1. TV shows and violence in children
2. Climate change, fossil fuel use, and crops
3. Dinosaur extinction, ice ages, volcanoes, and asteroids
4. Cigarette advertising, nicotine levels, and smoking rates
5. Government bureaucracies, political parties, politicians, and campaigns
6. Cholesterol, high blood pressure, and obesity
7. Employees and management in mid-sized businesses
8. Highway speed limits, car accidents, traffic, and car insurance
9. Economic recessions and consumer spending in imaginary countries
10. Pharmaceutical companies and government spending on medical research
11. Industry's pollution of the environment and its responsibility to clean up
12. Vaccines, bacteria, and viruses
13. Government support of academia, artists and aesthetics
14. Planets, moons, and brown dwarf stars
15. Morality, criminals, law enforcement, and law-abiding citizens
Nightmares about brown dwarf stars! ahha. They also love to talk about fat people and why they should exercise...
ReplyDeleteawesome!
ReplyDeleteThe LSAT is so one-sided when it comes to the global warming debate. Questions on this topic typically ask what arguments would strengthen the position of global warming enthusiasts, or they ask us to identify the flaws in arguments of those holding a more skeptical viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteI wonder why this is...it couldn't be because global warming skeptics hold illogical views, could it?
Delete:)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThank you for making something that is normally a pain in the ass (studying for the logical reasoning portion) highly entertaining!
ReplyDeleteThe LR has given me a headache that refuses to go away...There has to be a simpler way...
ReplyDeleteIf there is a simpler way, can you PLEASE post it here? I'm starting to worry I will never understand how to solve these 'games' questions. Ugghhh.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this!
ReplyDeleteTo the post mentioning the "global warming debate": there is no debate! The "scientists" who have been paid off to falsify data and promote the agenda of big oil and other interests are the only ones insisting a debate exists. Climate change/ global warming is a real phenomenon and we need to work toward solutions instead of insisting of perpetuating the notion that there is still some debate.
For those who read this: while the information this selfless poster was spreading, during holidays past, is probably true, I believe they're missing the true intention of the poster they criticize. It seems as though, the original poster is trying to help others with these questions by informing you what type of question stem to expect, not to suggest that LSAT writers are biased on global warming issues.
Delete^ you sound like those flat earthers during Galileo's time who arrogantly insisted there was no debate in regards to the earth/sun relationship....except they just used more severe ways to crush their opponents in colliding views.
ReplyDeleteThank you! Science is never decided based on a majority of people who agree, and should always be up for debate!
DeleteOooh, I like this exchange emerging....
ReplyDeleteI agree with the "flat earthers" comment. If we are going to allow holocaust deniers have their say, then it would be absurd to deny climate change skeptics similar air time. And yet, this is what has transpired. Blind faith and taboo has made climate change, as anthropogenically framed, a household reality - somehow! But, there simply must be room for reasoned debate, especially knowing what we know about scientific studies and following the money. There is good money in climate change everything, funding availability, possibility of tenure, commercial windmill contracts, etc... If the debate is unreasonable, then that is one thing, but to say there is no debate to be had closes the door on what ought to be a cherished tradition, should new reason come available. Debate, and sound dialectic discussion has become, sadly, a lost art, and the arcane domain of universities and wanking alumni.
Wake up, read the literature, and if that's too much bother (and I couldn't blame you in the slightest, as to do a thorough investigation would take weeks of reading, and even then, we're humanities students, not scientists), then you should sit this debate out. I don't known enough about it other than I don't like the way the debate has been framed is has been conducted and marketed as some Capitalist hot potato. For now, I am going fight for debate, rather than fight for or against climate change legislation.
I don't eat meat, and use a car sparingly if at all. That's doing more done for the planet than arguing about something I don't fully understand (and there is no way that I am alone despite the near universal acceptance of humans as the culprit). If you think we're screwing things up, then do something then like me, do something because you intuitively feel it may be the case. But don't wait for scientists to tell you, and for everyone else to agree with you just to do something and to feel good about yourself. Apathy starts tomorrow. Good luck!
Over and out.
N.
WOW!!!
ReplyDeletesince the whole point is to fallow the logic in the question, wouldn't it be best to know as little as possible about the topic? that's way your knowledge wont screw you up?
ReplyDelete^ Yes, that's why they're here in this blog so that we can relax and not get all amped up like the posters did above. Just relax and treat the question like the person arguing has tested all possibilities and the conclusion is valid (unless the q stem tells you to do otherwise).
ReplyDeleteI will be reading every one of your posts. Thanks
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding LSAT Logical Reasoning topics can be enhanced with elite academic essays which provide valuable insights and research-based strategies. These essays delve into complex reasoning patterns and argument structures, offering a nuanced perspective that aids in mastering the test. Leveraging such academic resources can significantly improve critical thinking and analytical skills, crucial for LSAT success.
ReplyDelete