are over five hundred words long and contain a variety of different words, numbers, and types of punctuation.
The transcriptionist’s advice is valid if being a successful transcriptionist involves the kind of typing recommended. That such passages are of the kind used by transcriptionists is assumed, but not directly stated by the transcriptionist.
Example Question #11 : Determining Which Answer Most Strengthens The Argument
A study of history is necessary to understand science, which means understanding the scientific method. The scientific method has developed over the centuries, and though now taken for granted, has certain underlying assumptions which must be realized in order to fully understand its limitations. For instance, five hundred years ago it was not assumed that one had to develop a working hypothesis prior to beginning experimentation. Back then the steps could be taken out of order or skipped altogether. Such ideas are unheard of in today’s scientific community, and we need more scientists who are fully aware of how this came about.
Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?
Some scientists, even today, do not follow the scientific method exactly as they were trained to do.
Most scientists are unaware of the history of the development of the scientific method.
The only way to fully realize the underlying assumptions of the scientific method is to study history.
Even as recently as one hundred years ago, the steps of the scientific method were slightly different than they are today.
The scientific community prefers to focus on results rather than understanding the methods behind the results.
The only way to fully realize the underlying assumptions of the scientific method is to study history.
The argument’s main point is that studying history is necessary to understand the scientific method, and by extension the method’s limitations. If a study of history is the only way to fully understand those limitations, the conclusion is strengthened. Otherwise it could be argued that scientists could study and understand the limitations without the historical background. The other answer choices, while they may be helpful in establishing some of the argument’s premises, do not strengthen the conclusion.
Example Question #11 : Determining Which Answer Most Strengthens The Argument
It is a costly, needless error to require extensive training for all medical professionals. Some perform complex surgeries and some eye exams, but all are required to receive broad training. If training requirements were more appropriately adapted to particular jobs within the medical field, many medical professionals could more easily become certified to practice and would charge less for their services.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
Those who perform eye exams can do so without broad training
Broad training allows medical professionals to charge less for their services
When medical professionals more easily obtain certification, they charge less for their services
Medical professionals who perform complex surgeries and those who perform eye exams receive the same training
Medical professionals who are not required to receive broad training would more easily become certified and would charge less for their services
Medical professionals who are not required to receive broad training would more easily become certified and would charge less for their services
The argument in its original form assumes a connection between less broad training and the benefits of lower charges and ease of certification. The argument is clearly strengthened if there is such a connection.
Example Question #11 : Determining Which Answer Most Strengthens The Argument
The college degree has become worthless. There was a time when a select group of people obtained college degrees and were uniquely qualified for particular jobs as a result. Today, many more people have college degrees so having one no longer makes a person uniquely qualified.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
It costs more to obtain a college degree than it once did
A college degree is worthless if it does not uniquely qualify a person for particular jobs
If a person cannot obtain a good job because of a college degree, the degree is worthless
More jobs require college degrees than in the past
More people with college degrees are unemployed now than ten years ago
A college degree is worthless if it does not uniquely qualify a person for particular jobs
The author asserts that college degrees are now worthless, but supports that claim only by arguing that college degrees do not uniquely qualify people for particular jobs. In its original form, the argument does not necessarily support the author's primary claim. A degree may be valuable even though it does not uniquely qualify a person for particular jobs.
Example Question #41 : Lsat Logical Reasoning
Marsha currently plays basketball for Team 1 but should consider playing for Team 2. Team 2 would be glad to have Marsha because she is very talented and she would have a much better chance of winning a championship than if she stays with Team 1. It is true that Marsha can probably make more money on Team 1, but her primary goal is to win a championship.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
Marsha is not the most talented player on Team 1, but would be the most talented player on Team 2
Marsha has a better chance of winning a championship if she plays for Team 2 than if she plays for any other team
Marsha has never won a championship
Marsha would be paid more to play for Team 2 than she would be paid to play for any team except Team 1
Marsha would have a better chance of winning a championship with Team 3 than with Team 1 or Team 2
Marsha has a better chance of winning a championship if she plays for Team 2 than if she plays for any other team
The argument suggests that Marsha should play for Team 2 because she would have a greater chance of winning a championship on that team than with Team 1. If she has an even better chance of winning a championship elsewhere, however, then it would no longer be clear that Marsha should play for Team 2. As a result, the argument is stronger if Marsha has a better chance of winning a championship with Team 2 than with any other team.
Example Question #11 : Determining Which Answer Most Strengthens The Argument
For about thirty years, government intelligence departments have spent resources equally between domestic and foreign activities. For about the same amount of time, intelligence departments have conducted covert operations in addition to intelligence gathering. This conduct has raised public concern that intelligence departments wield too much authority. In the end, though, domestic spending and covert operations may be simply a consequence of ineptness.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
Intelligence departments have been less powerful over the last thirty years than they were previously
Intelligence departments were inept before they began covert operations or spending on domestic intelligence
Intelligence departments must be powerful in order to address international threats
The public has been concerned that intelligence departments are too powerful for more than thirty years
Intelligence departments have conducted fewer covert operations over the last fifteen years than they did over the fifteen years prior to that
Intelligence departments have been less powerful over the last thirty years than they were previously
No answer choice provides substantial support for the author. The correct answer here, however, provides some support for the author's skepticism about whether the conduct of departments indicates that they wield too much power. If departments were more powerful before they began covert operations and domestic spending, then it is somewhat less likely that this conduct indicates too much power.
Example Question #42 : Lsat Logical Reasoning
Teacher: While standardized testing is appropriate for adults and high school students, it should not be used with younger children. The variety of curricula, as well as the fact that many elementary school-aged children are home schooled or attend private schools, make a single standard of measurement nearly impossible at that age. While some would argue that children’s innate abilities can be isolated from their learned knowledge, experience shows that these distinctions are nearly impossible to make until children reach their teenage years.
Which one of the following, if true, would most support the teacher’s argument?
Many believe that the human brain’s capacity for learning does not fully develop until a person is at least sixteen years old.
Standardized IQ tests, which are crafted to take age into account, are commonly given to children as young as three years old.
Standardized tests are becoming increasingly important for college admission, often outweighing a student’s high school grade point average.
By the time they reach their junior year of high school, nearly all students have taken a class in algebra, though some take such classes as early as the seventh grade.
Most elementary school children who attend private schools are taught the same subjects as those who attend public schools.
By the time they reach their junior year of high school, nearly all students have taken a class in algebra, though some take such classes as early as the seventh grade.
Since the argument explicitly listed varying curricula as a reason to delay standardized testing, showing that nearly all high school juniors have taken algebra by then (and not all in the same grade) directly supports the argument. Giving a standardized test containing algebra is, in fact, more appropriate when all the students taking the test are familiar with it. The remaining answer choices either provide little relevant support or weaken the argument rather than strengthening it.
Example Question #12 : Determining Which Answer Most Strengthens The Argument
Academics in theology departments generally agree that there are fewer religious people today than fifty years ago. There are two primary critiques of that view, however. First, the conclusion depends on a definition that is highly subject to debate. If “religion” is defined as a strongly held conviction about the purpose of the world, for instance, the academics may be incorrect. On the other hand, the conclusion would be justified if "religion" is defined as a belief in a supernatural god. Second, the academics base their conclusion almost exclusively on data collected from the western hemisphere.
Which of the following, if assumed, strengthens the conclusion of the academics?
Most people believe "religion" should be defined as a belief in a supernatural god
The conclusion applied only to the western hemisphere
Fewer people believe in a supernatural god today than fifty years ago
The definition of "religion" was as highly subject to debate fifty years ago as it is today
Academics often draw conclusions based on evidence based almost exclusively on data from the western hemisphere
The conclusion applied only to the western hemisphere
None of the answers responds to both objections. If the academics' conclusion applied only to the western hemisphere, however, then the second objection would be defeated and the academics' conclusion would be strengthened. At first glance, the answer that "most people believe 'religion' should be defined as a belief in a supernatural god," seems like an equally correct answer; but this does not directly refute the claim that the definition is "subject to debate."
Example Question #11 : Determining Which Answer Most Strengthens The Argument
Some arguments for expanding U.S. oil production are misguided. Vehicles that do not burn gasoline will be readily available within fifty years, and vehicles that do not burn gasoline do not require oil production. Furthermore, any job creation benefits from increased oil production would be offset by the negative economic effects of producing a product that will not be in demand. Alternatively, jobs can also be created by increased development of oil alternatives.
The argument is strengthened by all of the following, if true, except:
Production of alternatives to oil will create as many jobs as the increased production of oil
Current oil production will meet the demand for oil over the next fifty years
When vehicles that do not burn gasoline are readily available, they will be used exclusively
Oil will not be used for any purpose after 50 years
Oil consumption causes substantial environmental harms
Oil consumption causes substantial environmental harms
The passage only claims that some arguments for increasing oil production are misguided. It does not indicate that any environmental arguments are misguided.
Example Question #11 : Strengthen/Support
Residents of a local community started a night watch to reduce crime in their neighborhood. Due in large part to their efforts, no crimes occurred in the neighborhood within the next two months.
Which of the following most strengthens the argument above?
The night watch was featured in the local newspaper.
The founder of the night watch was known to everyone in the neighborhood and was a well-respected community leader.
In the two months prior to the night watch, there were ten crimes in the neighborhood, half of which were violent.
Potential criminals in the neighborhood were aware of the night watch.
The night watch membership grew each week during the two month period.
Potential criminals in the neighborhood were aware of the night watch.
The answer choice that most strengthens the overall argument is the choice stating that potential criminals were aware of the night watch. If potential criminals were not even aware of the night watch, they would probably not be deterred from attempting to commit crimes. If they were aware, they most certainly would not attempt to commit crimes in that neighborhood. In that case, the efforts of the night watch could be said to largely account for the absence of crime. The answer choice discussing the awareness of potential criminals strengthens the overall argument more than the choice discussing the publicity the night watch received in the local newspaper.
All LSAT Logical Reasoning Resources
