1. B
The evidence is that, while nationalizing will allow more people
more access to beaches, it could also lead to WORSE beaches. The
author points out that access to beaches is only good if the
beaches themselves are cared for adequately and are therefore
desirable. The author's conclusion is the last sentence: We
should consider carefully before nationalizing more coastal
property. So, the author believes we have reason to be concerned
that the beaches won't be taken care of as well as when they were
privately owned, but nowhere is this claim supported; it is
assumed. So the answer choice must deny the central assumption
and imply that the government would do a good job taking care of
beaches. Choice two does what we want by saying that private
beaches are cared for by the government. So, if the government
were to nationalize those beaches, nothing changes: It should
take on no new maintenance obligations, and we have little
additional cause for concern about dirty beaches.
2. D
We're searching for a necessary assumption upon which the
conclusion logically depends. First identify the evidence and
conclusion. The assumption is required to bridge the gap between
them.
The evidence consists of a study indicating that students on
full scholarships maintain higher GPAs than do students that work
or take out loans. From this evidence, the study concluded that
the scholarships enable those students to earn higher GPAs by
alleviating financial stress and freeing up the students'
time.
The evidence links scholarships and higher GPAs, but the
conclusion jumps into the realm of cause and effect—a common LSAT
shift in scope. The author assumes that the only possible reason
for the association is the causal mechanism cited in the
conclusion and the correct answer will very likely bolster this
notion by eliminating an alternative explanation.
Choice (D) hits on the right issue: The argument won't work if
there's another reason for the correlation cited in the evidence.
If high GPAs are the primary criterion for the scholarships in
the first place, then it's not surprising that scholarship
holders tend to earn higher GPAs than others. The students must
generally be of otherwise equal ability before the conclusion can
be safely drawn. (D) eliminates a very plausible alternative
explanation for the correlation cited in the first sentence, and
this is the assumption on which the conclusion depends.
3. E
The best explanation is, as the fifth choice says, that it's the
high temperatures Y can't handle. If the information in choice E
were true, you would actually expect Y not to grow in Desert X.
Choice A doesn't work because we're not given any reason to think
the plant needs animals to feed on it in order to survive. Choice
B. is out because one week of consistent rainfall hardly explains
why Y isn't in Desert X. Is that too much, too little, or just
right? We don't know. The fact that it can easily grow elsewhere
doesn't answer the question of why it doesn't grow in Desert X;
we already knew that and so it doesn't resolve the paradox.
Choice D is wrong because the ability of other plants to survive
in Desert X by itself has nothing to do with Plant Y. Plant Y
might be one of the few lucky plants that get along fine with the
lack of moisture in the desert.
4. D
Since the plant that was opened in Country Y during a revolution
generated profits, a parallel can be drawn to conclude that a
plant in Country X will also generate profits, despite that
country's war.
5. D
You're looking for an assumption, something the author never
states, but which must be true for the argument to work. The
author concludes that the cost of living is higher in Sepra. The
conclusion is backed up by the fact that the cost of living rises
with wages in an area, and that people make cars in Sepra, but
farm in Moomba. But who's to say whether auto manufacturing pays
more than farming? For all we know, farming pays at least as well
as auto manufacturing, and so we've located the missing piece in
the author's argument. After all, if farming paid at least as
well, then the cost of living in Moomba would be at least as
high, and the author's argument would fall apart. So D is
necessary for the argument to work.
Other PracticeQs:
