The sample questions on the following pages are typical of the
Logical Reasoning questions you will find on the LSAT.
Directions:
The questions in this section are based on the reasoning
contained in brief statements or passages. For some questions, more
than one of the choices could conceivably answer the question. However,
you are to choose the best answer; that is, the response that most
accurately and completely answers the question. You should not make
assumptions that are by commonsense standards implausible, superfluous,
or incompatible with the passage. After you have chosen the best
answer, blacken the corresponding space on your answer sheet.
Question 1
Laird: Pure research provides us with new technologies that
contribute to saving lives. Even more worthwhile than this, however, is
its role in expanding our knowledge and providing new, unexplored
ideas.
Kim: Your priorities are mistaken. Saving lives is what counts most
of all. Without pure research, medicine would not be as advanced as it
is.
Laird and Kim disagree on whether pure research
- derives its significance in part from its providing new technologies
- expands the boundaries of our knowledge of medicine
- should have the saving of human lives as an important goal
- has its most valuable achievements in medical applications
- has any value apart from its role in providing new technologies to save lives
Explanation for Question 1
This question asks you to identify the point on which Laird and Kim
disagree with respect to pure research. Laird identifies two
contributions of pure research: its medical applications (“technologies
that contribute to saving lives”) and its role in expanding knowledge
and providing new ideas. Of these, Laird considers the second
contribution to be more worthwhile. Kim, on the other hand, maintains
that “Saving lives is what counts most of all.” Since pure research
saves lives through medical applications, Kim disagrees with Laird about
whether pure research has its most valuable achievements in medical
applications. The correct response, therefore, is (D).
Response (A) is incorrect since we can determine, based on their
statements, that Laird and Kim agree that pure research “derives its
significance in part from its providing new technologies.” Laird
explicitly cites the value of pure research with respect to providing
new technologies. Kim indicates agreement with (A), at least in the
case of medical technologies, by asserting that “Without pure research,
medicine would not be as advanced as it is.”
Response (B) is incorrect since we can determine, based on their
statements, that Laird and Kim would likely agree that pure research
“expands the boundaries of our knowledge of medicine.” Laird notes that
pure research provides us with new technologies that have medical
applications. Kim points out that “Without pure research, medicine
would not be as advanced as it is.”
Response (C) is incorrect. Kim indicates agreement that pure
research “should have the saving of human lives as an important goal”
since Kim’s position is that “Saving lives is what counts most of all.”
Since Laird cites the saving of lives as one way in which pure research
is worthwhile or valuable, Laird also indicates agreement that pure
research “should have the saving of human lives as an important goal,”
although Laird indicates that expanding knowledge and providing new
ideas should be an even more important goal of pure research. The same
activity can of course have more than one goal.
Response (E) is incorrect. Laird clearly agrees that pure research
has value “apart from its role in providing new technologies to save
lives,” given that Laird explicitly cites a second way in which pure
research is valuable. However, nothing in what Kim says suggests
disagreement with (E). Kim’s position is that the greatest value of
pure research is its role in providing new technologies to save lives.
We cannot infer from this that Kim believes this role to be the only
value of pure research.
This question was of medium difficulty, based on the number of test
takers who answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.
Question 2
Executive: We recently ran a set of advertisements in the print
version of a travel magazine and on that magazine’s website. We were
unable to get any direct information about consumer response to the
print ads. However, we found that consumer response to the ads on the
website was much more limited than is typical for website ads. We
concluded that consumer response to the print ads was probably below par
as well.
The executive’s reasoning does which one of the following?
- bases a prediction of the intensity of a phenomenon on information about
the intensity of that phenomenon’s cause
- uses information about the typical frequency of events of a general kind
to draw a conclusion about the probability of a particular event of that
kind
- infers a statistical generalization from claims about a large number of
specific instances
- uses a case in which direct evidence is available to draw a conclusion
about an analogous case in which direct evidence is unavailable
- bases a prediction about future events on facts about recent comparable
events
Explanation for Question 2
This question asks you to identify how the executive’s reasoning
proceeds. The ads discussed by the executive appeared in two places—in a magazine and on the magazine’s website. Some information
is available concerning the effect of the website ads on consumers, but
no consumer response information is available about the print ads. The
executive’s remarks suggest that the ads that appeared in print and on
the website were basically the same, or very similar. The executive
reasoned that information about the effect of the website ads could be
used as evidence for an inference about how the print ads likely
performed. The executive thus used the analogy between the print ads
and the website ads to infer something about the print ads. (D),
therefore, is the correct response.
Response (A) is incorrect. The executive’s conclusion about the
likely consumer response to the print ads does not constitute a
prediction, but rather a judgment about events that have already
transpired. Moreover, the executive’s conclusion is not based on any
reasoning about the cause of the consumer response to the print ads.
Response (B) is incorrect. The executive does conclude that certain
events are likely to have transpired on the basis of what was known to
have transpired in a similar case, but no distinction can be made in the
executive’s argument between events of a general kind and a particular
event of that kind. There are two types of event in play in the
executive’s argument and they are of the same level of generality—the response to the website ads and the response to the print ads.
Response (C) is incorrect. The executive does not infer a
statistical generalization, which would involve generalizing about a
population on the basis of a statistical sample. The executive merely
draws a conclusion about the likely occurrence of specific events.
Response (E) is also incorrect. The executive does use the
comparability of the print and website ads as the basis for the
conclusion drawn; however, as noted above, the executive’s conclusion
about the likely consumer response to the print ads does not constitute
a prediction about future events, but rather a judgment about events
that have already transpired.
This was an easy question, based on the number of test takers who
answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.
Question 3
During the construction of the Quebec Bridge in 1907, the bridge’s
designer, Theodore Cooper, received word that the suspended span being
built out from the bridge’s cantilever was deflecting downward by a
fraction of an inch (2.54 centimeters). Before he could telegraph to
freeze the project, the whole cantilever arm broke off and plunged,
along with seven dozen workers, into the St. Lawrence River. It was
the worst bridge construction disaster in history. As a direct result
of the inquiry that followed, the engineering “rules of thumb” by which
thousands of bridges had been built around the world went down with the
Quebec Bridge. Twentieth-century bridge engineers would thereafter
depend on far more rigorous applications of mathematical analysis.
Which one of the following statements can be properly inferred from
the passage?
- Bridges built before about 1907 were built without thorough mathematical
analysis and, therefore, were unsafe for the public to use.
- Cooper’s absence from the Quebec Bridge construction site resulted in
the breaking off of the cantilever.
- Nineteenth-century bridge engineers relied on their rules of thumb
because analytical methods were inadequate to solve their design problems.
- Only a more rigorous application of mathematical analysis to the design
of the Quebec Bridge could have prevented its collapse.
- Prior to 1907 the mathematical analysis incorporated in engineering
rules of thumb was insufficient to completely assure the safety of
bridges under construction.
Explanation for Question 3
The question asks you to identify the response that can be properly
inferred from the passage. The passage indicates that the Quebec Bridge
disaster in 1907 and the inquiry that followed caused the engineering
“rules of thumb” used in construction of thousands of bridges to be
abandoned. Since the Quebec Bridge disaster in 1907 prompted this
abandonment, it can be inferred that these were the rules of thumb under
which the Quebec Bridge was being built when it collapsed and that these
were the rules of thumb used in bridge building before 1907. Further,
since the Quebec Bridge collapsed while under construction and the rules
of thumb being used were abandoned as a result, it can be inferred that
the rules of thumb used in building the Quebec Bridge and bridges prior
to 1907 were insufficient to completely assure the safety of bridges
under construction. Finally, since the alternative that was adopted in
place of the old engineering rules of thumb was to “depend on far more
rigorous applications of mathematical analysis,” it can be inferred that
the mathematical analysis incorporated in the engineering rules of thumb
used prior to 1907 made them insufficient to completely assure the
safety of bridges under construction. Thus, (E) is the correct
response.
Response (A) is incorrect. (A) asserts that bridges built before
about 1907 were unsafe for the public to use because they were built
without thorough mathematical analysis. But this conclusion goes far
beyond what is established by the passage. The passage gives evidence
only about the safety of bridges built before 1907 while they were
under construction. It is silent on whether bridges built before about 1907
were safe when open for use by the public. Moreover, the passage
indicates that the rules of thumb used in bridge construction before
1907 were abandoned because the use of those rules did not provide
adequate assurance of safety for bridges under construction. It does
not follow that bridges built using those rules of thumb (those built
before about 1907) actually were unsafe, either while under construction
or when open for public use.
Response (B) is incorrect in claiming that Cooper’s absence from the
construction site caused the breaking off of the cantilever. The
passage does not establish that, had Cooper been at the site, he could
have successfully intervened to prevent the cantilever from breaking
off. By freezing the project, he might have spared lives by stopping
work, but there is nothing in the passage to indicate that he
necessarily would have prevented the collapse.
Response (C) is incorrect; there is no evidence in the passage about
why nineteenth-century bridge engineers relied on their rules of
thumb.
Response (D) is also incorrect. While the passage suggests that a
more rigorous application of mathematical analysis would have prevented
the collapse of the bridge, it offers no evidence that it is the only
way the collapse could have been prevented. For example, it might have
been prevented had corrective measures been taken in time.
This question was of medium difficulty, based on the number of test
takers who answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.
Question 4
The supernova event of 1987 is interesting in that there is still no
evidence of the neutron star that current theory says should have
remained after a supernova of that size. This is in spite of the fact
that many of the most sensitive instruments ever developed have searched
for the tell-tale pulse of radiation that neutron stars emit. Thus,
current theory is wrong in claiming that supernovas of a certain size
always produce neutron stars.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
- Most supernova remnants that astronomers have detected have a neutron
star nearby.
- Sensitive astronomical instruments have detected neutron stars much
farther away than the location of the 1987 supernova.
- The supernova of 1987 was the first that scientists were able to observe
in progress.
- Several important features of the 1987 supernova are correctly predicted
by the current theory.
- Some neutron stars are known to have come into existence by a cause
other than a supernova explosion.
Explanation for Question 4
This question asks you to identify the response that most strengthens
the argument. The argument concludes that “current theory is wrong in
claiming that supernovas of a certain size always produce neutron stars”
based on the observation that no evidence has been found of a neutron
star left behind by the supernova event of 1987. However, the failure
to find evidence of the predicted neutron star does not necessarily
indicate that such evidence does not exist. It may instead indicate
that the instruments used to search for the evidence are not powerful
enough to detect a neutron star in the area where the 1987 supernova
event occurred. The argument would thus be strengthened if there was
evidence that the search instruments used would in fact be capable of
finding the predicted neutron star if that star existed. Response (B)
provides such evidence. If “sensitive astronomical instruments have
detected neutron stars much farther away than the location of the 1987
supernova,” then it is less likely that the predicted neutron star is
outside the detection range of “the most sensitive instruments ever
developed.” Thus, (B) is the correct response.
Response (A) reports that most supernova remnants that astronomers
have detected have a neutron star nearby. Since (A) gives no
information about the size of the supernovas that produced these
remnants, it is possible that all of the remnants detected to date are
consistent with the current theory’s claim that supernovas of a certain
size always produce neutron stars. (A), therefore, lends no support to
the argument that the current theory is wrong in this claim.
Response (C) reports that the supernova of 1987 was the first
supernova that scientists were able to observe in progress. This
information has no direct bearing on the question of whether this event
produced a neutron star and thus cannot be used to strengthen the
argument that the current theory is wrong.
Response (D) asserts that several important features of the 1987
supernova are correctly predicted by the current theory. This bolsters
the support for the current theory and would thus, if anything, weaken
the argument that the current theory is wrong.
Response (E) reports that not all neutron stars are the products of
supernova events. Since this information pertains to neutron stars that
were not produced by supernovas, it is irrelevant to the question of
whether all supernovas of a certain size produce neutron stars, as the
current theory claims. Hence, (E) lends no support to the argument.
This was a difficult question, based on the number of test takers who
answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.
Question 5
Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not
promote political freedom. There are historical examples of democracies
that ultimately resulted in some of the most oppressive societies.
Likewise, there have been enlightened despotisms and oligarchies that
have provided a remarkable level of political freedom to their
subjects.
The reasoning in the political scientist’s argument is flawed because it
- confuses the conditions necessary for political freedom with the
conditions sufficient to bring it about
- fails to consider that a substantial increase in the level of political
freedom might cause a society to become more democratic
- appeals to historical examples that are irrelevant to the causal claim
being made
- overlooks the possibility that democracy promotes political freedom without being necessary or
sufficient by itself to produce it
- bases its historical case on a personal point of view
Explanation for Question 5
This question asks you to identify how the reasoning in the political
scientist’s argument is flawed. The argument bases its conclusion—that democracy does not promote political freedom—on two
sets of historical examples. The first set of examples demonstrates
that democracy is not sufficient for political freedom, and the second
set demonstrates that democracy is not necessary for political freedom.
But it does not follow from these examples that democracy does not
promote political freedom. Even if democracy is not, by itself,
sufficient for political freedom, it can still promote political freedom
by contributing to it in most instances. Even if democracy is not
necessary for political freedom, it can still be true that democracy is
something that promotes political freedom wherever it is found. Thus,
(D) is the correct response.
Response (A) is incorrect. The political scientist’s argument does
not indicate that any particular conditions are necessary for political
freedom, nor does it indicate that any particular conditions are
sufficient to bring about political freedom. Thus the argument could
not be said to confuse these two sorts of conditions. Rather, the
political scientist’s argument attempts to demonstrate that democracy
does not promote political freedom on the grounds that democracy is
neither necessary nor sufficient for bringing about political freedom.
Response (B) is incorrect. The argument does fail to consider
whether a substantial increase in the level of political freedom would
cause a society to become more democratic, but this does not constitute
a flaw in its reasoning. The truth of the claim that increased
political freedom causes greater democratization would not by itself
undermine the political scientist’s conclusion that democracies do not
promote political freedom. Nor does that claim engage with the
argument’s premises, which are concerned with the effect of democracy on
political freedom, not the effect of political freedom on democracy.
Response (C) is incorrect. The “causal claim being made” could only
be the argument’s conclusion that democracy does not promote political
freedom, which denies that there is a causal connection between
democracy and political freedom. The historical examples in the
argument are relevant to this claim, however. These examples are an
important part of the larger body of historical evidence that one would
look to when investigating the issue of whether democracy promotes
political freedom.
Response (E) is also incorrect. The political scientist does not
express a personal point of view or base the historical examples on such
a view. On the contrary, the historical examples themselves are an
impersonal, though flawed, basis for the argument’s conclusion.
This was a difficult question, based on the number of test takers who
answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.
Question 6
Journalist: To reconcile the need for profits sufficient to support
new drug research with the moral imperative to provide medicines to
those who most need them but cannot afford them, some pharmaceutical
companies feel justified in selling a drug in rich nations at one price
and in poor nations at a much lower price. But this practice is
unjustified. A nation with a low average income may still have a
substantial middle class better able to pay for new drugs than are many
of the poorer citizens of an overall wealthier nation.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to
justify the journalist’s reasoning?
- People who are ill deserve more consideration than do healthy people,
regardless of their relative socioeconomic positions.
- Wealthy institutions have an obligation to expend at least some of their
resources to assist those incapable of assisting themselves.
- Whether one deserves special consideration depends on one’s needs rather
than on characteristics of the society to which one belongs.
- The people in wealthy nations should not have better access to health
care than do the people in poorer nations.
- Unequal access to health care is more unfair than an unequal distribution of wealth.
Explanation for Question 6
The journalist states that pharmaceutical companies have both a need
for profits to support future research and a moral obligation to provide
medicines to those who most need them and cannot afford them. In order
to balance these requirements they have adopted a practice of selling
drugs at lower prices in poorer countries. The journalist’s conclusion
is that this practice is unjustified. To support this claim, the
journalist points out that different individuals in the same nation have
differing abilities to pay, but this consideration does not, by itself,
establish that the pharmaceutical company’s policy is unjustified. The
question asks you to choose the principle that would most help to
justify the journalist’s reasoning.
The principle stated in response (C) connects the question of whether
special consideration is deserved to personal, rather than societal,
needs. The pharmaceutical companies’ practice provides special
consideration based on the characteristics of one’s society, and not
based on one’s personal needs. As a result, according to this
principle, the practice tends to deny special consideration to some who
deserve it (the poorer citizens of wealthier nations), while giving
special consideration to some who do not deserve it (the middle class
citizens of poorer nations). In this way the practice is failing to
meet the pharmaceutical companies’ obligation to provide special
consideration for those who most need the drugs and cannot afford them,
and, in giving undeserved special consideration, failing to generate
income that could have been used to support new drug research. The
principle in (C) thereby provides strong support for the journalist’s
reasoning that the pharmaceutical companies’ practice is unjustified.
Thus, (C) is the correct response.
The principle stated in response (A) applies to balancing the
consideration deserved by ill people and healthy people. However, the
pharmaceutical company’s practice, and the journalist’s argument against
that practice, concerns only ill people (that is, people who need
drugs). As a result, response (A) is not relevant to the journalist’s
reasoning.
The principle stated in (B) requires that wealthy institutions use
some of their resources to aid those in need. This tends to affirm the
pharmaceutical companies’ moral imperative to provide medicines to those
who need them but cannot afford them. However, this principle gives no
support to the journalist’s reasoning, which contends that the
pharmaceutical companies’ pricing policy is not justified by this moral
imperative.
The principle stated in (D) that people in wealthy nations should not
have better access to health care than those in poorer nations, is a
principle that tends to support the companies’ practice, because the
companies’ practice is one that tends to lessen the health care
disparities between wealthy and poorer nations. For this reason, (D)
actually runs counter to the journalist’s reasoning.
The principle stated in (E) concerns whether an unequal distribution
of health care or an unequal distribution of wealth is more unfair.
However, this is a different issue than the one the journalist is
addressing. Response (E) is thus not relevant to the journalist’s
reasoning.
This was an easy question, based on the number of test takers who
answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.
Question 7
Several critics have claimed that any contemporary poet who writes
formal poetry—poetry that is rhymed and metered—is
performing a politically conservative act. This is plainly false.
Consider Molly Peacock and Marilyn Hacker, two contemporary poets whose
poetry is almost exclusively formal and yet who are themselves
politically progressive feminists.
The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the
following is assumed?
- No one who is a feminist is also politically conservative.
- No poet who writes unrhymed or unmetered poetry is politically conservative.
- No one who is politically progressive is capable of performing a politically conservative act.
- Anyone who sometimes writes poetry that is not politically conservative never writes poetry that
is politically conservative.
- The content of a poet’s work, not the work’s form, is the most decisive factor in determining what
political consequences, if any, the work will have.
Explanation for Question 7
This question asks you to identify the option containing information
that makes the conclusion of the argument follow logically. The
conclusion of the argument is that it is false that any contemporary
poet who writes formal poetry is performing a politically conservative
act. To draw this conclusion logically, one only needs to show at least
one contemporary poet who is writing formal poetry and is not thereby
performing a politically conservative act. Showing such an instance
would provide a counterexample to the claim attributed to the critics,
demonstrating that the critics’ generalization is false.
The premise given is that there are two contemporary and politically
progressive feminist poets who write formal poetry—Molly Peacock
and Marilyn Hacker. If no one who is politically progressive is capable
of performing a politically conservative act, and Peacock and Hacker are
politically progressive, it follows logically that neither is capable of
performing a politically conservative act. Since both write formal
poetry, their writing of formal poetry cannot be a politically
conservative act. This shows that one can write formal poetry without
performing a politically conservative act, so (C) is the correct
response.
If it is true that no one who is a feminist is politically
conservative, as response (A) says, we can conclude that Peacock and
Hacker, who are identified as being feminists, are not politically
conservative. But we already knew this, as they were also identified as
being politically progressive. As long as people who are not themselves
politically conservative are capable of performing politically
conservative acts, the question of whether it is possible for someone to
write formal poetry without performing a politically conservative act
remains unanswered. (A) is thus incorrect.
If no poet who writes unrhymed and unmetered poetry is politically
conservative, as response (B) indicates, this tells us little about
Peacock and Hacker, whose poetry, we are told, is almost exclusively
formal. Insofar as (B) may indicate that Peacock and Hacker are not
politically conservative (because they write some poetry that is not
both rhymed and metered), we already knew this, as they are identified
as being politically progressive. Since the argument works by
presenting Peacock and Hacker as counterexamples to the claim that to
write formal poetry is to perform a politically conservative act, (B)
contributes nothing in the way of additional support for the
conclusion.
Response (D) says that anyone who sometimes writes poetry that is not
politically conservative never writes poetry that is politically
conservative. However, to make the conclusion of the argument follow
logically, one must show that some contemporary poets who write formal
poetry are sometimes not performing a politically conservative act. The
information in (D) is not applicable to this question.
Response (E) concerns the effects of the content of a poet’s work on
determining the political consequences of the work. However, the
question that must be answered is whether any contemporary poet who
writes formal poetry is performing a politically conservative act, not
what the consequences of that poetry might be. The question of whether
writing a particular poem is a politically conservative act is different
from the question of what that poem’s political consequences will be.
Moreover, because the content of neither Peacock’s nor Hacker’s work has
been specified, (E) does not even allow us to draw a conclusion about
the political consequences of their work.
This was a difficult question, based on the number of test takers who
answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.
Question 8
Situation: In the island nation of Bezun, the government taxes
gasoline heavily in order to induce people not to drive. It uses the
revenue from the gasoline tax to subsidize electricity in order to
reduce prices charged for electricity.
Analysis: The greater the success achieved in meeting the first of
these objectives, the less will be the success achieved in meeting the
second.
The analysis provided for the situation above would be most
appropriate in which one of the following situations?
- A library charges a late fee in order to induce borrowers to return
books promptly. The library uses revenue from the late fee to send
reminders to tardy borrowers in order to reduce the incidence of overdue
books.
- A mail-order store imposes a stiff surcharge for overnight delivery in
order to limit use of this option. The store uses revenue from the
surcharge to pay the extra expenses it incurs for providing the
overnight delivery service.
- The park management charges an admission fee so that a park’s users will
contribute to the park’s upkeep. In order to keep admission fees low,
the management does not finance any new projects from them.
- A restaurant adds a service charge in order to spare customers the
trouble of individual tips. The service charge is then shared among the
restaurant’s workers in order to augment their low hourly wages.
- The highway administration charges a toll for crossing a bridge in order
to get motorists to use other routes. It uses the revenue from that
toll to generate a reserve fund in order to be able one day to build a
new bridge.
Explanation for Question 8
This question presents an analysis of a situation and asks you to
select, from among the options, another situation for which the analysis
is appropriate. The analysis states that the two objectives described
in the original situation are related in such a way that more success in
the first objective, the reduction of driving, will result in less
success in the second, a reduction in the price of electricity. To see
this, suppose that the gasoline taxes mentioned in the passage prove
successful in inducing people not to drive. This would mean that people
would have a diminished need to purchase gasoline, since they do not
drive as much. Since less gasoline is being purchased, there is less
revenue from taxes on gasoline purchases. There is therefore less
revenue from the gasoline tax with which to subsidize electricity. With
less of a subsidy, there will be less reduction in the prices charged
for electricity. Among the options, (E) is the one that presents a
situation that fits the analysis in the same way. The more motorists
there are who begin to use other routes, thus reducing bridge traffic,
the less toll money there will be for the new bridge fund. Thus (E) is
the correct response.
Response (A) is incorrect. Two devices are named, late fees and
reminders, but they share just one objective, which is described in two
ways: to get “borrowers to return books promptly” and to “reduce the
incidence of overdue books.” Success in one is success in the
other.
Response (B) is incorrect. This situation has two objectives: to
limit the use of overnight delivery service and to offset the extra
expense of the overnight delivery still requested. However, these
objectives are related in such a way that success in the first, a
reduction in overnight delivery, would contribute to success in the
second by lowering the extra expenses incurred by the service.
Response (C) is incorrect. We cannot infer that more success in
achieving the first objective—getting park users to help keep up
the park—will cause less success in the second objective—keeping the fees low. It is conceivable that success in the former
would enable the fees to be lowered; after all, if there were enough
park users paying the fees (i.e., contributing to the park’s upkeep),
then the park management would not have to charge a high fee—fifteen park users paying $1.00 generates more revenue than one park
user paying $10.00. Furthermore, there is nothing in the passage that
functions like the statement in (C) that management does not finance any
new projects from admission fees.
Response (D) is incorrect. The two objectives in this situation,
sparing customers an inconvenience and augmenting restaurant workers’
wages, are not necessarily related in such a way that more success in
the former would cause less success in the latter. Adding a service
charge might very well augment the restaurant workers’ wages more than
they would be augmented if no service charge is added, if the proceeds
from the service charge are greater than what the workers would have
received from individual tips.
This was a difficult question, based on the number of test takers who
answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.
Question 9
The ancient Romans understood the principles of water power very
well, and in some outlying parts of their empire they made extensive and
excellent use of water as an energy source. This makes it all the more
striking that the Romans made do without water power in regions
dominated by large cities.
Which one of the following, if true, contributes most to an
explanation of the difference described above in the Romans’ use of
water power?
- The ancient Romans were adept at constructing and maintaining aqueducts
that could carry quantities of water sufficient to supply large cities
over considerable distances.
- In the areas in which water power was not used, water flow in rivers and
streams was substantial throughout the year but nevertheless exhibited
some seasonal variation.
- Water power was relatively vulnerable to sabotage, but any damage could
be quickly and inexpensively repaired.
- In most areas to which the use of water power was not extended, other,
more traditional sources of energy continued to be used.
- In heavily populated areas the introduction of water power would have
been certain to cause social unrest by depriving large numbers of people
of their livelihood.
Explanation for Question 9
This question asks you to identify the response that does most to
explain an apparent discrepancy presented in the passage. The first
step, then, is to determine what this discrepancy is. The passage notes
the Romans’ extensive use of water power in some outlying parts of their
empire, but in regions dominated by large cities, it says, they did
without water power. Given the benefits of water power, an adequate
response must help answer the question of why ancient Romans did not use
water power in regions dominated by large cities when they had a
demonstrated ability to do so.
Response (E) helps to answer that question. It presents an
undesirable consequence that would have followed from the use of water
power in heavily populated regions: social unrest due to significant
loss of livelihood. By doing this, (E) identifies a negative aspect of
water power use in heavily populated areas, and that gives a reason not
to use it in regions dominated by large cities. Thus, (E) is the
correct response.
Response (A) is incorrect. Rather than explaining the puzzling
situation, it merely describes the ancient Romans’ ability to supply
water over distances. If this has any bearing at all on the issue of
water power, it would be to remove one possible impediment to the use of
water power in regions dominated by large cities; it would not give a
reason that the Romans did without it in those regions.
Response (B) is incorrect. While it speaks of the areas where water
power was not used, which would include the regions dominated by large
cities, it indicates the natural water supply in those areas was
substantial although seasonally variable. This gives a reason to expect
the use of water power in regions dominated by large cities, not a
reason the Romans did without it in those regions.
Response (C) is incorrect. By noting that water power was relatively
vulnerable to sabotage, (C) presents a possible reason to avoid the use
of water power in important regions, but (C) also undermines that
possible reason by describing how easily any damage could be repaired.
So (C) does nothing to explain the puzzling situation.
Response (D) indicates that “more traditional” energy sources were
used in areas without water power, which would include the regions
dominated by large cities. This may help explain how these regions got
along without water power—the use of traditional sources
prevented them from being entirely without energy—but it adds
little to our overall understanding, since we could already presume that
these regions had energy sources. The fact that traditional sources of
energy were employed in these regions does not explain why water power
was not employed there, and that question would have to be addressed in
order to explain the discrepancy in the Romans’ use of water power.
Response (D) is thus incorrect.
This was a difficult question, based on the number of test takers who
answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.
« Back to Sample Questions with Explanations