{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


preptest35 - LSAT PrepTest XXXV Explained A Guide to the...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
LSAT PrepTest XXXV Explained A Guide to the October, 2001 LSAT *LSAT is a registered trademark of the Law School Admission Council. *
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
PREPTEST 35 OCTOBER 2001 KAPLAN EXPLANATION DOCUMENT © Kaplan, 2001. All rights reserved. SECTION 1 LOGICAL REASONING 1. (D) Inf er ence (Conc lusion) “Sta tement X…is of f er ed in suppor t of c laim tha t” is asking f or the conc lusion. Anything that “supports” is evidence, and so the second sentence (the subject of this question) must be evidence for some conclusion, and that conclusion turns out to be the main one. Sentence 2 is first offered in contrast—notice the “however”—to sentence 1: Mozart’s squeaky violins that sound like a squeaky scene change are presented as a counterexample to the claim that opera music never reflects stage directions. And that leads right to the “Clearly” statement, whose first clause (“Music can reflect scene changes”) in turn leads to the final conclusion that’s summed up by (D). Both (A) and (E) can be dismissed as unwarranted superlatives: The author never points to scene changes as the #1 operatic phenomenon that music picks up on (A), and (E) blows up the single Mozartian example into “the most frequent relation between” opera music and stage directions. If you picked (B), consider that (B) is the claim to which sentence 2 acts as a counterexample. (C) reverses the tendency to which the author refers; she’s interested in how the stage directions affect the music, not vice versa. 2. (D) Str engthen the Ar gument “J ustif ies” signals a str engthen the ar gument question, and m ultiple K e yw or ds ar e meant to be used . The classification in question is the designation of the generalization about a closed system’s en- tropy as a law, the Second Law of Thermodynamics in fact. Current science, says the dense first sentence, does not disprove the generalization, “so” we give it universal credence even though (“yet”) one cannot say that it’s been universally tested. “Nevertheless,” it’s law. The upshot must be that a scientific general- ization can become a law even if it’s not 100% conclusively proved, and only (D) echoes that idea. (D) also picks up on the notion that “our current state of knowledge” buys into the law and that, the author suggests, should be adequate. (A) gets the relationship reversed, and would be closer to correct (and would turn into (D), in fact) if it switched its terms. Since (B) calls for comprehensive testing before a generalization can be deemed law, it of course counters rather than supports the stimulus. (C) and (E) both venture into the for- bidden realm of that which will “eventually” happen—forbidden in that this argument deals with the here and now, not with the future, so neither choice can act as appropriate justification.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 35

preptest35 - LSAT PrepTest XXXV Explained A Guide to the...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online