LNAT Inference Skills 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Passage: 'No evidence of wrongdoing was found.' A journalist writes that the official is innocent. This inference is:
- Valid because absence of evidence proves innocence
- Invalid because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (Correct answer)
- Valid because the official must have cooperated
- Invalid only if the investigation was short
Correct answer: Invalid because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Failing to find evidence of wrongdoing does not conclusively establish innocence; the investigation may have been incomplete.
Question 2: A statute says 'vehicles are prohibited in the park.' A man rides a bicycle through the park. A judge must decide if the statute applies. The strongest argument for applying it is:
- Bicycles are a common form of transport and share the purpose the law targets (Correct answer)
- The legislature could not have intended to include bicycles
- Bicycles cause no harm to pedestrians
- The word 'vehicle' is too vague to apply to anything
Correct answer: Bicycles are a common form of transport and share the purpose the law targets
If the statute aims to protect pedestrians from transport, bicycles serving that purpose fall within its spirit.
Question 3: Researchers note that students who eat breakfast score higher on tests. A school mandates breakfast. This policy assumes:
- Test scores are the only measure of student success
- Eating breakfast causes improved test performance, not merely correlates with it (Correct answer)
- All students were previously skipping breakfast
- Higher test scores improve future earnings
Correct answer: Eating breakfast causes improved test performance, not merely correlates with it
Mandating breakfast to improve scores only makes sense if eating breakfast causes the improvement, not just accompanies it.
Question 4: Some philosophers are logicians. All logicians are precise thinkers. What can be inferred?
- All philosophers are precise thinkers
- No philosophers are precise thinkers
- Some philosophers are precise thinkers (Correct answer)
- All precise thinkers are philosophers
Correct answer: Some philosophers are precise thinkers
The philosophers who are logicians are also precise thinkers, so at least some philosophers are precise thinkers.
Question 5: A defense lawyer argues: 'My client cannot be guilty because he is a good father.' This argument is an example of:
- A valid appeal to character evidence
- An irrelevant appeal that confuses moral virtue with legal guilt (Correct answer)
- A sound deductive inference
- A strong inductive argument based on behavior
Correct answer: An irrelevant appeal that confuses moral virtue with legal guilt
Being a good father is irrelevant to whether the defendant committed the alleged act.
Question 6: A law firm notices that cases settled before trial have shorter resolution times. It concludes that encouraging early settlement saves time. What weakens this conclusion most?
- Some lawyers prefer trials
- Cases that settle early may be simpler cases that would resolve quickly regardless (Correct answer)
- Settlement agreements are legally binding
- Trials are more expensive than settlements
Correct answer: Cases that settle early may be simpler cases that would resolve quickly regardless
If only easy cases settle early, the shorter time may reflect case complexity, not the settlement process itself.
Question 7: A passage states: 'Citizens who pay taxes fund public services.' A reader concludes: 'Anyone who uses public services must pay taxes.' This inference is:
- Valid by contrapositive logic
- Invalid because the original statement does not establish the converse (Correct answer)
- Valid because tax and services are mutually dependent
- Invalid only if some services are privately funded
Correct answer: Invalid because the original statement does not establish the converse
'A funds B' does not mean 'anyone who uses B must be an A'; the converse is not logically implied.
LNAT Inference Skills 3
Passage: 'No evidence of wrongdoing was found.' A journalist writes that the official is innocent.
This inference is: