LSat Study Set

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? A. People who are ill deserve more consideration than do healthy people, regardless of their relative socioeconomic positions. B. Wealthy institutions have an obligation to expend at least some of their resources to assist those incapable of assisting themselves. C. Whether one deserves special consideration depends on one's needs rather than on characteristics of the society to which one belongs. D. The people in wealthy nations should not have better access to health care than do the people in poorer nations. E. Unequal access to health care is more unfair than an unequal distribution of wealth.

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.

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? A. Bridges built before about 1907 were built without thorough mathematical analysis and, therefore, were unsafe for the public to use. B. Cooper's absence from the Quebec Bridge construction site resulted in the breaking off of the cantilever. C. Nineteenth-century bridge engineers relied on their rules of thumb because analytical methods were inadequate to solve their design problems. D. Only a more rigorous application of mathematical analysis to the design of the Quebec Bridge could have prevented its collapse. E. Prior to 1907 the mathematical analysis incorporated in engineering rules of thumb was insufficient to completely assure the safety of bridges under construction.

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.

From a group of seven people—J, K, L, M, N, P, and Q—exactly four will be selected to attend a diplomat's retirement dinner. Selection conforms to the following conditions: Either J or K must be selected, but J and K cannot both be selected. Either N or P must be selected, but N and P cannot both be selected. N cannot be selected unless L is selected. Q cannot be selected unless K is selected. There is only one acceptable group of four that can be selected to attend the retirement dinner if which one of the following pairs of people is selected? A. J and L B. K and M C. L and N D. L and Q E. M and Q

The way in which this question is phrased is rather complex, and so it is important to get very clear what exactly is being asked. Unlike other questions which give you a new supposition to consider in conjunction with the original conditions, this question asks you to determine what is needed, in addition to the original conditions, to guarantee that only one group of four is acceptable. One way to approach this question is to consider each option individually, and determine for each option whether only one acceptable group of four can be selected when the pair indicated in the option is selected. You may wish to vary the order in which the options are considered according to personal preferences. In the discussion here, we will consider the answer choices in order from (A) through to (E). Choice (A): When both J and L are selected, K cannot be selected (first condition). Consequently Q cannot be selected (fourth condition). More than one group of four is acceptable under these circumstances, however: J, L, M, and N may be selected, and J, L, M, and P may be selected. Choice (B): When K and M are both selected, J cannot be selected (first condition). Other than that, anyone else could be selected. This leaves more than one acceptable group of four. K, L, M, and N may be selected; K, L, M, and P may be selected; and K, M, P, and Q may be selected. Choice (C): When L and N are both selected, P cannot be selected (second condition), but, as in the case of option (B), anyone else can be selected. This leaves more than one acceptable group of four: J, L, M, and N may be selected; K, L, M, and N may be selected; and K, L, N, and Q may be selected. Choice (D): When L and Q are both selected, K must be selected (fourth condition). Consequently J cannot be selected (first condition). Either N or P must be selected (second condition), and there is nothing that rules out either N or P from being selected here. So, more than one group of four is acceptable under these circumstances: K, L, N, and Q may be selected, and K, L, P, and Q may be selected. Choice (E): When M and Q are both selected, K must be selected (fourth condition), and hence J cannot be selected (first condition). Furthermore, N cannot be selected: if N were selected, then L would also have to be selected (third condition), and this would violate the restriction that exactly four people are to be selected. And since N cannot be selected, P must be selected (second condition). Thus when M and Q are both selected, both K and P must be selected as well, and only one group of four—K, M, P, and Q—is acceptable. (E) is therefore the correct response. This was a very difficult question, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.

On a particular Saturday, a student will perform six activities—grocery shopping, hedge trimming, jogging, kitchen cleaning, laundry, and motorbike servicing. Each activity will be performed once, one at a time. The order in which the activities are performed is subject to the following conditions: Grocery shopping has to be immediately after hedge trimming. Kitchen cleaning has to be earlier than grocery shopping. Motorbike servicing has to be earlier than laundry. Motorbike servicing has to be either immediately before or immediately after jogging. If laundry is earlier than kitchen cleaning, then hedge trimming must be A. fifth B. fourth C. third D. second E. first

This problem is concerned with determining the order in which six activities will be performed. As with many questions involving relative ordering or ranking, it is likely that you will find it useful to diagram the various relationships given in the passage. The first condition in the passage tells us that grocery shopping has to be immediately after hedge trimming, which we can abbreviate as follows: 1. HG The second condition tells us that kitchen cleaning has to be earlier than grocery shopping, which we can abbreviate as follows, where "..." is used to represent "earlier than" (which means any time before, including immediately before): 2. K ... G The third condition tells us that motorbike servicing has to be earlier than laundry, and the fourth condition tells us that motorbike servicing has to be either immediately before or immediately after jogging. These conditions can be abbreviated as follows, where the / symbol is used to represent "or": 3. M ... L 4. MJ / JM Notice that the information specified in these four conditions can be collapsed into two ordering statements: I. K ... HG (first and second conditions) II. MJ / JM ... L (third and fourth conditions) Question 7 introduces the new supposition "laundry is earlier than kitchen cleaning": L ... K This new supposition works to further collapse the ordering statements in I and II to the single statement below; that is, if L must be earlier than K, then we know that the activities must be ordered like this: MJ / JM ... L ... K ... HG So, with the addition of the new supposition, there are exactly two possible orderings of the six activities, differing only with respect to whether motorbike servicing is immediately before or immediately after jogging: 1 2 3 4 5 6 M J L K H G J M L K H G Question 7 asks what position hedge trimming must be in, given the new supposition. What we see here is that hedge trimming must be the fifth activity performed, and so answer choice (A) is correct. This was an easy question, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT. The most commonly selected incorrect answer choices were response (B) and response (C).

From a group of seven people—J, K, L, M, N, P, and Q—exactly four will be selected to attend a diplomat's retirement dinner. Selection conforms to the following conditions: Either J or K must be selected, but J and K cannot both be selected. Either N or P must be selected, but N and P cannot both be selected. N cannot be selected unless L is selected. Q cannot be selected unless K is selected. If P is not selected to attend the retirement dinner, then exactly how many different groups of four are there each of which would be an acceptable selection? A. one B. two C. three D. four E. five

This question adds a new supposition to the original set of conditions—"P is not selected to attend the retirement dinner." The task is to determine all of the different possible selections that are compatible with this new supposition. A compatible solution is one that violates neither the new supposition nor the original conditions. Since the second condition states "[e]ither N or P must be selected ...," we can infer from the new supposition (P is not selected) and the second condition (either N or P, but not both, is selected) that N is selected. And since N is selected, we know from the third condition that L is selected. In other words every acceptable selection must include both L and N. We are now in a good position to enumerate the groups of four which would be acceptable selections. The first condition specifies that either J or K, but not both, must be selected. So you need to consider the case where J (but not K) is selected and the case in which K (but not J) is selected. Let's first consider the case where J (but not K) is selected. In this case, Q is not selected, since the fourth condition tells you that if K is not selected, then Q cannot be selected either. Since exactly four people must be selected, and since P, K, and Q are not selected, M, the only remaining person, must be selected. Since M's selection does not violate any of the conditions or the new supposition, N, L, J, and M is an acceptable selection; in fact, it is the only acceptable selection when K is not selected. So far we have one acceptable selection, but we must now examine what holds in the case where K is selected. Suppose that K is selected. In this case J is not selected, but Q may or may not be selected. If Q is selected, it is part of an acceptable selection—N, L, K, and Q. If Q is not selected, remembering that J and P are also not selected, M must be selected. This gives us our final acceptable selection—N, L, K, and M. Thus there are exactly three different groups of four which make up acceptable selections, and (C) is the correct response. This was a difficult question, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.

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? A. bases a prediction of the intensity of a phenomenon on information about the intensity of that phenomenon's cause B. 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 C. infers a statistical generalization from claims about a large number of specific instances D. uses a case in which direct evidence is available to draw a conclusion about an analogous case in which direct evidence is unavailable E. bases a prediction about future events on facts about recent comparable events

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.

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 A. confuses the conditions necessary for political freedom with the conditions sufficient to bring it about B. fails to consider that a substantial increase in the level of political freedom might cause a society to become more democratic C. appeals to historical examples that are irrelevant to the causal claim being made D. overlooks the possibility that democracy promotes political freedom without being necessary or sufficient by itself to produce it E. bases its historical case on a personal point of view

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.

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? A. No one who is a feminist is also politically conservative. B. No poet who writes unrhymed or unmetered poetry is politically conservative. C. No one who is politically progressive is capable of performing a politically conservative act. D. Anyone who sometimes writes poetry that is not politically conservative never writes poetry that is politically conservative. E. 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.

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.

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 A. derives its significance in part from its providing new technologies B. expands the boundaries of our knowledge of medicine C. should have the saving of human lives as an important goal D. has its most valuable achievements in medical applications E. has any value apart from its role in providing new technologies to save lives

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.

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? A. The ancient Romans were adept at constructing and maintaining aqueducts that could carry quantities of water sufficient to supply large cities over considerable distances. B. 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. C. Water power was relatively vulnerable to sabotage, but any damage could be quickly and inexpensively repaired. D. In most areas to which the use of water power was not extended, other, more traditional sources of energy continued to be used. E. 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.

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.

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? A. Most supernova remnants that astronomers have detected have a neutron star nearby. B. Sensitive astronomical instruments have detected neutron stars much farther away than the location of the 1987 supernova. C. The supernova of 1987 was the first that scientists were able to observe in progress. D. Several important features of the 1987 supernova are correctly predicted by the current theory. E. Some neutron stars are known to have come into existence by a cause other than a supernova explosion.

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.

On a particular Saturday, a student will perform six activities—grocery shopping, hedge trimming, jogging, kitchen cleaning, laundry, and motorbike servicing. Each activity will be performed once, one at a time. The order in which the activities are performed is subject to the following conditions: Grocery shopping has to be immediately after hedge trimming. Kitchen cleaning has to be earlier than grocery shopping. Motorbike servicing has to be earlier than laundry. Motorbike servicing has to be either immediately before or immediately after jogging. Which one of the following, if substituted for the condition that motorbike servicing has to be earlier than laundry, would have the same effect in determining the order of the student's activities? A. Laundry has to be one of the last three activities. B. Laundry has to be either immediately before or immediately after jogging. C. Jogging has to be earlier than laundry. D. Laundry has to be earlier than hedge trimming. E. Laundry has to be earlier than jogging.

This question asks you to select the condition which, if substituted for the third condition in the passage (repeated below), would have the same effect as the original condition. Third condition: Motorbike servicing has to be earlier than laundry. In this case, you can deduce that the correct answer choice is (C): (C) Jogging has to be earlier than laundry. The fourth condition in the passage tells you that motorbike servicing has to be either immediately before or immediately after jogging. That is, M and J must be ordered as a block, either MJ or JM, with respect to the other four activities. Thus, if, as the original third condition states, M has to be earlier than L, then we know that J must also be earlier than L. Conversely, if, as the new condition in answer choice (C) states, J has to be earlier than L, then we know that M must also be earlier than L. In short, the third condition and answer choice (C) have exactly the same effect. Therefore, answer choice (C) is correct. Another way to approach this kind of question is to attempt to eliminate all of the incorrect answer choices. Under this approach, you want to rule out any answer choice that does either of the following: rules out outcomes that the original condition allows allows outcomes that the original condition rules out Let's see how this approach would enable us to eliminate answer choices (A), (B), (D), and (E). Consider the condition presented in answer choice (A): (A) Laundry has to be one of the last three activities. We can first ask whether this condition would rule out outcomes that the original third condition allows. To answer this question, we must simply determine whether there is an outcome allowed by the original third condition along with the other conditions in which laundry is one of the first three activities. Here is such an outcome: 1 2 3 4 5 6 M J L K H G Because the original third condition allows this outcome, but the condition in answer choice (A) does not, answer choice (A) cannot be correct. Consider answer choice (B): (B) Laundry has to be either immediately before or immediately after jogging. Again, we want to first determine whether this new condition would rule out outcomes that the original third condition allows. To answer this question, we must simply determine whether there is at least one outcome allowed by the original third condition along with the other conditions in which laundry is neither immediately before nor immediately after jogging. Here is one such outcome: 1 2 3 4 5 6 K H G J M L This outcome, although allowed by the original third condition, would be ruled out by the alternative condition given in answer choice (B). Thus, answer choice (B) cannot be correct. Next consider answer choice (D): (D) Laundry has to be earlier than hedge trimming. Again, we want to first determine whether this new condition would rule out outcomes that the original third condition allows. To answer this question, we must simply determine whether there is at least one outcome allowed by the original third condition along with the other conditions in which laundry is not earlier than hedge trimming. One such outcome was given immediately above: since L is not earlier than H in this outcome, it would be ruled out by the condition in answer choice (D). So, answer choice (D) rules out an outcome that the original third condition allows, and therefore (D) cannot be the correct answer choice. Finally, consider answer choice (E): (E) Laundry has to be earlier than jogging. Again, we want to first determine whether having this new condition would rule out outcomes that are allowed when the original third condition is in place. To answer this question, we must simply determine whether there is at least one outcome allowed by the original third condition along with the other conditions in which laundry is not earlier than jogging. One such outcome was given above: since L is not earlier than J in this outcome, it would be ruled out by the condition presented in answer choice (E). So, answer choice (E) rules out an outcome that the original third condition allows, and therefore (E) cannot be the correct answer choice. In sum, answer choices (A), (B), (D), and (E) can all be eliminated because in each case the condition is one that rules out outcomes that the original condition allows. For this particular question, there was no need to consider whether any of the options could be eliminated because they allowed outcomes that the original condition ruled out. This question was of middle difficulty, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT. The most commonly selected incorrect answer choices were response (A) and response (B).

A university library budget committee must reduce exactly five of eight areas of expenditure—G, L, M, N, P, R, S, and W—in accordance with the following conditions: If both G and S are reduced, W is also reduced. If N is reduced, neither R nor S is reduced. If P is reduced, L is not reduced. Of the three areas L, M, and R, exactly two are reduced. If both M and R are reduced, which one of the following is a pair of areas neither of which could be reduced? A. G, L B. G, N C. L, N D. L, P E. P, S

This question concerns a committee's decision about which five of eight areas of expenditure to reduce. The question requires you to suppose that M and R are among the areas that are to be reduced, and then to determine which pair of areas could not also be among the five areas that are reduced. The fourth condition given in the passage on which this question is based requires that exactly two of M, R, and L are reduced. Since the question asks us to suppose that both M and R are reduced, we know that L must not be reduced: Reduced: M, R Not reduced: L The second condition requires that if N is reduced, neither R nor S is reduced. So N and R cannot both be reduced. Here, since R is reduced, we know that N cannot be. Thus, adding this to what we've determined so far, we know that L and N are a pair of areas that cannot both be reduced if both M and R are reduced: Reduced: M, R Not reduced: L, N Answer choice (C) is therefore the correct answer, and you are done. When you are taking the test, if you have determined the correct answer, there is no need to rule out the other answer choices. However, for our purposes in this section, it might be instructive to go over the incorrect answer choices. For this question, each of the incorrect answer choices can be ruled out by finding a possible outcome in which at least one of the two areas listed in that answer choice are reduced. Consider answer choice (A), which lists the pair G and L. We already know that for this question L must be one of the areas that is not reduced, so all we need to consider is whether G can be one of the areas that is reduced. Here's one such possible outcome: Reduced: M, R, G, S, W If areas M, R, G, S, W are reduced, then the supposition for the question holds and all of the conditions in the passage are met: M and R are both reduced, as supposed for this question. Both G and S are reduced, and W is also reduced, so the first condition is satisfied. N is not reduced, so the second condition is not relevant. P is not reduced, so the third condition is not relevant. Exactly two of L, M, and R are reduced, so the fourth condition is satisfied. Thus, since G could be reduced without violating the conditions, answer choice (A) can be ruled out. Furthermore, since G appears in the pair listed in answer choice (B), we can also see that (B) is incorrect. Now let's consider answer choice (D), which lists the pair L and P. We already know that for this question L must be one of the areas that is not reduced, so all we need to consider is whether P can be one of the areas that is reduced. Here's one such possible outcome: Reduced: M, R, P, S, W If areas M, R, P, S, and W are reduced, then the supposition for the question holds and all of the conditions in the passage are met: M and R are both reduced, as supposed for this question. G is not reduced, so the first condition is not relevant. N is not reduced, so the second condition is not relevant. P is reduced and L is not reduced, so the third condition is satisfied. Exactly two of L, M, and R are reduced, so the fourth condition is satisfied. Thus, since P could be reduced without violating the conditions, answer choice (D) can be ruled out. Furthermore, since P appears in the pair listed in answer choice (E), we can also see that answer choice (E) is incorrect. This question was of moderate difficulty, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT. The most commonly selected incorrect answer choice was response (E).

Seven piano students—T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z—are to give a recital, and their instructor is deciding the order in which they will perform. Each student will play exactly one piece, a piano solo. In deciding the order of performance, the instructor must observe the following restrictions: X cannot play first or second. W cannot play until X has played. Neither T nor Y can play seventh. Either Y or Z must play immediately after W plays. V must play either immediately after or immediately before U plays. If V plays first, which one of the following must be true? A. T plays sixth. B. X plays third. C. Z plays seventh. D. T plays immediately after Y. E. W plays immediately after X.

This question deals with an ordering relationship defined by a set of conditions concerning when seven piano students will perform. As an aid in visualizing this problem you can draw a simple diagram that shows the seven recital slots arranged in order from left to right. Student V is shown in the first slot, as specified by the supposition that "V plays first": 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 V We can immediately fill in one of the empty slots in the diagram. The condition that "V must play either immediately after or immediately before U plays" tells us that U must occupy the second slot in the recital schedule. This is shown below: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 V U Since the question asks us what must be true, we can eliminate incorrect responses by showing that they could be false. Response (A) is incorrect because the statement that "T plays sixth" is not necessarily true—we can place T in one of the slots other than sixth and still meet all the conditions of the problem. One such recital schedule, with T playing third, is shown in the diagram below: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 V U T X W Y Z This schedule can be derived as follows: With V, U, and T in the first three positions, there are four positions left for W, X, Y, and Z. W must come after X—because of the condition that "W cannot play until X has played"—so if X is fourth and W is fifth, this condition will be met. This leaves two possible slots for Y and Z. Y cannot play seventh because of the condition that "Neither T nor Y can play seventh." Suppose, then, that Y is sixth and Z is seventh. A check will verify that this schedule meets the conditions of the problem, including the one that "Either Y or Z must play immediately after W plays." The schedule shown in the diagram also demonstrates that response (B) is incorrect. In it, X plays fourth, so it is not correct that the statement, "X plays third," must be true. Response (C), "Z plays seventh," is the credited response. We can show Z must be seventh by demonstrating that: all the conditions can be met with Z in the seventh slot, and some of the conditions would be violated with Z in any slot other than seventh. To demonstrate that Z can play seventh, you can refer to the schedule that was developed for the discussion of response (A), above. In it, Z plays seventh, and the supposition given in the question and all the conditions in the passage are met. To demonstrate that Z cannot play in a slot other than seventh, we can attempt to find another student to play seventh. We already know that neither U nor V can play seventh. Hence, there are four remaining players: T, W, X, and Y. However, a review of the conditions shows that none of those players can play seventh: The third condition states that "Neither T nor Y can play seventh." W can't play seventh, because there must be a slot following W's in order to meet the condition, "Either Y or Z must play immediately after W plays." If W plays seventh, then there is no such slot left for Y or Z. For a similar reason X can't play seventh, because there must be a slot following X's in order to meet the condition, "W cannot play until X has played." Since Z can play seventh and no other player can, then the statement that Z must play seventh is correct and (C) is the credited response. Response (D) is incorrect because it is not necessarily true that "T plays immediately after Y." In our discussion of response (A), we developed a schedule in which T plays third and Y plays sixth, yet all conditions are satisfied. Response (E) is incorrect because, as shown in the diagram below, it is not necessarily true that "W plays immediately after X." This schedule is obtained by simply reversing the order of players W and Y in the schedule we developed in the analysis of response (A). A review will show that all of the suppositions given in the question and all the conditions in the passage are met by this schedule: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 V U T X W Y Z This was a difficult question, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT. The most commonly selected incorrect answer choices were (B) and (E). In answering this question, it is important to derive information not explicitly mentioned in the passage, such as that W cannot perform seventh.

A charitable foundation awards grants in exactly four areas—medical services, theater arts, wildlife preservation, and youth services—each grant being in one of these areas. One or more grants are awarded in each of the four quarters of a calendar year. Additionally, over the course of a calendar year, the following must obtain: Grants are awarded in all four areas. No more than six grants are awarded. No grants in the same area are awarded in the same quarter or in consecutive quarters. Exactly two medical services grants are awarded. A wildlife preservation grant is awarded in the second quarter. If a wildlife preservation grant and a youth services grant are awarded in the same quarter of a particular calendar year, then any of the following could be true that year EXCEPT: A. A medical services grant is awarded in the second quarter. B. A theater arts grant is awarded in the first quarter. C. A theater arts grant is awarded in the second quarter. D. A wildlife preservation grant is awarded in the fourth quarter. E. A youth services grant is awarded in the third quarter.

This question deals with the awarding of grants during the quarters of a calendar year. As an aid in visualizing this problem, we can set up a simple table with columns representing the four quarters. Since the fifth condition in the passage states that "[a] wildlife preservation grant is awarded in the second quarter," we know that all possible solutions for any question based on the passage must include a wildlife preservation grant awarded in the second quarter, which we can represent like this: 1 2 3 4 W The particular question here begins with the added supposition that "a wildlife preservation grant and a youth services grant are awarded in the same quarter of a particular calendar year." One possible way this could be satisfied is to have a youth services grant awarded in the second quarter in addition to the wildlife grant awarded in that quarter: 1 2 3 4 W Y Another possibility would be to have a wildlife preservation grant and a youth services grant both being awarded in some quarter other than the second quarter. Given the condition that "[n]o grants in the same area are awarded in the same quarter or in consecutive quarters," the only quarter in which a wildlife preservation grant could be awarded in addition to the second quarter is the fourth quarter. So the only alternative way to satisfy the added supposition is if both a wildlife preservation grant and a youth services grant are awarded in the fourth quarter: 1 2 3 4 W W Y So far, then, we've determined that for this question there must be a youth services grant awarded in the second quarter or the fourth quarter. Each of the incorrect answer choices for this question is a statement that could be true. The question asks you to identify the exception; that is, you need to find the statement that cannot be true. The correct answer choice is (E), which states: "A youth services grant is awarded in the third quarter." This could not be true without violating the third condition, which specifies that "[n]o grants in the same area are awarded in the same quarter or in consecutive quarters." We saw above that a youth services grant must either be awarded in the second quarter or the fourth quarter. On either possibility, awarding a youth services grant in the third quarter would result in two consecutive quarters where the youth services grant is awarded: 1 2 3 4 W Y Y or: 1 2 3 4 W Y W Y In both cases, two youth services grants would be awarded in consecutive quarters, in violation of the third condition. To see that each of the other answer choices could be true, it will suffice to construct a possible outcome for each one that is consistent with the supposition given in the question and the conditions in the passage. Consider the following possible outcome: 1 2 3 4 T M W Y T M A quick check of the conditions shows that this satisfies all of the conditions for the problem: A wildlife preservation grant and a youth services grant are awarded in the same quarter of a particular calendar year. Grants are awarded in all four areas. (The table includes at least one of each of the four letters—M, T, W, and Y.) No more than six grants are awarded. (The table contains exactly six entries.) No grants in the same area are awarded in the same quarter or in consecutive quarters. (In the table above, only T and M are repeated, and neither repetition appears in the same or consecutive columns.) Exactly two medical services grants are awarded. (The table contains exactly two M's, in columns 2 and 4.) A wildlife preservation grant is awarded in the second quarter. Notice that in this possible outcome, a medical services grant is awarded in the second quarter (answer choice (A)) and a theater arts grant is awarded in the first quarter (answer choice (B)). So answer choices (A) and (B) are both incorrect. Now consider the following possible outcome: 1 2 3 4 M T W M W Y A check of the conditions shows that this satisfies the supposition and all of the conditions. In this outcome, a theater arts grant is awarded in the second quarter (answer choice (C)) and a wildlife preservation grant is awarded in the fourth quarter (answer choice (D)). So answer choices (C) and (D) are also incorrect. This was a difficult question, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT. The most commonly selected incorrect answer choice for this question was response (A).

Seven piano students—T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z—are to give a recital, and their instructor is deciding the order in which they will perform. Each student will play exactly one piece, a piano solo. In deciding the order of performance, the instructor must observe the following restrictions: X cannot play first or second. W cannot play until X has played. Neither T nor Y can play seventh. Either Y or Z must play immediately after W plays. V must play either immediately after or immediately before U plays. If U plays third, what is the latest position in which Y can play? A. first B. second C. fifth D. sixth E. seventh

This question involves the same original conditions as the previous problem, but it begins with an additional supposition: "U plays third." You must determine what effect this supposition would have on the possible positions in which Y can appear in the recital schedule. The correct response is (D): Y can play as late as sixth. The diagram below shows a recital order that meets all the conditions and has Y performing in the sixth position: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 T V U X W Y Z One strategy for arriving at this solution is to work backward to see which position is the latest in which we can place Y and at the same time produce a recital schedule that meets all the conditions. Using that approach, we immediately see that Y cannot play as late as seventh, because of the condition that "Neither T nor Y can play seventh." Backing up and placing Y sixth, we can begin to fill in the schedule, as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 U Y This schedule has five empty slots, into which we must fit players T, V, W, X, and Z. The following is a series of reasoning steps that can be used: From our analysis of the previous question, we know that players T, W, and X cannot play seventh, but that Z can, so we can tentatively place Z in the seventh slot. We also know that "Either Y or Z must play immediately after W plays." If we place W in the fifth slot, this condition will be met. By placing V in the second slot, we can meet the condition that "V must play either immediately after or immediately before U plays." We must place the remaining two players, T and X, in the two remaining slots, the first and the fourth. Because the first condition states that "X cannot play first ...," we will place X in the fourth slot and T in the first. These positions will meet the conditions that apply to T and X: T will avoid playing seventh and X will play before W. Since Y can play as late as sixth, response (D) is the correct solution. This question was of middle difficulty, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.

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. 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. B. 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. C. 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. D. 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. E. 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.

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.

The painter Roy Lichtenstein helped to define pop art—the movement that incorporated commonplace objects and commercial-art techniques into paintings—by paraphrasing the style of comic books in his work. His merger of a popular genre with the forms and intentions of fine art generated a complex result: while poking fun at the pretensions of the art world, Lichtenstein's work also managed to convey a seriousness of theme that enabled it to transcend mere parody. That Lichtenstein's images were fine art was at first difficult to see, because, with their word balloons and highly stylized figures, they looked like nothing more than the comic book panels from which they were copied. Standard art history holds that pop art emerged as an impersonal alternative to the histrionics of abstract expressionism, a movement in which painters conveyed their private attitudes and emotions using nonrepresentational techniques. The truth is that by the time pop art first appeared in the early 1960s, abstract expressionism had already lost much of its force. Pop art painters weren't quarreling with the powerful early abstract expressionist work of the late 1940s but with a second generation of abstract expressionists whose work seemed airy, high-minded, and overly lyrical. Pop art paintings were full of simple black lines and large areas of primary color. Lichtenstein's work was part of a general rebellion against the fading emotional power of abstract expressionism, rather than an aloof attempt to ignore it. But if rebellion against previous art by means of the careful imitation of a popular genre were all that characterized Lichtenstein's work, it would possess only the reflective power that parodies have in relation to their subjects. Beneath its cartoonish methods, his work displayed an impulse toward realism, an urge to say that what was missing from contemporary painting was the depiction of contemporary life. The stilted romances and war stories portrayed in the comic books on which he based his canvases, the stylized automobiles, hot dogs, and table lamps that appeared in his pictures, were reflections of the culture Lichtenstein inhabited. But, in contrast to some pop art, Lichtenstein's work exuded not a jaded cynicism about consumer culture, but a kind of deliberate naivete, intended as a response to the excess of sophistication he observed not only in the later abstract expressionists but in some other pop artists. With the comics—typically the domain of youth and innocence—as his reference point, a nostalgia fills his paintings that gives them, for all their surface bravado, an inner sweetness. His persistent use of comic-art conventions demonstrates a faith in reconciliation, not only between cartoons and fine art, but between parody and true feeling. Question 1 Which one of the following best captures the author's attitude toward Lichtenstein's work? A. enthusiasm for its more rebellious aspects B respect for its successful parody of youth and innocence C. pleasure in its blatant rejection of abstract expressionism D. admiration for its subtle critique of contemporary culture E. appreciation for its ability to incorporate both realism and naivete

This question requires the test taker to understand the attitude the author of the passage displays toward Lichtenstein's work. The correct response is (E). Response (E) most accurately and completely captures the author's attitude. First, the author's appreciation for Lichtenstein's art is indicated by way of contrast with the way in which the author describes what Lichtenstein's art is not. For example, the author asserts that Lichtenstein's work "transcended mere parody," and that unlike other pop art, it did not display a "jaded cynicism." Similarly, the author holds that there is more to Lichtenstein's work than "the reflective power that parodies possess in relation to their subjects." Moreover, the author's appreciation is reflected in several positive statements regarding Lichtenstein's work. The author's appreciation for Lichtenstein's realism is indicated by the author's statement that "Beneath its cartoonish methods, his work displayed an impulse toward realism, an urge to say that what was missing from contemporary painting was the depiction of contemporary life." That the author also appreciates Lichtenstein's naivete is demonstrated in this sentence: "Lichtenstein's work exuded not a jaded cynicism about consumer culture, but a kind of deliberate naivete ... ." This idea is further expanded in the next sentence, which says that "for all their surface bravado," Lichtenstein's paintings possess "an inner sweetness." It is important to note that these evaluations appear in the last paragraph and form part of the author's conclusion about the importance of Lichtenstein's art. Response (A) is incorrect because, although in the last sentence of paragraph two the author notes Lichtenstein's connection to a general rebellion against abstract expressionism, the author also states quite pointedly in the first sentence of the third paragraph: "But if rebellion ... were all that characterized Lichtenstein's work, it would possess only the reflective power that parodies have ... ." Response (B) is incorrect because, as noted in the first paragraph of the passage, the author believes Lichtenstein's work transcended "mere parody." Moreover, the author states in the last paragraph that comics, "typically the domain of youth and innocence," were Lichtenstein's "reference point" and filled his painting with "nostalgia" and an "inner sweetness." Response (C) is incorrect because, as mentioned above, the author believes Lichtenstein's rebellion against abstract expressionism was not the most important aspect of his work. Indeed, if it had been, Lichtenstein's work would have been reduced to having "only the reflective power that parodies have in relation to their subjects," where here the "subject" refers to abstract expressionism. Response (D) is incorrect because the author very clearly says that Lichtenstein embraced contemporary culture. In the last paragraph, the author writes, "But, in contrast to some pop art, Lichtenstein's work exuded not a jaded cynicism about consumer culture, but a kind of deliberate naivete ... ." Based on the number of test takers who answered this question correctly when it appeared on the LSAT, this was a middle difficulty question.