LSAT Principle and Parallel Reasoning 4

Question 1

A principle holds: 'Scientific claims should be accepted only when independently replicated.' A journal editor rejects a paper reporting a novel drug interaction. Which statement, if true, most directly justifies the rejection under this principle?

Accepted Answer

No other laboratory has reported this interaction despite studying the same drug combination.

Answer

The absence of independent replication by other labs studying the same combination directly satisfies the principle's condition for withholding acceptance.

Question 2

Which argument has a structure that most closely parallels: 'All actions that violate consent are wrong. Forcing someone to sign a document is an action that violates consent. Therefore, forcing someone to sign is wrong'?

Accepted Answer

All trespass is unauthorized entry. Breaking into a car is unauthorized entry. Therefore, breaking into a car is trespass.

Answer

Option B applies a universal definition ('All X is Y') to a specific act ('this is Y') and concludes the act is X — the same valid categorical syllogism as the original.

Question 3

Principle: 'A spokesperson for an organization may be held accountable for statements made in their official capacity even if they personally disagreed with those statements.' A plaintiff seeks to hold a company's former PR director liable for a misleading press release. Which fact would most undermine the principle's application here?

Accepted Answer

The PR director privately emailed executives objecting to the release before it was issued.

Answer

The principle applies 'even if they personally disagreed,' so private objection alone does not undermine accountability — however, the key question is official capacity; none of these eliminate official capacity except if the release was not made in that capacity, making A the closest underminer by showing disagreement (though the principle explicitly covers this case, making it the weakest application).

Question 4

Sociologist: 'Communities with strong social trust have lower crime rates. Northville has strong social trust. Therefore, Northville likely has a lower crime rate than communities with weak social trust.' Which of the following is an assumption required by this argument?

Accepted Answer

Social trust in Northville has not been eroded by recent events.

Answer

The argument's conclusion depends on Northville currently having strong social trust; if that trust has recently eroded, the premise no longer applies to Northville.

Question 5

Which reasoning error in the following argument most closely resembles equivocation: 'Laws should be followed because they express the will of the people. The law of gravity expresses how nature works. Therefore, the law of gravity should be followed'?

Accepted Answer

Using the word 'law' in two different senses to reach an invalid conclusion.

Answer

The argument exploits the word 'law,' which means a legislative rule in the first premise and a natural regularity in the second, to draw a conclusion that conflates the two.

LSAT - Law School Admission Test Practice Test

LSAT - Law School Admission Test Practice Test

LSAT Principle and Parallel Reasoning 4