Explanations to Test B

Scoring test B
Using the number of correct answers from test B, find your scaled score using the
chart below. In each column, the raw score is the number on the left, the scaled score is
the number on the right.

Number of questions correct – scaled score

>49 – 180 40 – 165 30 – 153 20 – 141 10 – 125
49 – 179 39 – 164 29 – 152 19 – 140 9 – 123
48 – 177 38 – 162 28 – 151 18 – 138 8 – 122
47 – 175 37 – 161 27 – 150 17 – 137 <8 – 120
46 – 173 36 – 160 26 – 149 16 – 136
45 – 172 35 – 159 25 – 147 15 – 135
44 – 170 34 – 158 24 – 146 14 – 134
43 – 169 33 – 157 23 – 145 13 – 132
42 – 167 32 – 156 22 – 144 12 – 130
41 – 166 31 – 154 21 – 142 11 – 127

Section 1 – Analytical Reasoning

Couples Dining
This puzzle requires that you use a matrix (or grid) diagram. Matrix puzzles are very
common. Virtually every LSAT has at least one matrix puzzle. Typically the matrix
puzzle is tested by using a schedule matrix. In the schedule matrix there will three to five
days with a morning and an afternoon time slot. But, in this game we have a grid with
people’s names on one axis and the types of food on the other axis. The diagram for this
game is fairly elaborate. (Figure 4)

Salad H
R
Entree D Yes
T No
Dessert WM
IC
B C F G P if* Q

Greg orders duck, and it is safe to assume, even though it is not explicitly stated, that
he will not also order the trout. Bob and Quincy have been linked with an arrow, and an
asterisk, to show that they have a relationship. An arrow from the house salad to the ice
cream shows that link. Finally, an asterisk next to P will remind us to look back at the
rules to see how the rule effects P. We use an asterisk when the rule cannot be graphed
easily.
 There are no obvious warranted conclusions for this puzzle, so go directly to the
questions.

1. B – OK, use rule violation answer elimination one more time. Start at the top
of the rules and work your way to the bottom! Rule 1 is violated in answer
choice A since Fiona and Greg order exactly the same items. See the end of
this explanation for more information on how to handle ambiguous language.
Rule 2 is not violated in any of the answer choices. Rule 3 is violated in
answer choice E, since Paula has both an entrée and a dessert. Rule 4 is
violated in answer choice D since Bob and Quincy both order the romaine
salad. Rule 5 is violated in answer choice C since Fiona orders the house
salad but does not order the ice cream. With A, C, D and E eliminated, B is
the correct choice. This systematic approach to this question type works
every time! A note about ambiguous language in the rules. Sometimes it is
not clear what the rule means, as was the case with rule 1. The ambiguity will
be resolved when you review the answer choices, so never let ambiguous
language slow you down.
2. E - What do you know about Bob? You know that both he and Quincy order
salads, but not the same kind of salads. Thus, if Bob orders the romaine salad,
then Quincy must order the house salad, and by rule 5, then he must also order
ice cream, so E is correct. This is a classic example of the deductive process.
The hypothetical information given (Bob orders the romaine salad) allows you
to deduce something (Quincy orders the house salad) which in turn allows you
to deduce something else (Quincy orders ice cream). If you ever get stuck on
a question in logic games, see if you haven’t cut the deductive process short
by a step or two. That is often the best tactic if you “can’t find a correct
answer”.
3. E – This is a classic example of using the contrapositive. When you have an
if/then rule like the rule regarding Paula, reverse and negate the terms to form
the contrapositive, which must also be true. The original rule is: if Paula
orders and entrée then she does not order a dessert. When you reverse and
negate the terms you get: if Paula orders a dessert, then she does not order an
entrée. Here, since all of the diners order dessert, Paula orders dessert, so
from the contrapositive; she does not order an entrée. Thus, Paula cannot
order the duck and E is the right answer.
4. D – If all of the women order house salads, then they also order ice cream, by
virtue of rule 5. By the same reasoning used in the previous question, Paula
then cannot order an entrée. You also know from rule 2 that Greg orders the
duck. Hence, the maximum number of diners who could order the trout is
four, answer choice D. The only remaining rule to watch out for in this
scenario is that no couple orders exactly the same items, but as long as Bob
orders a romaine salad instead of the house salad that Carrie orders, that rule
will not be triggered.
5. B – Again, think about what you know about ice cream. Anyone who orders
the house salad also orders ice cream. Both Bob and Quincy order salads, but
 not the same kind, so one of them orders the house salad and one of them
orders the romaine salad. Since only one person orders ice cream in this
question, it must be either Bob or Quincy, whichever one orders the house
salad. So, either A or E could be true, but Carrie definitely cannot order ice
cream and thus B is the correct response.
6. D – With maximum and minimum questions, start with either the smallest
number and work your way up (with a minimum question) or start with the
largest number and work your way down (with a maximum question). Here,
you are told that each of the diners orders an entrée. Right there are six items.
Does anyone have to order something else? Yes, Bob and Quincy both order
salads, so now you have at least eight items and you can eliminate A and B.
Finally, as discussed in the previous question, when either Bob or Quincy
orders the house salad he must then also order ice cream, so that is now nine
items that must be ordered. Eliminate answer choice C. There are no other
rules that say one of the diners must order anything else, so the minimum
number of items ordered in this question is nine, answer choice D.
 Aunt Mae’s Preserves
Simple line games, like this one, are the most common puzzle type. You will
always see at least one simple line game on an LSAT. Often there will be two, or
even three, line games. The preserves game uses a traditional seven-position line. It
is very easy to diagram the rules of this game. (Figure 3)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __
(C) (C)
(F) (L)
CDC
D F
L A

Fig. 3

Note the (C) on opposites ends of the line. The parentheses () show that the
cherry is not fixed in the positions. The line that connects the two (C)s will help us
remember to keep track of the cherry preserves. Next, note the one-way arrow from
(F) under position 3 to (L) under position 5. This helps us remember that the fig is
not required to be in position 3, but that if it is in position 3, that L must be in position
5. Note, even if lychee is in position 5, this does not automatically require that lychee
be in position 3. That is why this is a one-way arrow. Finally, note the three
conditions that we could not place on the diagram, but that we were able to create
shorthand notations for. (Figure 3)
In this game, there were no obvious warranted conclusions, so go directly to
the questions.

7. E – Here again the first question of the game is an acceptable order question.
So use the rules to eliminate the answer choices. Just like question 1 from the
first game, start with rule 1; see if it is violated in any of the answer choices.
Work your way down the list of rules until you have only one choice left.
Rule 1 is not violated in any of the answer choices. Rule 2 is violated in
answer choice A, since the fig preserves are to the left of the date preserves.
Rule 3 is violated in answer choice B, since the lychee preserves are to the
right of the apple preserves. Rule 4 is violated in answer choice D, since the
cherry preserves are not on an end of the shelf. Rule 5 is violated in answer
choice C, since the fig preserves are in jar 3 but the lychee preserves are not in
jar 5. Since A, B, C and D are eliminated, E must be the right answer.
8. C – Sometimes a question will appear difficult but is actually quite simple if
you follow the rules. What would preclude one of the preserves from being
placed in jar 7? If it is one of the preserves that must be to the left of another
preserve! Either date or lychee preserves would fit this criterion, so C is the
correct response.
9. A – When a question stem gives you two pieces of hypothetical information,
usually it is the second piece that is more helpful. Here, since the cherry
 preserves are to the left of the lychee preserves, then you can deduce that the
cherry preserves are in jar 1, since they must to be on one of the ends. That
still doesn’t tell you much about the rest of the jars. However, once you know
that the fig preserves are in jar 3, then by rule 5 the lychee preserves must be
in jar 5, and by rule 2 the date preserves must be in jar 2. Right away that
eliminates D and E. Also, since the apple preserves are to the right of the
lychee preserves, B cannot be true, and since you know that the date preserves
are in jar 2, then C, mango preserves in jar 2, cannot be true either. On this
question, there is no restriction against the grape preserves being in jar 6, so A
is correct.
10. E – Again, start with what you know about the hypothetical piece of
information. With the mango preserves in jar 6, the cherry preserves must
now be in jar 1 since they cannot be next to the mango preserves, yet they
must be on one of the ends. That eliminates answer choice B. Remember
what we learned in second question? Neither the date preserves nor the
lychee preserves can be in jar 7 since they both must be to the left of another
type of preserves. Often the deductions made for the early questions can be
very useful for later questions. Eliminate answer choices A and C. Of the
remaining three types of preserves, any of them COULD be in jar 7. Note that
the question asks for a complete and accurate list. In answer choice D, either
the fig or grape preserves could be in jar 7, but so could the apple preserves,
so E is the right answer.
11. D – If the cherry preserves must be next to the fig preserves, then they must
be in jar 7 and jar 6 respectively, since the cherry preserves must be on one of
the ends of the shelf and the fig preserves must be to the right of the date
preserves. If you put the cherry preserves in jar 1 and the fig preserves in jar
2, there would be nowhere to put the date preserves to the left of the fig
preserves. Now, bear in mind that when a question asks for what must be true,
that means it must be true at all times, not just that it could be true. Any of the
remaining preserves may or may not be in jar 5, except the lychee preserves,
since they must be to the left of the apple preserves. The only choice that
must be true is D; the lychee preserves are not in jar 5.
12. B – You certainly could solve this type of question by trying every answer
choice to see which one works. The smarter way to solve for the answer
choice that seems the most limiting, since that is the one that is most likely to
restrict you to a single possible set up. There are no rules regarding the grape
preserves, so A and D are unlikely to be correct. Furthermore, placing the
lychee and date preserves means that the apple and the fig preserves
respectively must be somewhere to their right, but we don’t know exactly
where, so C and E are probably not right. B should be tempting because it
gives you some significant limitations. Once the mango preserves are in jar 2,
then the cherry preserves must be in jar 7 since they cannot be next to the
mango yet must be on one end of the shelf. Also, once the fig preserves are in
jar 3, then the lychee preserves must be in jar 5, according to rule 5, and the
date preserves must be in jar 1, since they have to be to the left of the fig
preserves. Finally, since the apple preserves must be to the right of the lychee
preserves, they must be in jar 6, and the only remaining jar for the grape
preserves is jar 4. B is the correct response.
Section 2 – Logical Reasoning

1. D – We start with an easy question. The argument acknowledges that there are
several companies located on the banks of Green River, but then lays the blame
for the toxic chemicals squarely at the feet of Nopac because Nopac uses some of
the chemicals in question. However, there is no direct evidence linking Nopac to
the chemicals in the river, they are just as likely to come from one of the other
companies as they are to have come from Nopac. D is the choice that identifies
this error in reasoning and thus is the credited response. None of the other
choices comes close to describing this flaw.

2. E – Make sure you definitively connect the relationships here. The one thing we
know for sure is that all Italian cars are faster then all German cars and French
cars. With choice A, we don’t know how German and French cars compare. In
choice B, we don’t know if some American cars are faster than Italian cars (we do
know that some American cars are slower then some French cars, and thus are
slower than Italian cars). Choice C is another one that we don’t know the answer
to. Choice D is also wrong. We know that all Italian cars are faster than some
American cars, but we don’t know about all American cars. A – D all could be
true, but none of them have to be true. Since all Italian cars are faster than
German cars and some German cars are faster than some Swedish cars, than
Italian cars must be faster than at least those Swedish cars, and E must therefore
be true.

3. C – The tensile strength of the spider web is almost ten times its mass, so for the
web to hold an object that object must weigh less than ten times the spider web’s
weight. To conclude that a spider web could hold a rat involves the assumption
that rats do not weigh more than ten times the spider web. Choice C is correct.
Choice B may have caught your eye. Certainly, if the web can hold a rat, it seems
logical that it can hold something that weighs less then a rat. But the more
accurate and direct assumption that we need to assume is that the rat is not more
than ten times the weight of the web. Notice how choice C referred to both
elements, the weight of the rat and the weight of the web? Choice B did not refer
to both elements of the argument.

4. A – Parallel reasoning questions are definitely the harder questions on the LSAT.
Stay calm, stay focused, and dissect the argument. We are told as a fact that they
only way to get in without setting off the alarm is to use the code. Don’t dream
up conspiracy theories, like that the burglars are in league with the manager, or
that they snuck in before midnight and hid in the building. Accept it as fact that
there is only one way to get in, by using the code. Therefore, the burglars must
have known the security code because that is the only way they could have gotten
in without setting off the alarm that the manager set. Look for those same
elements in the correct answer. There is only one thing a person can do to
achieve a particular result. This person achieved that result; therefore they must
 have done that one thing. In A, the only way the student could get a perfect score
is if he knew all the answers before the test, much like the burglars had to know
the security code to get into the bank without setting off the alarm. A is the best
choice. Choice B does not match the pattern. It discusses two elements, knowing
where to find the diamonds, and having tools to break in. Choices C and D are
wrong, maybe this person didn’t know the cake was poisoned or the ranger
patrolled, or was just taking his chances that he wouldn’t be poisoned, or caught
by the ranger. Choice E is a more attractive wrong answer, but it doesn’t have the
right pattern. The argument pattern was that there is only one way to achieve a
goal, the goal was achieves, thus the person did the act that was necessary to
achieve the goal.

5. B – Tyrone believes that this candidate is not fit for office for the several reasons
stated. Ophelia believes that this candidate, despite his past, should be allowed to
serve if elected. Thus, they are committed to disagreeing about choice B. In
choice A they actually agree about this issue. As for choice C, Tyrone does not
say that a person must have a spotless record; he says this candidate has a bad
record. In regard to Choice D, we are not told about any other candidates.
Choice E is not something that Ophelia addresses.

6. D – The author asserts that ancient Sumerian warriors preferred long swords as
their weapon of choice because they were light and could be used a safer distance
from the enemy, so as not to expose the Sumerians to as much danger. However,
if D is true, and the majority of wounds to the Carpathians came from arrows, this
new fact undercuts the assertion that long swords were the weapons of choice. D
is correct. Choice A is somewhat appealing, but just because they used spears
frequently does not mean that the swords were not their first choice. Choices B
and C should have made you say, “so what?” Choice E would, at most, only
slightly weaken the historians’ assertion.

7. D – This is a classic contrapositive question. The argument states that if the

council relies solely on the donations of wealthy patrons, the museum will not
open anytime soon. By reversing and negating those terms, the contrapositive
would be that if the museum does open soon, other funding must have been
acquired. D is the best choice. Alternatively, view the argument as a series of
facts: the only source is private money, no public money has been sought, if rely
only on wealthy private patrons it will not open. Therefore…if the museum does
open, the money must have come from somewhere besides the wealthy private
patrons. Choice A misguidedly focuses on matching funds. Choice B is not
necessarily true. Choice C goes well beyond the facts, discussing bonds. Choice
E at least discusses something relevant, but it is not a conclusion that must be true
based on these facts.

8. C – Again, with assumption questions, find the assumption that connects the
evidence and the conclusion. Here, the evidence concerns the ability of human
children and chimpanzees to distinguish between different colors and shapes, and
 the conclusion is that their brains must develop at the same rate. Only choice C
links the ability to distinguish things and the conclusion about brain development.
Choice A provides “who cares” information. Choice B seems to contradict the
facts. Choice D is certainly a logical conclusion one could draw, but it is not an
assumption. Choice E brings up a totally new subject.

9. A – The correct answer here has to identify a flaw in the reasoning of the
conclusion. The correct answer should not simply dispute the facts of the
argument. The test makers regularly test the distinction between sufficient and
necessary conditions. Something–like feeling threatened–that is sufficient to
produce a result–make it hiss and bear its claws–is not by itself necessary to
produce this result. There may be other reasons that a cat would hiss and bear its
claws. Thus, it is not necessary that cats feel threatened, so A is the best choice.
Choice B is not a credited because it is a new fact, not a flaw in the logical
reasoning of the conclusion. Choice C is a criticism of the author’s knowledge,
but does not necessarily indicate a reasoning flaw. Choice D contradicts a fact,
which is not what you are supposed to do in a flawed reasoning question. Choice
E also is a new, contradictory fact.

10. B – Here, the author states that an encompassing physical presence needs to exist
before a thing can be properly considered “in” something else. Then the author
declares that “love” is not physical. The author then concludes that something
cannot be “in love”. For method of argument questions where the answer choices
use generic language, try to decide how the author made their argument before
you look at the choices so you will not be as tempted by the language of incorrect
choices like A or D. B is correct; she defines “in” as being a physical
phenomenon, and then defines “love” as being a non-physical phenomenon, so
the physical cannot be contained by this non-physical state. Choice A is wrong
because she did not argue that being in one state precluded being in the other
state, she argued that the physical could not be contained by the non-physical.
Choice C is wrong; there were not two conflicting emotions. Choice D is an
inscrutable answer; does she limit how her argument can be applied? No, she
goes to great lengths to define two words. Choice E, the evidence she offers
supports her conclusion, it does not prove her conclusion is absurd.

11. B – Here is another paradox question. The building contractor says he wants to
improve the architectural aesthetic of Main Street, yet he has torn down two
supposedly beautiful buildings. However, if the purpose of tearing down those
buildings is to replace them with something even more pleasing, as B states, then
that explains the paradox. Choice A does not address the aesthetic issue. Choice
C discusses history, but we are focusing on aesthetics. Choices D and E discuss
issues that are irrelevant to aesthetics.

12. E – To conclude that their would be no more divorces if couples fixed their
financial problems and infidelity requires the assumption that there are no
additional factors that could also cause a divorce. This is called a negative
 assumption, that something besides the two suggested causes is not present. You
should see at least a few of these on the LSAT. Focus on the key words in the
argument, “main reasons” and “no more” divorces. The argument states as fact
that these two reasons are the main reasons for divorce. It then assumes that these
are the only reasons people get divorces. Then it concludes that if you can
eliminate these two main reasons there will be no more divorce. Choice A is not
the necessary assumption; the argument discussed both issues together and did not
separate them. Choice B is not the necessary assumption; the argument never
ranks the reasons. Choice C is not the necessary assumption. Who knows, maybe
these couples do have financial problems, we don’t know and we don’t care. We
care about divorced couples. Choice D is not the necessary assumption, since it
brings up a totally new subject, marriage counseling.

13. D – The scientist believes that there may be elements smaller than neutrons,
electrons and protons, but they haven’t yet proven they exist. To bolster that
argument, you want a new fact that indicates that there are, in fact, elements that
are smaller than an electron. If D is true, this would strongly indicate that
something smaller than electrons do exist. Choice B would only partially
strengthen the argument. Choice A is irrelevant; we want things that are smaller
than electrons. Choices C and D discuss issues that are not related to the size of
this hypothesized matter.
Section 3 – Reading Comprehension

Constitutional interpretation
As is often the case, one of the four passages will discuss a legal topic. The
specific subject of the passage can vary widely. It may be the rights of American
Indians to tribal burial grounds, privacy of e-mails in the workplace, or, in this case,
constitutional interpretation. As with the other reading comprehension topics, it is not
important if you have no prior knowledge of the subject. The issues you will be
tested on are issues of format, not substance. That said, it is always nice to have a
passage on a subject that you are familiar with. Your familiarity helps you organize
the passage, deepening your comprehension.
This passage employs the opinionated observer technique. A subject, the two
ways to interpret the constitution, is presented, and is then illustrated with the
example of how slavery and desegregation cases were interpreted.

1. B – As is typical, the first question of the set is a main idea question. In this
example, don’t be fooled by choices that only address part of the issue. Both
A and E are close, but they both lack the central issue, strict vs. loose
constructionism. B must be the correct answer because it is the only choice
that mentions the main point about the constructionism debate, which is the
focus of the passage. You will occasionally see questions on the actual LSAT
where only one choice includes the necessary terms. This is a good example
of such a question. Choice A is overly broad; race relations were not the
issue. Choice C is overly narrow; the Warren court was just one court.
Choice D is too broad; the passage deals only with segregation cases. Choice
E is close, but this passage is not a mere history of the court, it is an
examination of a specific issue, how the court construes the constitution.
2. D – It is very important to read the question stem carefully, especially when
there are conflicting viewpoints in the passage. Even though the point of the
passage is how these cases support a loose constructionist approach, this
question asks why the strict constructionists would find Dred Scott favorable.
It is a bit tricky. They would approve of the decision because it employed a
narrow interpretation of the intent of the framers. Thus, D is the best choice.
Make sure you clearly distinguish between the different opinions and
viewpoints presented in the same passage, and beware of answer choices that
support the opposing view.
3. A – The entire point of discussing these three particular cases is that they
support the idea that the U.S. Supreme Court follows a loose constructionist
viewpoint, taking into consideration the issues of the day in making its
decisions. A is the correct choice, and again, the right answer is a pretty good
paraphrase of the main idea. Watch out for choices like D. Plessy and Brown
dealt with public accommodations, but Dred Scott did not. An answer choice
that is only partially correct is a red herring. Choices C and E don’t have any
support in the passage. Choice B is incorrect; the Warren court used a loose
interpretation.
4. C – To answer this type of question, you must read something more into the
language of the passage. The last paragraph states that the Congress that
passed the 14th Amendment could not have imagined black and white children
going to public school together. Thus, the Warren court had to factor in social
issues of the present time to make its decision, clearly a loose interpretation of
the Constitution. Answer choice C points out that this could not have been a
strict interpretation of the framers intent. Be careful with choice D. The
Brown decision was a logical next step in the evolution of the slavery and
segregation cases, not a logical extension of the 13th Amendment. The
passage seems to indicate that there was social acceptance for desegregation,
so choice E is wrong.
5. D – This is a vocabulary in the context question. Occasionally you will see a
question like this. Look to how the word is actually used in the sentence. The
last sentence of the first paragraph says that these three decisions support the
claim that judicial review follows a loose interpretation, not a strict one.
Support is the word that fits best in this sentence, and D is the best choice.
6. D – Often in reading comprehension different questions will focus on the
same issue. Notice how similar question 19 is to question 17. The whole
point is that the Warren court had to take into consideration a social issue
(blacks and whites schooling together) that the authors of the 14th Amendment
most likely never thought of. That’s why it was a loose constructionist
decision. D is the correct response. Don’t make comparisons that go beyond
the scope of the passage, like the one in answer choice E. There is no
indication of what social issues Congress may or may not have deemed
relevant when passing the 14th Amendment. Finally, although the writers of
the 14th Amendment did not foresee this issue, the author did not include this
information to criticize them, the author included it so as to illustrate the
Warren court’s loose interpretation. Thus, A and C are wrong.
7. A – Often the final question in the set is a main idea question, like this one.
The author begins by outlining the basic tenets of both the strict
constructionist view and the opposing loose constructionist view, and then
sets about defending the loose constructionist approach using the slavery and
segregation cases as supporting examples. The choice that best summarizes
that focus is A.
Immigration issues
This passage deals with a social science issue, immigration. Social sciences
passages can cover issues taken from the fields of economics, political science, and
others. It is normal to have one social science passage and one earth science passage.
This passage employs the neutral observer technique. Two, or three, theories of
an issue are presented and the author explores their strengths and weaknesses, but
does not recommend one theory over the other.
This passage discusses immigration. Often the LSAT will discuss a controversial
issue, like abortion, race-relations, drug decriminalization, and other hot-button
issues. Although immigration is not as controversial as some topics, it still fits under
the hot-button classification. The interpretation of the constitution passage could also
be classified as a controversial topic, since it the examples were all drawn from racial
charged issues. It is likely that the LSAT uses these controversial subjects in order to
test your ability to focus on the issue at hand, instead of becoming distracted by the
controversy. Since lawyers and judges have to do this in the practice of law, it is fair
to test your ability to do it.

8. C – This is an especially tricky main idea question, because you don’t really
get a true sense of the author’s opinion until the last paragraph. This is a
rarity in reading comprehension, but it can happen. View the passage as a
whole and ask yourself what the purpose is. The author seems to think that
both Hilliard and Braun are partially right, and the proper way to address the
issue of illegal immigration lies somewhere between their two opinions.
Choice A focuses solely on Hilliard’s view, while D focuses solely on Braun’s
view. Choice C finds the middle ground that the author espouses in the final
paragraph. Choice B and choice E discuss things that are not directly
mentioned in the passage, and so there is no way they can be the main idea.
9. A – Hilliard’s study is discussed in paragraph two, and he clearly believes that
illegal immigrants can be good, productive members of their communities
based on his study. He further asserts that they should be given the same sort
of rights and privileges afforded to naturalized citizens. Hence, he would
support a program offering some benefit to illegal immigrants for the
contribution that they make. Choice A is exactly the type of program that
Hilliard would encourage based on his study. Choice D isn’t bad, but there is
never a discussion of making it easier for these illegal immigrants to go back
to their native countries, so A is definitely better, and on the LSAT, it’s the
best choice that is correct. Choice B is not relevant to anything in the passage.
Choices C and E would be favored by Braun.
10. B – Once again, when two opinions are presented in a passage, make sure you
know who said what. Also, read the question carefully. Braun’s study is
discussed in the third paragraph, and his thesis is that the U.S. loses tax money
because working illegal immigrants do not pay them. Since Braun’s study
was done in Texas and Arizona, B is the correct choice. Don’t be fooled by E,
which is the basic premise of Hilliard. Choices A and C are wrong, there was
no discussion of the types of jobs. There was no discussion to support
choice D.
11. E – When more than one viewpoint is expressed, make sure you understand
what the author’s viewpoint is, since that is the most important one. The
author doesn’t really seem to be for or against illegal immigration. Rather, the
author understands that it is an important issue and must be dealt with. By
eliminating any choices that are too positive or too negative, you can quickly
narrow the choices down to E. Sometimes using the process of elimination
allows you to throw out four choices, leaving the correct answer! Also, in
neutral observer passages, the author’s attitude is going to be neutral.
12. B – Use the topic sentence of the paragraph to help answer the question. Even
if you aren’t sure what “entrenchment and contribution” means, you know that
the second paragraph is about Hilliard, who favors illegal immigrants and
believes that they have something to offer their community. So, look for an
answer choice that has something positive to say. Hilliard addresses the fact
that many immigrants stay in the U.S. for at least a generation and contribute
to their local economy. Choice B most closely captures this idea. Avoid
answer choices that simply throw in a phrase from the passage. Hilliard
mentioned squatter’s rights, but choice A clearly does not work here.
13. C – If you create a skeleton outline of the passage, you can get a clear sense of
what each paragraph contributes. Here, the purpose of the fourth paragraph is
to finally tell you what the author thinks about the issue of illegal
immigration. The author believes that state and local governments need to
find a balance between Hilliard’s approach and that of Braun, which were
discussed in paragraphs two and three respectively. Choice C is the best
response. Again, look out for extreme language like “impossible” in choice D
– that is typically the mark of a wrong answer. Choice E is wrong; how could
the author give unqualified support two contradicting theories? Choices A
and B are wrong, in a neutral observer passage, the author does not favor one
of the theories over the other.
14. D – A skeleton outline would be helpful here as well. The author lays out the
findings of Hilliard’s study, then lays out the findings of Braun’s study, and
then suggests the best course of action for state and local governments to
address the illegal immigration issue. The author acknowledged the
importance of the issue in paragraph one. The answer choice that most
follows this skeleton outline is D.
Section 4 – Logical Reasoning

1. C – Choices A and E are bad conclusions, you cannot infer what Adrianna will do
or what the standard policy at Hart Airport may be. However, it is true that the
flight Adrianna’s mother is on will not land until at least two hours from now, but it
is scheduled to arrive in the next hour. Thus, you can easily infer that her mother’s
flight will not arrive at its scheduled time, and C is the credited response. Choice B
brings up a totally new issue (which you should not do when making a conclusion)
concerning the pilot’s capabilities. Choice D discusses things that will happen after
the two-hour period that we have information about. So it would be a very weak
conclusion if we were to discuss things that happen later than two hours.

2. D – Be careful with conclusion questions. Some of the uncredited answer choices

are true, but they are evidence, not the conclusion. For choice A, it is true that the
judges are too harsh in their sentencing, but that is not the main point. As to choice
B, it is true that the judges have too much discretion in sentencing, but that is not
the main point. The main point is that the legislature should thus enact new
sentencing guidelines to deal with this problem. D is the correct answer. Do you
see how D has both elements, legislating new guidelines and preventing overly
harsh sentences? That is why D is the best main point answer choice. Answer
choices C and E are off the subject.

3. E – The two specified requirements of the code of conduct are that the captured
soldier does not divulge any information about the location of his troops or combat
strategy and that he tries to escape from his captors whenever possible. Here, we
know that Private Adams escaped at the first opportunity, so he performed the
second requirement, but we don’t know whether or not he told his captors anything.
To strengthen the conclusion that he did adhere to the code, we would want to know
that he met the first requirement also. In choice E, he did not communicate with his
captors in any way, so this strengthens the conclusion. Choice A doesn’t even
address either of the two requirements, so it was easy to eliminate. Choice B is
somewhat more related, but again, does not indicate if Adams told his captors any
information. Choice C is wrong because the conclusion was about Private Adams,
not his allies. For choice D, we don’t care about his previous performance; we want
to know about his performance this time.

4. C – Jane chose to shop at Tam’s Grocery, which is neither the farthest nor the
closest store to her house, but it does have the largest selection of fresh fruit. So a
principle stating that a shopper should go where there is the greatest selection of the
item they seek, as C states, would justify her decision. C is the credited response.
Make sure to read the question carefully. A and D might sound good, but they
justify going to Mi T-Mart and Yummy Organics respectively. Often wrong answer
choices will focus on the different parts of the stimulus than the question focuses
on. Choice B is new information. Choice D would not justify her going only to
Tam’s.
5. B – The archaeologist’s concludes that earlier estimates are incorrect because the
carbon-dating tests indicate the pottery is fifty years older then they initially
estimated. The carbon dating showed the ceramic pottery to be from 450 A.D.,
some fifty years before the previous estimates of the earliest usage. However, if
carbon dating technology has a margin of error of 60 years, then the pottery found
by the archaeologist could really be from 510 A.D. If so, the previous estimates are
not wrong. Choice B most weakens the argument. Choice A contradicts a fact in
the argument. Choice C doesn’t add any new information of value. Choice D is
irrelevant; it discusses Indonesia. Choice E is irrelevant because it discusses
previous archeologists.

6. A – The author touts the benefits of water and then wonders aloud how humans
could drown when their bodies are made up of a significant amount of water. What
he fails to consider is that too much water could be harmful instead of beneficial.
There is no discussion of how much water the human body can really withstand.
That is the primary flaw in the argument and A is the best choice. Because choice
A discusses quantity, it is a better choice than B, which is a bit too vague. Choice C
is wrong because the flaw had nothing to do with the benefits of water. Choice D
and E are irrelevant.

7. D – Again, before you look at the answer choices on this question type, decide how
the argument is made. Carolyn compares leasing a car to renting an apartment in
order to make her point that building ownership equity should be a major
consideration when buying versus leasing a car. Analogy is a synonym for
comparison, which indicates that D is the correct response. Despite her statement
that David must work for a leasing agent, Carolyn does not base the logic of her
argument on his motivation. Choices B and C are wrong because Carolyn
introduces a new consideration; she does not critique the method of David’s
argument. Choice E is wrong because it does not appeal to authority. If, for
example, Carolyn had said that nine out of ten economists say that leasing is bad,
then she would have appealed to authority.

8. B – David argues that someone interested in owning a car should lease instead of
buy because the payments are cheaper and the interest rate is lower. Carolyn argues
that they should buy instead of lease so as to build equity. Thus, they disagree
about whether a person should buy instead of lease. Choices A and C are wrong,
since these issues were only discussed by Carolyn. Choice D is wrong because
Carolyn did not argue about interest rates. Choice E is also an issue that is
discussed only by Carolyn.

9. C – Read parallel reasoning arguments very carefully. The trick here is that the first
sentence refers to highly-paid CEOs, whereas Steve is only identified as a CEO–
with no mention of whether he is highly paid or not. It is a logical flaw to conclude
something about Steve (who may not be a highly-paid CEO) based on what is true
only for highly-paid CEOs. Look for the answer choice that commits the same type
 of flaw. In choice C, Han is only identified as a doctor, not a well-trained doctor,
and the rest of the logic is the same as the given, so C is the credited response.
Look out for choices that correct the flaw. Choice D has Sanjay as a world-class
cricket player (like highly-paid CEO), which makes for a logical argument, but
Steve was not identified as being highly paid, so D is not parallel. Choice A is
wrong because it does not identify a specific type of attorney. Choices B and E do
not even slightly follow the pattern of the argument.

10. A – This is another negative assumption. For the author to conclude that the killer
whale is a natural predator of the great white shark on the basis of this one attack, it
must be assumed that the killer whale was not attacking the shark for some other
reason–such as the defense of the baby whale. If that were the case, then the attack
does not prove that the killer whale is a predator of the great white shark and the
argument would be weakened. That is one way to test an assumption answer
choice. If it is a good assumption, when you take the opposite of that assumption it
should weaken the argument. Choices B, C and E were completely off-target.
Choice D was irrelevant, since it discusses other shark species, not great whites.

11. E – It is stated as fact that the impact of a large meteor on the Earth would
definitely cause widespread global flooding. So, if no such flooding occurs in the
year 2010, then such a meteor did not strike the Earth and E is logically inferable.
This is another example of the contrapositive in action. The LSAT test makers are
fond of testing this concept. Why is choice A wrong? It gets a bit picky. If there is
global flooding it is possible that a meteor caused it, but it is also possible that
something else caused the flooding.

12. D – The author concludes that Canadians must have higher cholesterol than people
other parts of the world based on the fact that Canadian bacon has high fat and
sodium content and those factors contribute to high cholesterol. If choice D is true,
and the countries of Latin America eat more Canadian bacon, on average, than
anywhere else in the world, then by the author’s own logic Latin Americans should
have higher cholesterol levels than Canadians. Choices A and E are, “so what?”
choices. Choice B would strengthen the conclusion that Canadians have higher
cholesterol. Choice C discusses a different kind of food.