LSAT - Law School Admission Inference from Passages Questions and Answers

Question 1

Recent studies on urban wildlife have shown that coyote populations are thriving in metropolitan areas, a habitat historically dominated by raccoons. While both species are opportunistic omnivores, coyotes are more effective predators of small mammals, such as rats and squirrels. Furthermore, coyotes tend to claim larger territories, often pushing smaller predators like raccoons to the peripheries of available green spaces.

Accepted Answer

Raccoon populations are likely to decline or be displaced in urban areas where coyote populations are growing.

Answer

The passage states that coyotes are more effective predators and that they push raccoons 'to the peripheries.' This directly supports the inference that the presence and growth of coyote populations will have a negative impact on raccoon populations, either through reduction or displacement.

Question 2

Dr. Anya Sharma: 'The primary driver of corporate innovation is internal competition. When teams within a company vie for resources and recognition based on the success of their projects, the entire organization is pushed to develop more creative and efficient solutions.'
Dr. Ben Carter: 'I disagree. True, sustainable innovation arises from collaboration, not competition. When teams share knowledge and work towards common goals, they can tackle more complex problems and create breakthroughs that siloed, competing teams could never achieve.'
The main point of disagreement between Dr. Sharma and Dr. Carter is over:

Accepted Answer

the most effective means of fostering corporate innovation.

Answer

Dr. Sharma argues that competition is the 'primary driver' of innovation, while Dr. Carter argues that collaboration is the source of 'true, sustainable innovation.' Their fundamental disagreement is about the best method or means to achieve the goal of innovation, which both implicitly agree is valuable.

Question 3

A legal principle states that for a contract to be deemed 'unconscionable,' and therefore unenforceable, two conditions must be met: procedural unconscionability (a significant inequality in bargaining power) and substantive unconscionability (terms that are overly harsh or one-sided). Based on the principle described, in which of the following situations would a contract most likely be ruled unenforceable?

Accepted Answer

An immigrant who does not speak the local language signs a dense loan agreement with an exorbitant interest rate, presented by a lender who rushed the signing.

Answer

This scenario clearly demonstrates both required elements. The 'procedural' element is met by the inequality in bargaining power (language barrier, rushed signing). The 'substantive' element is met by the 'overly harsh' term (exorbitant interest rate). The other options fail to meet both conditions simultaneously.

Question 4

In the nation of Eldoria, the government implemented a significant subsidy for all domestically produced wheat to help its farmers. Paradoxically, within five years of the subsidy's implementation, the number of individual wheat farms in Eldoria had decreased by nearly 30 percent. Which of the following, if true, would most help to resolve the apparent paradox?

Accepted Answer

The subsidy caused the market price of wheat to drop so low that only large, highly efficient industrial farms could remain profitable, buying out smaller farms.

Answer

The paradox is that a helpful measure (subsidy) led to a negative outcome (fewer farms). This answer resolves the paradox by explaining how the subsidy created an unintended consequence. It led to a price collapse that favored large-scale, efficient operations, which in turn absorbed or drove out smaller, less efficient farms, thus reducing the total number of farms.

Question 5

A software development team is composed of exactly four members: an Analyst, a Coder, a Designer, and a Tester. Each member specializes in only one role. The team's assignment rules are as follows: If the Analyst is assigned to a project, the Designer must also be assigned. The Coder cannot be assigned to any project with the Analyst. The Tester must be assigned if the Designer is assigned. Which of the following can be properly inferred from the rules?

Accepted Answer

The Analyst cannot be assigned to a project without the Tester also being assigned.

Answer

This question tests transitive inference. The rules create a logical chain: If the Analyst is assigned, then the Designer must be assigned (A → D). If the Designer is assigned, then the Tester must be assigned (D → T). Therefore, by combining these rules, it must be true that if the Analyst is assigned, the Tester must also be assigned (A → T).

LSAT - Law School Admission Test Practice Test

LSAT - Law School Admission Test Practice Test

LSAT - Law School Admission Inference from Passages Questions and Answers