逻辑思维能力不仅在考试中会用到，在我们的日常生活和工作中也经常会用到，考生在备考的过程中应该加强逻辑思维能力的练习。为了帮助大家更好的进行练习，小编为大家带来了
96. Prominent business executives often play active roles in United States presidential campaigns as fundraisers or backroom strategists, but few actually seek to become president themselves. Throughout history the great majority of those who have sought to become president have been lawyers, military leaders, or full-time politicians. This is understandable, for the personality and skills that make for success in business do not make for success in politics. Business is largely hierarchical, whereas politics is coordinative. As a result, business executives tend to be uncomfortable with compromises and power-sharing, which are inherent in politics.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the proposed explanation of why business executives do not run for president?
A. Many of the most active presidential fundraisers and backroom strategists are themselves politicians.
B. Military leaders are generally no more comfortable with compromises and power-sharing than are business executives.
C. Some of the skills needed to become a successful lawyer are different from some of those needed to become a successful military leader.
D. Some former presidents have engaged in business ventures after leaving office.
E. Some hierarchically structured companies have been major financial supporters of candidates for president.
In my view, the reasoning in this argument is that:
business executives tend to be uncomfortable with compromises and power-sharing, which are inherent in politics ? few actually seek to become president themselves.
The hidden assumption is that:
lawyers, military leaders, or full-time politicians tend to be comfortable with compromises and power-sharing.
How to weaken this explanation?
In my view, we can undermine this reasoning in this argument in two ways. On the one hand, we can find other reasons excepting for the listed explanation, such as business executives worry about the safe of the presidents, or business executives enjoy freedom, etc. On the other hand, we can rule out analogue between business executives and the listed candidate including lawyers, military leaders, or full-time politicians. That is to say, if we can sure that some of such candidates are also tired of compromises and power sharing like business executives. The reasoning will be seriously undermined.
After this analysis, we can choose B quickly.
97. A scientific theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: it must accurately describe a large class of observations in terms of a model that is simple enough to contain only a few elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations. For example, Aristotle’s cosmological theory, which claimed that everything was made out of four elements---earth, air, fire, and water---satisfied the first requirement, but it did not make any definite predictions. Thus, Aristotle’s cosmological theory was not a good theory.
If all the statements in the passage are true, each of the following must also be true EXCEPT:
A. Prediction about the results of future observations must be made by any good scientific theory
B. Observation of physical phenomena was not a major concern in Aristotle’s cosmological theory.
C. For elements can be the basis of a scientific model that is simple enough to meet the simplicity criterion of a good theory.
D. A scientific model that contains many elements is not a good theory.
E. Aristotle’s cosmological theory described a large class of observations in terms of only four elements.
After analysis , we can find that the reasoning in this argument is that:
1> it must accurately describe a large class of observations in terms of a model that is simple enough to contain only a few elements and 2> it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.?? A scientific theory is a good theory
So , we can find all of choices except B satisfied with the original meaning.
B is not mentioned in this argument , so we can conclude whether B is also true.
So B is the best answer.
98. Compared to nonprofit hospitals of the same size, investor-owned hospitals require less public investment in the form of tax breaks, use fewer employees, and have higher occupancy levels. It can therefore be concluded that investor-owned hospitals are a better way of delivering medical care than are nonprofit hospitals.
Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the conclusion drawn above?
A. Nonprofit hospitals charge more per bed than do investor-owned hospitals.
B. Patients in nonprofit hospitals recover more quickly than do patients with comparable illnesses in investor-owned hospitals.
C. Nonprofit hospitals do more fundraising than do investor-owned hospitals.
D. Doctors at nonprofit hospitals earn higher salaries than do similarly-qualified doctors at investor-owned hospitals.
E. Nonprofit hospitals receive more donations than do investor-owned hospital.
After analysis of the above statement, we can make it clear that the arguer want to establish the casual relationship between the listed factors, including less public investment in the form of tax breaks, fewer employees and higher occupancy levels, and a better way of delivering medical care.
How to undermine this reasoning?
In my view, I think that we can weaken this argument in two ways. On the one hand, we can destroy the casual relationship the arguer wants to create. On the one hand, we can cite the fact that opposite the conclusion the arguer want to come to.
So , taking into account the above analysis , B is sound.
Because B cites the fact opposing the conclusion.
A is out of scope. The statement does not mention the relationship between the number of per bed and the better way of delivering medical care.
C makes the same mistake. The relationship between the fundraising and the better way of delivering medical care.
D is repeating the above flaw. The reasoning that the higher salaries doctors received, the better way of delivering medical care is open to doubt.
Finally, E follows the same way again. The arguer fails to convince us that more donations will lead to the better way of delivering medical care.
99. Concetta: Franchot was a great writer because she was ahead of her time in understanding that industrialization was taking an unconscionable toll on the family structure of the working class.
Alicia: Franchot was not a great writer. The mark of a great writer is the ability to move people with the power of the written word, not the ability to be among the first to grasp a social issue. Besides, the social consequences of industrialization were widely understood in Franchot’s day.
In her disagreement with Concetta, Alicia does which one of the following?
A. accepts Concetta’s criterion and then adds evidence to Concetta’s case
B. discredits Concetta’s evidence and then generalizes from new evidence
C. rejects Concetta’s criterion and then disputes a specific claim
D. disputes Concetta’s conclusion and then presents facts in support of an alternative creterion
E. attacks one of Concetta’s claims and then criticizes the structure of her argumen
How to crack this type of question in LSAT? In my opinion, if you can adjoin the concept of the logical fallacies in AWA, we can solve easily this problem.
I solve this problem by the following way.
If you are Alicia, how can you refute the conclusion of Concetta? Then , we will have to analyze how Concetta reach his conclusion.
The reasoning in the argument of Concetta is that:
she was ahead of her time in understanding that industrialization was taking an unconscionable toll on the family structure of the working class? Franchot was a great writer
Obviously, the Concetta evaluate Franchot by the criteria of whether she was she was ahead of her time in understanding that industrialization was taking an unconscionable toll on the family structure of the working class.
If we can rule out this criterion, the reasoning of Concetta is unfounded.
Or, even though she was ahead of her time in understanding that industrialization was taking an unconscionable toll on the family structure of the working class, the criteria is insufficient to the brilliance of Franchot.
So, C is the only selection.