Logical Reasoning Sample Questions 4 – 6

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.

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. 

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 companies’ 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.