FREE LNAT Basic Questions and Answers
Two points of contention on a contentious subject are put out to you. Argument B is based on anecdotes and personal beliefs, whereas Argument A is supported by study and scientific data. Which argument, in terms of critical thinking, would be seen as more trustworthy?
Correct!
Wrong!
When it comes to critical thinking, Argument A—which is supported by scientific facts and research—is more trustworthy as it is based on factual and unbiased data.
A paragraph is presented to you that makes two arguments: one is in support of tougher gun control legislation, and the other is against them. It is your responsibility to evaluate the data provided and make a determination based on the supporting evidence. Text: First Argument: Tighter gun control legislation is required to lower gun violence and safeguard public safety. We can stop criminals and those with mental health disorders from obtaining guns by tightening background checks and restricting access to firearms. Argument 2: People's Second Amendment rights to bear guns are violated by stricter gun control legislation. Limiting access to firearms would make law-abiding residents more vulnerable to criminals, and the right to self-defense is important. From the passage, what inference may be made?
Correct!
Wrong!
There is merit to both of the arguments made in the passage. Tougher gun control legislation may contribute to a decrease in gun violence, but it also raises issues with individual rights. It will take more deliberation and thought to arrive at a fair approach that takes individual rights and public safety into account.
After reading the case study, respond to the following query. Case Study: Emma observes that she feels more focused and awake during the day whenever she has coffee in the morning. She thinks that coffee enhances cognitive function based on this observation. What kind of logic does Emma apply to support her beliefs?
Correct!
Wrong!
Emma is drawing a generalization from particular data, which is an example of inductive thinking in action.
A text concerning a recent court case is presented to you. "The defendant was charged with robbery after stealing a valuable necklace from a jewelry store. The prosecution presented CCTV footage showing the defendant entering and leaving the store at the time of the incident. The defense argued that the defendant was not present at the scene and provided an alibi witness who testified that they were together at a different location during the same time period. The jury found the defendant guilty based on the evidence presented by the prosecution." What was the primary piece of proof offered by the prosecution in this case?
Correct!
Wrong!
The passage mentions that the prosecution produced CCTV footage as evidence.
A case study on a company that decided to outsource its customer support department to another nation is given to you. It is your responsibility to evaluate the available data and make a determination based on the case study. Company X is thinking about hiring a foreign nation to handle its customer care department. Because labor is less expensive in the other country, this relocation would result in significant cost savings. But it could also result in cultural and linguistic hurdles, which could have an effect on customer satisfaction. What inference may be made from the case study?
Correct!
Wrong!
The case study outlines potential difficulties, like linguistic and cultural obstacles, that could occur from outsourcing the customer support division. These elements could have a detrimental effect on client satisfaction, indicating that outsourcing might not be Company X's best option.
After reading the case study, respond to the following question using the details given. Case Study: Sarah is a lawyer in a courtroom, making her case. Her goal is to persuade the jury that the accused is innocent. Sarah thoroughly studies the material and explains how it relates to the case. She disproves the opposite argument with logic as well. What is Sarah trying to accomplish with her argument?
Correct!
Wrong!
In order to make her case, Sarah will mostly look over the evidence and discuss how it relates to the case. This is clear from the case study, which claims that she use logical reasoning to disprove the opposing viewpoint in addition to analyzing the material and explaining its significance.
Amanda Knox was incarcerated in Italy for four years after killing Meredith Kercher in Perugia in 2007. Global media outlets covered the trial in great detail. This is due to a number of factors, one of which is the peculiar and gruesome character of the young English student's death. Unquestionably, Knox was the center of attention due to her young age, attractive appearance, and frequently peculiar actions both before and during the murder trial. Raffaele Sollecito, Knox's ex-boyfriend, was also found guilty of the murder and sentenced to 25 years in prison. The 26-year sentence handed down to Knox sparked a new media frenzy and a great deal of worldwide debate.
Numerous contradictions in the evidence against Knox have long been a topic of contention for her defense team and her. The defence brought up several points, including the way she was questioned and the potential for tampering with the DNA evidence used against her. Allegations surfaced that this was a confrontational exchange that took place over several hours in Italian, a language that Knox was not proficient in at the time. Her family claimed to the Sunday Times in 2009 that Knox was not provided with an interpreter and was therefore unable to fully understand the questions.
Following a second appeal, the convictions of Knox and Sollecito were reversed on October 3, 2011. The ruling was mostly supported by a 145-page analysis that cast doubt on the reliability of the DNA evidence. The entire hearing took place in Italian, and when Knox was called upon, he talked coherently and in detail. Knox returned to the United States after her release and now resides there with her family. But in March 2013, the court reversed her acquittal, and the matter will now reopen. The Italian authorities may request her extradition from the United States if she is found guilty.
What, in this context, is the closest synonym to "stirred up"?
Correct!
Wrong!
This is the best synonym since it indicates that the sentence sparked a global debate.
After reading the passage below, respond to the question using the details given. Passage: Participants in a study by a group of psychologists were asked to read a sequence of statements and identify whether each one was an opinion or a fact. The findings demonstrated that people with superior verbal thinking abilities were better at differentiating between facts and views. What was the purpose of the psychologists' study, as indicated by the passage?
Correct!
Wrong!
The psychologists' study's goal was to evaluate the participants' verbal reasoning abilities. The passage makes this clear by saying that people with good verbal reasoning abilities were better at telling facts from views.
Amanda Knox was incarcerated in Italy for four years after killing Meredith Kercher in Perugia in 2007. Global media outlets covered the trial in great detail. This is due to a number of factors, one of which is the peculiar and gruesome character of the young English student's death. Unquestionably, Knox was the center of attention due to her young age, attractive appearance, and frequently peculiar actions both before and during the murder trial. Raffaele Sollecito, Knox's ex-boyfriend, was also found guilty of the murder and sentenced to 25 years in prison. The 26-year sentence handed down to Knox sparked a new media frenzy and a great deal of worldwide debate.
Numerous contradictions in the evidence against Knox have long been a topic of contention for her defense team and her. The defence brought up several points, including the way she was questioned and the potential for tampering with the DNA evidence used against her. Allegations surfaced that this was a confrontational exchange that took place over several hours in Italian, a language that Knox was not proficient in at the time. Her family claimed to the Sunday Times in 2009 that Knox was not provided with an interpreter and was therefore unable to fully understand the questions.
Following a second appeal, the convictions of Knox and Sollecito were reversed on October 3, 2011. The ruling was mostly supported by a 145-page analysis that cast doubt on the reliability of the DNA evidence. The entire hearing took place in Italian, and when Knox was called upon, he talked coherently and in detail. Knox returned to the United States after her release and now resides there with her family. But in March 2013, the court reversed her acquittal, and the matter will now reopen. The Italian authorities may request her extradition from the United States if she is found guilty.
What was the primary cause of the initial trial's widespread media coverage?
Correct!
Wrong!
Go over the text below and provide a response to the following query. Tom has noticed that he gets headaches after consuming ice cream every time. Additionally, he has observed that his sister experiences headaches after consuming ice cream. Tom draws the conclusion that everyone who eats ice cream gets headaches as a result of this information. What kind of logic does Tom apply to get his conclusion?
Correct!
Wrong!
Tom is drawing a generalization from particular observations, which is an example of inductive thinking in action.
People who routinely practice critical thinking are more likely to succeed in their careers, according to a recent study. This lends credence to the notion that the ability to think critically is crucial for success in the workplace. Which of the following describes critical thinking the best?
Correct!
Wrong!
The capacity to impartially assess and analyze data in order to arrive at well-informed conclusions is known as critical thinking.