Dear My Friend, I've got the ambiguous question as below. Could you please help?
Some people believe that witnessing violence in movies will discharge aggressive energy. Does watching someone else eat fill one’s own stomach?
In which one of the following does the reasoning most closely parallel that employed in the passage?
A. Some people think appropriating supplies at work for their own personal use is morally wrong. Isn’t shoplifting morally wrong?
B. Some people think nationalism is defensible. Hasn’t nationalism been the excuse for committing abominable crimes?
C. Some people think that boxing is fixed just because wrestling usually is. Are the two sports managed by the same sort of people?
D. Some people think that economists can control inflation. Can meteorologists make the sun shine?
E. Some people think workaholics are compensating for a lack of interpersonal skills. However, aren’t most doctors workaholics?
Source: http://www.quizlib.net/PlayingPublicTest.aspx?quizid=82
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- pqthinh2000
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 4
- Joined: May 24th, 2014
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: LSAT Exam Prepare Questions - Test 2, Section 2
The original argument questions the truth of an original statement with an analogy that more clearly seems false.
People may debate whether seeing violence in movies helps you get rid of your own aggressive energy.
But no one’s likely to argue that watching someone eat means that now YOU no longer need to eat.
So I would be looking for something that starts with a dubious claim (that ppl are likely to debate) followed up by an analogous question (to which ppl will almost always answer "No!").
However, one of the easier ways I found I could speed up through the answers was simply to look at whether any ideas from the first idea repeated in the second idea.
In the original, there are no concepts that appear in both sentences.
In (A), "morally wrong" is in both.
In (B), "nationalism" is in both.
In (C), "the two sports" are in both.
In (E), "workaholics" are in both.
On Match the Reasoning question, it’s always helpful to think about what types of ingredients were/weren’t in the original so that you can make quicker eliminations.
Let’s verify that (D) actually works.
We wanted to start with a claim that people are likely to debate:
"economists can control inflation"
And then present an analogous question that people are almost certain to say "No" to.
"meteorologists make the sun shine"
Looks perfect!
Hope this helps.
People may debate whether seeing violence in movies helps you get rid of your own aggressive energy.
But no one’s likely to argue that watching someone eat means that now YOU no longer need to eat.
So I would be looking for something that starts with a dubious claim (that ppl are likely to debate) followed up by an analogous question (to which ppl will almost always answer "No!").
However, one of the easier ways I found I could speed up through the answers was simply to look at whether any ideas from the first idea repeated in the second idea.
In the original, there are no concepts that appear in both sentences.
In (A), "morally wrong" is in both.
In (B), "nationalism" is in both.
In (C), "the two sports" are in both.
In (E), "workaholics" are in both.
On Match the Reasoning question, it’s always helpful to think about what types of ingredients were/weren’t in the original so that you can make quicker eliminations.
Let’s verify that (D) actually works.
We wanted to start with a claim that people are likely to debate:
"economists can control inflation"
And then present an analogous question that people are almost certain to say "No" to.
"meteorologists make the sun shine"
Looks perfect!
Hope this helps.
2 posts Page 1 of 1