I've written explanations for over 1,000 LSAT questions. Below, I'm including a small free sample of the Logical Reasoning explanations just so you can see what they're like.
Get the full LSAT PrepTest explanations for LSAT PrepTest 65 (and TONS of other exams) HERE.
These are just for the first Logical Reasoning section of LSAT PrepTest 65:
Section 1
1. Question Type: Strengthen
Gap: The argument concludes that a diet doesn't necessarily have to be extremely low in fat in order to protect the heart. This is based upon evidence that those following the Mediterranean diet were less likely to have a 2nd heart attack than were those in the other group, even though the Mediterranean diet contains fat. In order to strengthen this argument, we're looking for new information to help connect the Mediterranean diet (and its fat) to a lower risk of heart attack.
(A) This just promotes another route one could take in attempting to reduce the risk of a second heart attack. It certainly doesn't do anything to promote the idea that the Mediterranean diet can aid in the health of one's heart.
(B) See above. This tells us that the particular oils in the fat found in the Mediterranean diet actually *aids* the health of the heart, rather than harming it. If this is true, then a diet certainly doesn't need to be low-fat in order to protect the heart.
(C) We're not concerned with whether the study's participants continued following the Mediterranean diet after the study concluded. We're concerned with the implications of the study's results on the relationship between fat consumption and heart attack risk.
(D) We're not concerned with other factors (such as exercise) in addition to diet. We're specifically concerned with the relationship between diet and heart health.
(E) Whether drugs can help in addition to the Mediterranean diet is irrelevant. We're only concerned with the Mediterranean diet and the fats/oils associated with it.
Correct Answer: (B)
2. Question Type: Conclusion
Among other things, this stimulus contains both evidence (1st and 2nd sentences of stimulus) and an intermediate conclusion (3rd sentence of stimulus). The intermediate conclusion is supported by the 2nd evidence sentence, and it goes on to support the main conclusion itself, which is the first half of the stimulus' final sentence. The second half of that final sentence also serves as evidence for the main conclusion, which immediately precedes it.
(A) See above. This statement is directly support by the immediately-preceding sentence, which, in turn, is supported by the stimulus' 2nd sentence. The entire stimulus is concerned with promoting the idea that florists should plan ahead and stock up on white carnations.
(B) This is the second sentence of the stimulus, which simply serves as some basic evidence - there aren't any statements that support this one.
(C) This first sentence of the stimulus simply serves as some evidence. There are no statements that support it, so it can't be the overall conclusion.
(D) This serves as evidence for the main conclusion that florists should stock up on the white carnations.
(E) This is our intermediate conclusion. While it's supported by the second sentence, it also serves as support for the following sentence. Since it serves as evidence for something else, it can't be the main conclusion itself.
Correct Answer: (A)
3. Question Type: Evaluate the Argument (EXCEPT)
The wording of this question stem is a bit unusual. For this question, we're really just looking for the four choices that could help us evaluate the argument. Whatever remains is our answer, as it doesn't really help us to evaluate the argument (and would be the choice least useful in helping us to evaluate it).
This argument essentially claims that everyone should use low-wattage bulbs even though they cost more because they have a variety of enormous advantages for the homeowner. In order to evaluate the argument, we'd want to know, among other things, what those advantages are, as well as how they relate to the money one has to invest in the bulbs.
(A) The cost of electricity associated with using each bulb is certainly relevant to determining which type of bulb is truly better for the homeowner.
(B) The profits the industry folks expect to make from sales of these bulbs are not relevant to whether everyone should actually use them or not. It's tempting to eliminate this choice as one that *is* relevant because one might think "well, they're obviously biased in advocating for it (in the middle of the stimulus)." However, just because they'd happen to benefit from these sales, it doesn't have anything to do with whether low-wattage bulbs are actually the better option. To say otherwise would be to commit an ad hominem attack (attacking the personal characteristics of the source of an argument, rather than considering the argument on its own merits).
(C) Knowing how much more the low-wattage bulbs cost as compared to the regular ones is important to determining which is better. If the low-wattage bulbs were significantly more expensive, that would certainly weaken the argument, and if they were only a little more expensive that would strengthen the argument.
(D) The experiences of those who've already experienced the difference would certainly be relevant as well. Perhaps the light that low-wattage bulbs give off is low-quality in some way that detracts from the experience of those who use them.
(E) Learning how the life of each bulb is very important to determining whether a homeowner should use the low-wattage bulbs. If the low-wattage bulbs burn out very quickly, then the homeowner would have to keep buying new ones.
Correct Answer: (B)
4. Question Type: Conclusion
The stimulus features an argument by analogy. It's giving us evidence in the form of the swimming pool example to give us a general principle that it claims should be applied to the soft drink/candy example. It argues that it's more important to teach children what to do instead of forcing them to do what's appropriate. As such, the stimulus is arguing in favor of *teaching* children why they shouldn't consume soft drinks and candy instead of solely restricting the products.
(A) Nothing in the stimulus supports the idea of TV being a good source of information. TV is simply mentioned in passing as a source of advertisements of the soft drinks and candy.
(B) There's no evidence in the stimulus to suggest this. Again, TV is mentioned in passing as a source of advertisements of the soft drinks and candy.
(C) See above. The stimulus is concerned with demonstrating that it's more important to teach children the nutrition relevant to consumption of soft drinks and candy than it is to simply restrict consumption.
(D) The stimulus doesn't suggest anything about physical activity - the principle we're to extract from the swimming example doesn't suggest that the children in this example should be taught behaviors such as these.
(E) The principle we're to extract from the swimming example doesn't suggest avoiding the source of the problem altogether. Rather, it suggests learning how to deal with the issues it raises.
Correct Answer: (C)
5. Question Type: Weaken
Gap: The argument assumes that simply because 2/3 of those interviewed by TV program were against the proposed freeway, that the program itself is biased against the freeway. It's failing to consider that perhaps this is a fairly accurate representation of the general opinion of those affected by the proposed freeway. Or perhaps maybe even more than 2/3 of those affected by the freeway are against it, so the fact that 2/3 of those interviewed were against it was actually under-representing their numbers.
(A) Whether those watching the program were aware beforehand or not is irrelevant. We're concerned with whether the percentage of those depicted on the program against the freeway is indicative of bias on the part of the TV program.
(B) The viewers' expectations are completely irrelevant to potential bias on the part of the TV program.
(C) We don't know whether their emotion would indicative of greater or lesser bias on the part of the TV program, so this can't be said to affect the argument.
(D) See above. This suggests that the actual percentage of those against the proposed freeway is somewhat in line with general opinion. If a significant majority of the public were in favor of it, then the stimulus' argument would have a better case for accusing the TV program of being biased. However, learning that this is *not* the case weakens the argument significantly.
(E) This strengthens the conclusion (even if only a little bit), rather than weakening it, by suggesting that the TV station is *more* likely to be biased, rather than against it. In any event, this still doesn't involve the evidence about the percentage of those interviewed who were against the proposed freeway.
Correct Answer: (D)
6. Question Type: Parallel Reasoning
The stimulus gives us a situation where someone is unsure of whether something is true, but the individual errs on the side of caution by extending the benefit of the doubt to another.
(A) This choice exhibits a line of reasoning similar to that described above, making it parallel to the stimulus. The individual isn't sure whether he or she repaid Farah, but this individual errs on the side of caution and decides to repay Farah just to be safe.
(B) This choice is simply concerned with the speaker's expectations - not with erring on the side of caution to *perform* a particular action.
(C) The speaker gives a reason why he or she opposes a particular course of action, but there's no admitted ambiguity similar to that of the stimulus.
(D) This choice features a line of reasoning arguing in favor of a particular course of action and even explains how it could be financed, but, again, there's no admitted ambiguity or erring on the side of caution similar to that in the stimulus.
(E) This choice gives us an example of a person whose writing was not adversely affected by her personal experiences in a particular way, but none of this has anything to do with erring on the safe side and extending the benefit of the doubt to another.
Correct Answer: (A)
7. Question Type: Conclusion
The stimulus features an argument by analogy. The evidence in the form of the medicine example gives us a general principle that it claims should be applied to the topic of government intervention in the free market. We can extract the principle from the medicine example that a particular course of action has both positive and negative effects, the course of action should only be pursued if the positives significantly outweigh the negatives. As such, we can infer that the argument is concerned with demonstrating (in its conclusion) that government intervention in the free market should only be pursued if the positives of doing so significantly outweigh the negatives.
(A) The popularity of a course of action among those affected is not a principle covered by the stimulus.
(B) The medicine example doesn't set such a high standard for taking a course of action. Rather, it lays out the positives significantly outweighing the negatives as the requirement for pursuing a course of action.
(C) It might be perfectly fine for the course of action (government intervention in the free market) to significantly worsen existing problems if the positive consequences of such intervention significantly outweighed those negative consequences.
(D) See above.
(E) The concepts of solutions and unsolvable problems are never discussed by the stimulus.
Correct Answer: (D)
8. Question Type: Flaw
Flaw: This argument is guilty of a correlation-causation flaw. It assumes that just because there's a relationship between a relatively lower consumption of fat calories and those who read nutrition labels, that the label-reading is what's *causing* people to consume fewer fat calories. It's entirely possible that both of these qualities are simply due to the fact that these people are health-conscious.
(A) See above.
(B) The argument doesn't make use of any kind of sample. This stimulus is not describing a study. Rather, it's simply talking about this category of people in general.
(C) This describes the flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions, but this argument doesn't feature conditional statements, so it can't be guilty of this flaw, as it doesn't feature any necessary or sufficient conditions at all.
(D) The argument only features one explanation (a causal relationship) - not two.
(E) The argument never discusses anyone's intentions.
Correct Answer: (A)
9. Question Type: Conclusion
The argument concludes that it's unlikely that Apatosaurus was able to gallop. It uses the fact that Apatosaurus' leg bones wouldn't have been able to deal with stress of galloping, and would've broken as a result, as evidence, and this evidence is supported by experiments with modern bones that were similar in key respects to those of Apatosaurus.
(A) This is tempting, as it is an intermediate conclusion, supported by the experiments. However, this is used to support the main conclusion, that it's unlikely that Apatosaurus would've been able to gallop.
(B) This evidence serves to support the claim at the beginning of the stimulus' 2nd sentence.
(C) See above.
(D) This serves as a general summary of the argument (when combining the intermediate conclusion and main conclusion). As such, this choice is going beyond just the main conclusion itself, which is simply the final clause of this choice.
(E) This is a fact would strengthen the validity of the experiments conducted with modern bones, but there's no evidence supporting this statement in the stimulus, so it can't be the main conclusion.
Correct Answer: (C)
10. Question Type: Role of the Statement
The stimulus claims in its second sentence that the advance of fortifying the salt with iron could reduce anemia caused by iron deficiency. The stimulus then goes on to provide some facts about salt that support this claim. The statement in question is one of these facts, so it serves as evidence for the argument's conclusion.
(A) The statement in question supports the argument's conclusion about the advance helping to reduce anemia due to iron deficiency. As such, it's not the conclusion itself.
(B) See above.
(C) The argument never attempts to disprove this statement. Rather, this statement supports this argument's conclusion, so it is part of the argument.
(D) This statement doesn't limit the argument's conclusion in any way - it supports the argument's conclusion, giving us reason to believe it's true.
(E) It doesn't serve as any kind of example. It's a broad statement that gives us reason to believe that salt fortified with iron could be a viable way to reduce anemia caused by iron deficiency.
Correct Answer: (B)
11. Question Type: Parallel Flaw
For this question, we must find the flaw in the stimulus and then look for the answer choice exhibiting the same flaw.
Flaw: In the stimulus, the inspector fails to consider an obvious possibility - perhaps Mr. Tannisch stole his guest's diamonds himself. As such, we're looking for an answer choice where there's an obvious potential culprit that the argument fails to consider.
(A) See above. In this choice, the argument fails to consider the possibility that perhaps the food from the camp cafeteria is the cause of the campers' illness.
(B) This argument actually doesn't exhibit any kind of flaw. It's perfectly reasonable, and its conclusion is moderate ("might have").
(C) This argument just takes past trends as being somewhat indicative of future ones. The conclusion is a little strong ("unlikely") given the simple fact that there are multiple swimmers, it's at least somewhat likely that one of them might win. In any case, this isn't the same flaw as that of the stimulus.
(D) This argument fails to consider that the cause of the cavities on the left side of her mouth may be due to causes other than chewing on that side. It's simply assuming that chewing must have been the cause. However, the stimulus doesn't assume that one specific factor must be the cause to the exclusion of others. Rather, it fails to consider one obvious cause.
(E) This argument is flawed because it assumes without providing adequate evidence that the peas will probably perform similarly to the tomatoes. However, we don't have any kind of comparison without warrant in the stimulus, so this flaw isn't similar.
Correct Answer: (A)
12. Question Type: Resolve the Paradox
This question is asking us to help explain why different shrimp populations at the different reefs have significant genetic differences, given that we would've expected the currents to mix the populations, leading them to be genetically similar. A choice that explains how mixing (due to the currents) could occur, yet interbreeding still *not* occur between the different populations, would help to resolve the paradox.
(A) Even if this were true, it still wouldn't do anything to help explain why the shrimp of different populations in these reefs aren't interbreeding but are instead remaining separate, developing genetic differences. The information provided by this choice is both unsurprising and unhelpful. It'd likely be the case with regard to any species that animals within one species differ less genetically than do animals of different species.
(B) We're not at all concerned with what happens within a shrimp population. We're only concerned with what's going on *between* the different shrimp populations at these 11 different reefs. Also, note that the choice says "differ genetically" - all it's telling us is that these shrimp aren't genetically *identical* (like clones or twins). As with (A), this isn't telling us anything we wouldn't already reasonably assume based on a common understanding of genetics one would learn in a middle school biology class.
(C) See above. If we learned that the shrimp return back to their own reefs for breeding, this would prevent the interbreeding expected in the stimulus, allowing the genetics of each population to diverge.
(D) Learning that shrimp may leave their reef of birth upon reaching maturity doesn't tell us anything about why the different populations aren't mixing genetically.
(E) This choice is somewhat similar to (D). Learning that some shrimp leave their reef of birth and don't remain within one of the 11 different reefs still doesn't explain why those who *do* remain aren't mixing with shrimp from other populations.
Correct Answer: (C)
13. Question Type: Strengthen
Gap: The argument concludes that seawater farming near the sea level should be cost-effective in desert regions based upon the evidence that pumping seawater into such farms is relatively cheap. It would help us to strengthen this argument if we learned that pumping seawater into such farms is a significant cost associated with farming. This new information, combined with the fact that we already know pumping seawater into such farms is relatively cheap, would increase the likelihood that these farms are cost-effective.
(A) We're not concerned with the relative nutritional value of different types of plants. Rather, we're concerned with strengthening the conclusion related to the cost-effectiveness of certain types of crops.
(B) The fact that salt is necessary as opposed to tolerable for halophytes is irrelevant - we're concerned with the costs associated with seawater agriculture near sea level in desert regions.
(C) These research expenditures wouldn't necessarily be related to the costs associated with conducting the seawater agriculture described - and if, for some reason, they were, that would likely weaken the argument regarding cost-effectiveness, rather than strengthening it.
(D) Variation in the costs associated with growing halophytes in different types of farms is unimportant, as we don't know *how* the costs differ. Are they cheaper to grow by means of seawater irrigation? Are they more expensive to grow in this way? The answer choice doesn't tell us, so, by itself, it doesn't affect the argument either way.
(E) See above. Learning that such pumping of water is a proportionally-large cost associated with farming certainly increases the likelihood that seawater farming near sea level in desert regions can be cost-effective, given that pumping water in this type of area is cheaper than in other types of regions.
Correct Answer: (E)
14. Question Type: Strengthen
The general principle in the stimulus tells us that if a contract is written in such a way that a reasonable customer wouldn't bother to read it thoroughly before agreeing to it, then the law should privilege what one would've reasonably expected it to say, rather than what it actually *does* say. The application suggests that the insurance company should be required to pay for damage to Celia's car caused by hail, even though the contract specifically excluded hail damage.
The missing piece here that would make the principle relevant to the application, strengthening it, would be if we learned that the contract that Celia signed was one that a reasonable person wouldn't have bothered to read thoroughly. If we learned that this was the case, then it allows us to make sense of the statement that the insurance company should have to cover the hail damage to Celia's car, even though the contract excluded it (because we're now privileging what the policyholder would've expected, rather than what the policy actually stated.
(A) and (D) These doesn't explicitly tell us that the contract was written in such a way that a reasonable person wouldn't read it thoroughly before signing it.
(B) See above.
(C) and (E) This doesn't tell us that it would be reasonable for someone to expect hail damage to be covered by the policy. (With regard to (C), the fact that Celia *did* read the contract is irrelevant.)
Correct Answer: (B)
15. Question Type: Flaw
Flaw: The argument assumes that simply because iatrogenic disease accounts for half of all deaths, that if we were to prevent all iatrogenic disease, the number of deaths per year would decrease by 50%. It's failing to consider that at least some of the people who would've died from iatrogenic disease will instead die from something else (perhaps whatever it was that they were in the hospital for in the first place). It's not as if all of these people would suddenly be immortal if they were prevented from dying due to iatrogenic disease.
(A) This category of disease is completely irrelevant. The stimulus isn't concerned with preventing noniatrogenic disease. Even if it did consider the effect of the prevention of noniatrogenic disease, the fact remains that the stimulus is failing to consider that which is described above.
(B) Even if some can be replaced by less risky alternatives, this still doesn't address the argument's assumption about cutting the number of deaths per year in half.
(C) See above. Even if they're won't die from iatrogenic disease if it's to be cured, this doesn't mean that they won't die from something else.
(D) The stimulus accounts for this by introducing the idea with "if". Whether it's possible to do so or not is irrelevant.
(E) Whether iatrogenic diseases are as common as this choice implies is irrelevant. We're concerned with addressing the argument's conclusion about cutting the number of deaths per year in half.
Correct Answer: (C)
16. Question Type: Sufficient Assumption
Evidence:
(If we had the statement "A or B", we could diagram it as:
NOT A -> B
NOT B -> A)
As such, the first sentence of the stimulus can be diagrammed as following:
NOT Vote Against -> Abstain
NOT Abstain -> Vote Against
The second statement tells us:
All Abstain -> Decided by Voters
Combining this with the first conditional above, we get:
NOT Vote -> Abstain
If ALL Abstain -> Decided by Voters
Faced with these conditionals, the activist concludes that at least one city councilmember should vote against.
Learning that the proposal shouldn't be decided by voters would explain (and fully justify) the activist's conclusion that at least one city councilmember should vote against.
As such, the principle that the proposal shouldn't be decided by voters is the ideal sufficient assumption, and it's what we're looking for in the answer choices.
(A) This is referring to the second sentence of the stimulus, as well as telling us which way the city's voters would vote. However, this has nothing to do with the activist's recommendation in the conclusion regarding what at least one city councilmember should do. And we're not concerned with what the voters would do. The stimulus is primarily concerned with the city councilmembers.
(B) See above.
(C) The stimulus is not concerned with what the city councilmembers *will* do. Rather, it's concerned with what they *should* do.
(D) This is simply a negation of the stimulus' 2nd sentence, and it still doesn't have anything to do with the activist's recommendation in the conclusion regarding what at least one city councilmember should do.
(E) This doesn't really fit any of the parts of the argument. The conclusion tells us that *at least* one member should vote against - it's not concerned with what should happen if *exactly* one votes against. Additionally, this doesn't relate the conclusion back to the evidence, so it's not doing anything to guarantee the conclusion's validity.
Correct Answer: (B)
17. Question Type: Flaw
Flaw: The argument fails to consider that perhaps people's confidence in their own personal financial situations is directly related to their confidence in the overall economy. If this is the case, then the media critics aren't necessarily mistaken.
(A) This choice has it backwards - the argument should be considering how people's perception of the overall economy affects their views of their own situations, not vice-versa.
(B) The argument never made any assumption or claim regarding the extent to which such news reports are accurate. The argument's more concerned about whether the reports impact people's views of their personal financial situations.
(C) This is along the lines of negation and distortion of different pieces of information in the stimulus advanced by the critics. They tell us that people's views of their own economic situation can be affected by hearing of information from economic reports, but this doesn't mean that anything close to the opposite of that needs to be considered. The argument isn't concerned with those who *don't* pay attention to economic reports - we're only concerned with those who do.
(D) See above. This suggests that if people take a negative view of the overall economy, then they'll also take a negative view of their personal finances. As such, we can say that their opinion of the former is closely related to their opinion of the latter.
(E) We're not concerned with whether people are affected by economic downturns differently depending on their degree of awareness of what's coming - this isn't specifically related to the critics' claim that news reports can affect people's perceptions of the economy.
Correct Answer: (D)
18. Question Type: Necessary Assumption
Gap: The argument assumes that because people must have already tried to domesticate every large mammal species currently in existence, most of those around today would probably be hard to domesticate or not worth the trouble. It fails to consider that perhaps human understanding of domestication has significantly advanced in the past few thousand years. If this were the case, then perhaps domesticating these animals would be worth another shot, since it might be much easier to domesticate them with modern technology and techniques.
(A) We don't need them to have tried to domesticate every *single* wild large mammal species. The conclusion is limited to *most* wild large mammal species.
(B) See above. In order for the conclusion to be valid that domesticating these animals is too hard or not worth doing, it must be the case that it's not much easier to domesticate these animals now then it was back then.
(C) The stimulus doesn't *require* that some of them went extinct. Even if none of them had gone extinct, that wouldn't affect the argument in the slightest. Either way, it's only concerned with those still in existence today.
(D) The argument doesn't impose any relationship *between* the ease of domestication and the benefit derived from doing so - it simply mentions both of these factors in its conclusion.
(E) While the stimulus implies that the ones that are easier to domesticate have probably been domesticated already, it doesn't require that they were domesticated in order of ease of domestication.
Correct Answer: (B)
19. Question Type: Strengthen
Gap: The argument assumes that this year's bird population must be larger than usual *because* of the mild winter. The mild winter allowed birds to stay in the region instead of migrating, *and* it allowed them to forage instead of using the bird feeder. Something relating at least one of these facts about the mild winter to a larger-than-usual bird population would help to strengthen the argument.
(A) This doesn't tell us *which* specific weather patterns lead to increases in bird populations.
(B) This doesn't tell us *how* the mating behaviors differ. If this choice had told us that when birds don't migrate south, more mating occurs in general (leading to population increase), *that* would strengthen the argument.
(C) See above. This relates foraging to survival because it's telling us that using the bird feeders (as they would've done in a harsher winter) would make them more vulnerable to predators, leading to a relatively lower population.
(D) This actually weakens the argument, rather than strengthening it, by suggesting that birds that don't migrate south, but instead remain where they are would have less food available to them during the winter. This would likely lead to a population *decrease* rather than a population increase.
(E) This has no impact on the argument. We're not concerned with where they get their food from unless we we're given specific reason to believe one source is better than another.
Correct Answer: (C)
20. Question Type: Flaw
Flaw: The argument fails to consider the possibility that newspapers cover small observational studies more frequently than larger randomized trials not because the small observational studies have a higher likelihood of dramatic findings than do large randomized trials, but because there are simply many more small observational studies, period. It's entirely possible that small observational studies are just as likely (or even less likely ) to have dramatic findings as are large randomized trials, but it's simply due to the much-larger *numbers* of small observational studies that there's a larger number of such studies with dramatic findings.
(A) The argument doesn't question the motives of those reporting study findings (it never even mentions these individuals, who would likely be scientists).
(B) The journalist's doesn't question the validity of any study's findings merely based upon how dramatic the results might seem.
(C) The argument isn't guilty of any such confusion - it simply states that there's a greater absolute number of newspaper stories about small observational studies than there are stories about large randomized trials *because* small observational studies are more likely to have dramatic findings.
(D) See above.
(E) The journalist never discusses *why* results might sound dramatic - it simply states that certain studies’ findings do sound dramatic (1st sentence of stimulus), or are dramatic (last sentence of stimulus).
Correct Answer: (D)
21. Question Type: Necessary Assumption
Gap: The argument suggests that because trees aren't as effective as native grasses when it comes to capturing carbon dioxide, the government incentives encouraging farmers to plant trees are actually worsening the problem of global warming. However, we don't necessarily know that the land where farmers are planting the trees could've been used for native grasses instead, or that native grasses were there already. What if native grasses couldn't be grown in that region for some reason? If this were the case, then the trees may actually be helping by capturing some of the carbon dioxide.
(A) This would certainly strengthen the argument that trees are making the problem worse, but this doesn't actually *need* to be the case. The argument never requires that trees actually emit carbon dioxide - just that they capture less carbon dioxide than do the native grasses.
(B) The first sentence of the stimulus tells us that the government incentives are *causing* many farmers to plant trees, but it doesn't need to be the case that government incentives are *required* in order for most farmers to plant trees.
(C) The stimulus never tells us anything about land that's been deforested - nothing needs to be the case about such land.
(D) See above. In order for it to be the case that the government incentives are worsening global warming (relatively speaking), it *must* be the case that at least some of the land where farmers are planting trees for that government money would've otherwise been used for native grasses (which would've captured even more carbon dioxide).
(E) We're only concerned with countries where government incentives for *tree-planting* have been put into place. We're not concerned with incentives encouraging the growth of native grasses.
Correct Answer: (D)
22. Question Type: Role of the Statement
The argument's conclusion is the stimulus' first sentence, and all of the following statements serve as support for that conclusion, either directly or indirectly. The statement in question is a subsidiary (intermediate) conclusion. It supports the first sentence and is supported by the stimulus' final two sentences.
(A) It supports the conclusion - it's not the conclusion itself. The first sentence is.
(B) The argument doesn't show this to be inconsistent with any evidence - the evidence actually *supports* this statement.
(C) No observed phenomenon is mentioned in the stimulus - everything's abstract.
(D) This is evidence that supports the argument - the argument doesn't ever go against this statement.
(E) See above. It serves as evidence for the argument's main conclusion (first sentence).
Correct Answer: (E)
23. Question Type: Point at Issue
(A) The first two statements made by the physician suggest that the physician would agree with this statement, but the trampoline enthusiast never expresses an opinion about whether a *significant* number of people are injured using them.
(B) Neither the physician nor the trampoline enthusiast makes a statement about what the *main* source of trampoline-related injuries is.
(C) The physician doesn't even come close to expressing an opinion about whether the rate of injuries per use is declining. The trampoline enthusiast suggests that the rate of injuries per *home trampoline* is declining, but the enthusiast doesn't express any opinion on the number of injuries per trampoline *user*.
(D) This is tempting, but neither the physician nor the trampoline enthusiast actually expresses an opinion on whether professional supervision tends to lead to a decrease in related injuries. It's simply that the physician favors professional supervision and the trampoline enthusiast opposes it.
(E) The physician explicitly states in the final sentence that trampolines should only be used when there's professional supervision, so the physician would likely agree with this choice. The trampoline enthusiast explicitly states "I agree" immediately following that statement, indicating that the enthusiast would disagree with this choice.
Correct Answer: (E)
24. Question Type: Strengthen (Principle)
The editorial concludes that the coverage of the local politician's nephew was good journalism because it was accurate and there was significant interest. For this question, we're just looking for a generalized version of this argument, because if a generalized version of it (in the form of a principle) is valid, then the specific reasoning in the stimulus is further justified.
(A) This is a negation of the situation in the stimulus, so it's not relevant. We're concerned with journalism *not deserving to be criticized if it *does* provide what people want.
(B) This is along the lines of a negation of the situation in the stimulus, so it's not relevant. We're concerned with journalism *not* deserving to be criticized if it *doesn't* intentionally misrepresent the facts. We'd actually want to go one step further and say "if it's accurate," since the information in the coverage was accurate in the stimulus.
(C) See above. If we learned that being accurate and covering a subject of interest to many constitutes good journalism, then the editorial's conclusion that the coverage was good journalism is greatly strengthened, as it met both of those criteria.
(D) We're concerned with what's sufficient to guarantee that something constitutes good journalism, not with what good journalism does in general.
(E) This is along the lines of a negation of the situation in the stimulus, so it's not relevant. We're concerned with journalism that *does* satisfy curiosity and *does* provide information, not journalism that doesn't. Additionally, we'd want to go one step beyond saying that something can be *considered* good journalism to say that it *definitely* is good journalism, as that would further justify the reasoning in the stimulus.
Correct Answer: (C)
25. Question Type: Must Be True
Because the stimulus contains multiple conditional indicators ("if" and "all"), it's a good idea to diagram it to make some links between statements:
1st sentence: C or R -> PP
2nd sentence: Most WD PP -> Art
3rd sentence: NOT C PP -> NOT WD PP
4th sentence: C PP -> SI
Since the 3rd and 4th sentences both talk about being comfortable, we can take the contrapositive of one of them in order to link them together. I'd recommend taking the contrapositive of the 3rd one in order to make NOT WD into WD. This way, we can make the statement entirely positive (by also changing UC into C - essentially making that variable positive as well). Doing this gets us:
3rd sentence contrapositive: WD PP -> Comf PP (if a public place is well-designed, then it's a comfortable public place)
4th sentence: Comf PP -> SI (if it's a comfortable public place, then it has a spacious interior)
Linked: WD PP -> Comf PP -> SI
This is the only true linking we can easily do with this information, so it makes sense to just run through the choices and see if anything matches with what we've got (while keeping the first 2 sentences in mind as well).
(A) This is along the lines of a logic reversal of the 4th sentence, confusing necessary and sufficient conditions (since we know that restaurants are public places).
(B) This is a confused combination of the 2nd sentence and the contrapositive of the 3rd, while transposing the "most" into the wrong place. We can't infer anything about most public places that feature artwork, as this is a category never discussed in the stimulus.
(C) This is also a misapplication of the word "most" from the 2nd sentence. We know that most well-designed public places in general feature artwork, but we don't necessarily know that this ratio of majority extends within the category of coffeehouses in particular. In other words, just because most well-designed public places feature artwork, this doesn't mean that a majority of each *type* of public place features artwork - we don't know that the ratio holds true within categories.
(D) This one's a bit tricky, but we know from the first sentence of the stimulus that coffeehouses and restaurants must be public places, and we know from our linking of the contrapositive of the 3rd and 4th sentences that any well-designed public place must have a spacious interior.
(E) This is a logic reversal of our linking of the contrapositive of the 3rd sentence and the 4th sentence. Just because well-designed public places have spacious interiors, this doesn't guarantee that anything with a spacious interior is a well-designed public place (and we certainly don't know that this applies specifically to coffeehouses, either).
Correct Answer: (D)
Get the full LSAT PrepTest explanations for LSAT PrepTest 65 (and TONS of other exams) HERE.
