1. The best answer is A. One of the initial conditions given in the passage that sets up the analytical exercise is that Aggie is the same size as her husband, and they are tied for the smallest person in the game. Since they are the smallest people in the game, and there are four players, the condition that identifies Phil as the second-largest person in the game eliminates him from consideration, which eliminates Statement C. Since Aggie’s husband is explicitly identified as playing the game, Statement D can be rejected out of hand. Additionally, since the initial conditions state that only the largest person can use the tire iron, and Art, Phil and Aggie have been eliminated from its use, that leaves Dash, which thus eliminates him as a possibility for Aggie’s husband, thus removing Statement B. Only Art can be Aggie’s husband, making A correct.
2. The best answer is D. Of all the contestants, Aggie had the largest amount of information directly provided about her; in addition, the specificity of the information was greatest when applied to her. The rules and conditions were explicit in defining that Aggie could not use poison or the knife, but another condition stated that a woman could not use the tire iron, and as Aggie was explicitly identified as a woman by another condition, the choice of weapon was restricted to one by the primary information provided. All the other contestants were restricted by deduction and application of the other conditions, leaving Aggie with the greatest confinement; thus, D is the correct answer.
3. The best answer is B. Phil and Aggie are each mentioned directly in at least two of the initial conditions, which allows for more deductions to be made concerning them in the role-playing game; Aggie, in fact, is directly mentioned in three conditions, and another condition is about women in the game, of which Aggie is the only one, so yet more information is available. Art and Dash are directly mentioned only once apiece, but in the condition where Art is mentioned, the reader is given a good deal of information, including the statement that Art can’t use two of the possible four weapons. The condition which mentions Dash only states that he can’t use one of the four possible weapons, and that condition is shared with Aggie. Thus, of the game contestants, Dash has the least amount of direct information made available about him, which makes B correct.
4. The best answer is C. As described in the initial conditions, Aggie can’t use either the poison or the knife for weapons in the game. Furthermore, the first of the initial conditions specifically states that the tire iron cannot be used by a woman in the game. Although Aggie is generally considered a feminine name, she is not explicitly identified as female until a later condition, where it states that Aggie and her husband are tied for the smallest people in the game. Once that identification is made, then the previous condition is applied to Aggie in the game, and the tire iron is eliminated from her use. That leaves only the piano wire for a possible weapon, which makes D the correct answer.
5. The best answer is D. By examining the information given, the reader can deduce the usage of the murder weapons by the relevant contestant. Looking at the initial conditions, Phil is explicitly identified as the second-largest of the contestants, and since another condition states only the largest contestant gets to use the tire iron, that weapon is thus ineligible for Phil to use. The last of the initial conditions explicitly states that Phil cannot use the knife, eliminating that weapon. As seen in a previous question, the reader has already deduced that Aggie was assigned the piano wire. That leaves only one weapon for Phil to use: the poison. Thus, D is the correct answer.
LSAT Reading Comprehension Practice Test Answers
1. The best answer is B. In this essay, the narrator is expressing first impressions of a visit to New Orleans as a tourist, and while the meteorological impressions arguably are used as background to later events, the overwhelming emphasis of the detail, and the lack of mention in later paragraphs, argues for primary usage, which thus eliminates Statement A. For similar reasons, Statement C can also be eliminated, as the meteorological information is used as the physical setting rather than support for it. As the narrator specifically contrasts the environment of home (Spokane) to New Orleans without finding common ground, even using the term “alien” in line 8 to describe the climate, Statement D is also unsuited to answer the question. Only Statement B, which is directly supported by the aforementioned contrast descriptions and the adjectives used in line 8, correctly addresses the question; thus, B is correct.
2. The best answer is C. Although certain aspects of dignity are arguably present, the overarching sense of gravity or formality that is an integral part of the definition is entirely absent, both through direct text support and connotation (such as the implication of distance, which is directly contradicted by lines 14-17); thus, Statement A is irrelevant. Authenticity is implied in the references to historical buildings in lines 18-23, but there is no corroboration elsewhere, so the connection is weak at best. As a result, Statement B can be discarded. For similar reasons, Statement D can be rejected; although it can be inferred from lines 18-23 as a companion to authenticity, the connection is textually weak, and can be discarded. Only vitality, with its strong inferences in the third and fifth paragraphs, is a logical answer to the question; thus, Statement C is correct.
3. The best answer is A. Although every description and point raised in the essay is designed to raise interest in the reader, the range of potential variations on the broad concept of interest is far too great to suffice as an answer in this circumstance. Thus, Statement B is invalid. While much of the essay is written to achieve a witty or comic effect, the particular description of a workman facing the end of his livelihood is portrayed with too much gravitas to serve a mirthful function, so Statement C is incorrect. Finally, for reasons much the same as those cited for Statement B, indifference as a desired reader reaction can be rejected, thus making Statement D invalid. Only melancholy, meaning a gloomy or sober thoughtfulness, realistically addresses the tone of the section describing a workman whose life’s work is obsolete and soon ending; thus, Statement A is correct.
4. The best answer is D. Given the placement of the skull’s description between the ironic mention of the church murals and the mention of a then-popular restaurant, it is reasonable to look toward a term that means something that is not fixed in time or position and soon to be gone. While delicate shares some connotations, the term generally refers more to physical construction than an object’s nature, which is too weak a connection for the meaning implied in the passage, so Statement A can be discarded. Since spectral refers to a property of not being truly present, Statement B can be discarded as well, although it too shares some connotations. Conversely, hulking implies too strong a physical presence for the tone of the passage, so Statement C is invalid. Only transient, meaning lasting only a short time, is relevant to the passage; thus, Statement D is correct.
5. The best answer is C. Although the narrator doesn’t explicitly identify the number of people who went on the trip, the pronoun “we” is commonly used throughout the narrative, making it clear that the narrator had at least one companion on the journey to New Orleans. Thus, Statement A can be disregarded out of hand. In line 3, the narrator explicitly states that “my companions and I had left” Spokane, which means that the narrator had at least two companions, which eliminates Statement B. Finally, in line 4, the narrator states that along with Spokane itself, the traveling party left behind “icy roads, snow and a total of six sturdy Sorels.” The statement that six Sorels, a popular brand of boot, were left behind implies three pairs total; thus, Statement D can be rejected, leaving Statement C as best addressing the question and C as the correct answer.
LSAT Logical Reasoning Practice Test Answers
1. The best answer is C. In order to assure a statistically valid result, the sample size must be statistically valid and free of bias. Having a politically neutral organization in charge of polling is standard practice and avoids influencing the questions or the pollers, so such a condition would not weaken the central assertion, which eliminates Statement A. Random phone calling avoids selecting respondents from specific demographics and geographic areas, which also minimizes bias, so Statement B is also unsuitable. The fact of other polls being conducted in the same period has no effect on the poll in question, as they are independent events; thus, Statement D is invalid as well. Only Statement C, where the respondents’ bias affects the questions answered, could provide a valid argument against the poll’s objectivity; thus, C is correct.
2. The best answer is B. Based on the statements in the paragraph above, the poll was specifically focused on the question of legal unions and/or marriages for the gay and lesbian population. Since the statements reflect no information or speculation about the percentage of gays and lesbians among the general population, both Statements A and D can be rejected out of hand, as there is no information or inference to draw on. Also, since the statements specifically reflect respondents’ opinions on a specific population with regards to marriage, there is no general information from which to draw an overall opinion of marriage itself, which eliminates Statement C from consideration. Only the assertion in Statement B can reasonably be drawn from the statements in the question; thus, B is correct.
3. The best answer is A. In order for the argument to function logically and validly, the premises must be valid and the argument must logically connect the premises to form a rational, logically consistent conclusion. Since there is no basis for arguing for or against different genres or types of music, Statement B is irrelevant to the argument, and can be ignored. Similarly, since it calls for a judgment comparison solely between the two mentioned musicians and does not require additional citations, Statement C is also irrelevant. Although having factual bases is helpful in constructing an argument, there are no definitions of terms or qualities offered that having facts would help support, so Statement D is also unsuitable. Only Statement A, which specifically highlights the weakness of the argument calling for a conclusion without defining the terms needed to phrase the conclusion, addresses the question, making A correct.
4. The best answer is D. The assumptions of the argument are implicit in the statements used, so those statements must be examined in order to extract its assumptions. Although there are only two performers cited, the comparison being made is explicitly made only between the two listed; since there is no basis to assume the argument was constructed to apply to any other performers, Statement A can be rejected. There is no discussion of musical types in the argument, so no assumptions can be made about what genres are considered popular, which disqualifies Statement B. As the argument is constructed, it applies only to the two cited directly in the statements, and requires no prior knowledge of music or these musicians; thus, Statement C is irrelevant. Only Statement D, which is indirectly stated in the conclusion and implied throughout, is relevant here; thus, D is correct.
5. The best answer is B. In order for the argument to be weakened or refuted, there must be a condition or qualification that contradicts the conclusion without altering the statements given. With this in mind, Statement A is irrelevant, because the scheduling of the shifts does not affect who is assigned to which ones or the rules governing them. Since one specific emergency room is being discussed in the argument, the shifts Dr. James could work at a different emergency room have no bearing on the shifts being discussed, so Statement C is invalid. For identical reasons, Statement D is also invalid, as the mobile clinic is outside the scope of the argument. Only Statement B, which opens the possibility that the shifts discussed are separate from regularly scheduled shifts and thus Dr. James could already be scheduled for an emergency room shift, addresses the question, making B correct.