chapter11

Getting Familiar

To start, go ahead and try these four Inference questions. Give yourself no more than six minutes total. We'll revisit these questions later on in the chapter.

PT31, S2, Q20

One of the most vexing problems in historiography is dating an event when the usual sources offer conflicting chronologies of the event. Historians should attempt to minimize the number of competing sources, perhaps by eliminating the less credible ones. Once this is achieved and several sources are left, as often happens, historians may try, though on occasion unsuccessfully, to determine independently of the usual sources which date is more likely to be right.

Which one of the following inferences is most strongly supported by the information above?

(A) We have no plausible chronology of most of the events for which attempts have been made by historians to determine the right date.

(B) Some of the events for which there are conflicting chronologies and for which attempts have been made by historians to determine the right date cannot be dated reliably by historians.

(C) Attaching a reliable date to any event requires determining which of several conflicting chronologies is most likely to be true.

(D) Determining independently of the usual sources which of several conflicting chronologies is more likely to be right is an ineffective way of dating events.

(E) The soundest approach to dating an event for which the usual sources give conflicting chronologies is to undermine the credibility of as many of these sources as possible.

PT25, S2, Q21

If this parking policy is unpopular with the faculty, then we should modify it. If it is unpopular among students, we should adopt a new policy. And, it is bound to be unpopular either with the faculty or among students.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

(A) We should attempt to popularize this parking policy among either the faculty or students.

(B) We should modify this parking policy only if this will not reduce its popularity among students.

(D) If the parking policy is popular among students, then we should adopt a new policy.

(E) If this parking policy is popular with the faculty, then we should adopt a new policy.

PT36, S1, Q4

Most antidepressant drugs cause weight gain. While dieting can help reduce the amount of weight gained while taking such antidepressants, some weight gain is unlikely to be preventable.

The information above most strongly supports which one of the following?

(A) A physician should not prescribe any antidepressant drug for a patient if that patient is overweight.

(B) People who are trying to lose weight should not ask their doctors for an antidepressant drug.

(D) The weight gain experienced by patients taking antidepressant drugs should be attributed to lack of dieting.

(E) All patients taking antidepressant drugs should diet to maintain their weight.

PT30, S4, Q22

In a recent study, a group of subjects had their normal daily caloric intake increased by 25 percent. This increase was entirely in the form of alcohol. Another group of similar subjects had alcohol replace nonalcoholic sources of 25 percent of their normal daily caloric intake. All subjects gained body fat over the course of the study, and the amount of body fat gained was the same for both groups.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

(A) Alcohol is metabolized more quickly by the body than are other foods or drinks.

(B) In the general population, alcohol is the primary cause of gains in body fat.

(D) Body fat gain is not dependent solely on the number of calories one consumes.

(E) The proportion of calories from alcohol in a diet is more significant for body fat gain than are the total calories from alcohol.

Introduction

About one in every eight Logical Reasoning questions can be categorized as “Inference” questions. These questions require you to derive a conclusion (not to be confused with identifying a conclusion) based on information given.

Inference questions can be asked in a variety of ways:

1. Support (the most common)

Example: The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

2. Must be true (occasionally “must be false”)

Example: If the statements above are true, which one of the following must be true?

3. Infer

Example: Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?

4. Completes the argument (fill in the blank)

Example: Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?

5. “Follows logically

Example: Which one of the following claims follows logically from the statements?

There are some subtle differences in what these question stems are asking of us, but there is also great commonality. For Inference questions, our main task is to identify the most provable answer of the five available.

Let's start our discussion of Inference questions by first contrasting them with some of the other question types we've already reviewed.

What Inference Questions Are NOT

1. Inference questions are NOT in the Assumption Family. To be effective and efficient on the Logical Reasoning section, it is critical that you have a clear understanding of the unique processes required by the various question types.

For questions in the Assumption Family, we want to identify a main point and the supporting premises, and we want to evaluate the relationship between them. Our success on Assumption Family questions hinges on our ability to evaluate the reasoning within the argument core, and when we are working on an Assumption Family question, that ought to be our focus.

Inference questions do not require us to evaluate reasoning in the same way. Though some right answers for Inference questions will require that we connect two or more statements from the argument together, these questions, in general, are not testing our ability to evaluate how premises lead to a conclusion. In fact, many Inference questions will involve a series of statements that are not meant to fit into an “argument core” sort of mold, so don't force it.

Why is this important? At the least, evaluating the reasoning in an argument for an Inference question can be a waste of your precious time. At the worst, it can distract you from the correct answer and make incorrect answers more tempting.

2. Inference questions are NOT Strengthen questions. The danger comes from how similar the question stems for the two can look.

Take a look at the following:

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument above?

The first is an example of an Inference question—we're asked to identify an answer that is most provable based on the information given.

The second is an example of a Strengthen question—we're asked to identify an answer that helps support the given argument.

Again, be careful not to confuse one question type for the other.

3. Inference questions are NOT Identify the Conclusion questions. This is a misunderstanding that is far more common, understandable, and dangerous. Perhaps part of the reason that this is such an issue is that many of us, when asked to identify an inference or a conclusion, instinctually look for the main inference or conclusion.

Sometimes, right answers will match up with what seems to be the logical main inference or conclusion the argument seems designed to reach, but other times they won't. That is, whether an answer represents the main conclusion is NOT the determining factor in whether an Inference answer is correct.

It's important you keep Identify the Conclusion and Inference questions distinct in your head. Remember, Conclusion questions require little extrapolation, or “inferring,” from us, and for those questions our job is to find the answer that most closely matches the conclusion given in the text. Your job for Inference questions is quite different, and, in fact, the right answer for an Inference question will never match up with what is given directly in the text (because it will be something to infer!).

Again, it is critical that you understand the specific task that each question presents. Now that we've discussed what Inference questions are not, let's talk about the characteristics that do define Inference questions.

Inference Questions Have Unpredictable Answers

To begin this discussion, take a look at the following argument. Take as much time as you'd like to take notes, underline, diagram, infer, and do whatever else you would like before moving further.

Most voters prefer Candidate A to Candidate B. Of those who prefer Candidate A, some feel that budgeting for schools is the most important issue. All voters who prefer Candidate B feel that budgeting for schools is the most important issue.

Here are three potential answer choices. Do your best to identify which of these answer choices, if any, can be logically concluded, and which, if any, cannot. Cover up the explanations that follow if you are tempted to peek!

(A) Some voters who feel budgeting for schools is the most important issue prefer Candidate B.

(B) Budgeting for schools is the most important issue for at least some of the voters.

(C) Some voters who prefer Candidate A are concerned about at least one issue about which voters who prefer Candidate B are concerned.

Now let's evaluate the answer choices.

(A) is inferable. We know that all voters who prefer Candidate B feel that budgeting for schools is the most important issue, so that must mean that at least some of the people who find budgeting for schools to be the most important issue prefer Candidate B.

(B) is inferable. We're given ample evidence that budgeting for schools is the most important issue for at least some people. In fact, we know that at least some people who prefer Candidate A find it most important, and all people who prefer Candidate B do so.

(C) is inferable. We know that some people who prefer Candidate A are concerned about budgeting for schools. Since we also know that all people who prefer Candidate B have the same concern, we can say that some people who prefer Candidate A share a concern in common with those who prefer Candidate B.

If you were correct in assessing all of these answers, fantastic. You have a great knack for this! If you weren't, that's fine too. We'll all get better and better as we go. For now, consider two issues for your own assessment:

Did you find yourself predicting certain answers, and, as a consequence, being dissuaded from any of the choices that were provided?
Did you diagram or draw out this information, and, if so, was it helpful in evaluating all, or some, of the answers?

We anticipate many of you may answer the above questions differently—that's understandable. In particular, some of you will find diagramming to be more useful than others will. However, one point we do want to make clear is that correct answers to Inference questions are generally not predictable. Many scenarios that are given can yield multiple, equally valid answers.

Here are three more answer choices for you to evaluate. We've transferred the argument for your convenience—please transfer any notation you had made previously. Once again, cover up the explanations if you'd like.

(A) A majority of voters feel that budgeting for schools is the most important issue.

(B) At least some voters who prefer Candidate B do not share at least one common concern with at least one voter who prefers Candidate A.

(A) is not inferable. Like many other tempting wrong answers, this is a statement that could either be true or false based on the given information:

Imagine that there are five voters.

Imagine three prefer A, and two prefer B.

Of those who prefer A, one finds school budgeting to be the most important issue.

We already know that the two who prefer B find school budgeting to be most important.

Therefore, we would have three out of five people, a majority, who find school budgeting to be the most important issue. So we know that (A) is possible. But let's look at a counterexample:

Now let's imagine four voters prefer A, and one prefers B.

Of those who prefer A, one finds school budgeting to be the most important issue.

We already know that the one who prefers B finds school budgeting to be most important.

In this case, only 2/5, a minority, would find school budgeting to be the most important issue.

Therefore, based on the information given, this statement can be true or false, and so it is not inferable.

(B) is not inferable. In fact, it is false. All voters who prefer Candidate B are concerned with school budgeting, and some voters who prefer Candidate A are as well, so it must be true that at least one voter who prefers Candidate A shares a concern in common with all of the voters who prefer Candidate B.

Once again, imagine five voters.

And let's imagine three prefer A, and two prefer B.

Of those who prefer A, one finds school budgeting most important.

We already know that the two who prefer B find school budgeting to be most important.

In this case, a majority of voters who felt school budgeting was the most important issue could be said to prefer B.

However, if four prefer A, and one prefers B…

And of those who prefer A, three find school budgeting to be the most important issue, this answer would be false. Keep in mind that the word “some,” at least for the purposes of the LSAT, does NOT mean “less than half.” (Please refer to the Conditional Logic chapter for more discussion on “some” issues.)

If you were drawn to any of those three answers, chances are you were tempted into making false inferences, perhaps linking information in an incorrect way. It's understandable. Consistently, we've found that some of the most tempting incorrect choices for challenging Inference questions involve such false connections.

Here's a question from the Getting Familiar section. Solve it again if you'd like. Focus on identifying the most provable answer.

PT31, S2, Q20

Which one of the following inferences is most strongly supported by the information above?

(A) We have no plausible chronology of most of the events for which attempts have been made by historians to determine the right date.

(B) Some of the events for which there are conflicting chronologies and for which attempts have been made by historians to determine the right date cannot be dated reliably by historians.

(C) Attaching a reliable date to any event requires determining which of several conflicting chronologies is most likely to be true.

(D) Determining independently of the usual sources which of several conflicting chronologies is more likely to be right is an ineffective way of dating events.

(E) The soundest approach to dating an event for which the usual sources give conflicting chronologies is to undermine the credibility of as many of these sources as possible.

Again, for this type of argument, searching for a conclusion or a core is likely going to be an ineffective use of your time. We simply want to have a general sense of the discussion, and we want to move on quickly to the answer choices.

In this case, the argument begins by describing a problem in dating certain events in history, and describes one method of trying to solve this problem.

(A) We have no plausible chronology of most of the events for which attempts have been made by historians to determine the right date.

Is (A) provable?

No. The word that should jump out is “most”—we don't have nearly enough evidence to prove the information is missing most of the time.

(B) Some of the events for which there are conflicting chronologies and for which attempts have been made by historians to determine the right date cannot be dated reliably by historians.

Is (B) provable?

It seems so. We are told specifically that historians are sometimes unsuccessful in their attempts to date (no pun intended). Let's keep this for now.

(C) Attaching a reliable date to any event requires determining which of several conflicting chronologies is most likely to be true.

Is (C) provable?

No. The word that perhaps tips us off right away is “any”—there are many events (what time you woke up this morning, for example) for which a time can be determined without examining conflicting chronologies.

(D) Determining independently of the usual sources which of several conflicting chronologies is more likely to be right is an ineffective way of dating events.

Is (D) provable?

No. It might be tempting if we are looking for some bigger point to be extracted from this argument, but it is not a statement that we can say can be “proven” based on this argument. It hasn't discussed “effectiveness” directly, and it hasn't given us a way to gauge whether the success rate determined in the argument can be considered effective.

(E) The soundest approach to dating an event for which the usual sources give conflicting chronologies is to undermine the credibility of as many of these sources as possible.

Is (E) provable?

Absolutely not! To eliminate less credible sources is not the same thing as undermining credibility. The author is not suggesting that undermining credibility is a sound approach.

Let's return to answer choice (B), the correct answer.

(B) Some of the events for which there are conflicting chronologies and for which attempts have been made by historians to determine the right date cannot be dated reliably by historians.

Down to one answer, you want to check each part of the argument. We know for sure that there are some events for which there are conflicting chronologies, and we know for sure that historians have made attempts to date these events. We're told they are sometimes unsuccessful. Nothing in this answer requires too great a leap from what we've been given.

Was this answer the author's main point? No, and, in fact, the information that most supports this answer—“though on occasion unsuccessfully”—could be thought of as playing a secondary role in the argument.

Is this answer 100% provable? The truth is, no. There are many reasons why this does not have to be 100% true. For one, perhaps at some point in the future a more accurate dating system for historians will emerge.

This leads us to the next part of our discussion…

Right Answers Will Have a Range of Provability

For some Inference questions, we are asked to identify one answer that MUST be true based on the information given. For these questions, the right answer is designed to be perfectly provable. For other Inference questions, we are asked to identify the MOST provable answer based on the information given. In these latter cases, right answers are typically not designed to be perfectly provable.

Let's take a look at an example of one of each. Both of these questions are from the Getting Familiar section.

Here's a MUST be true:

PT25, S2, Q21

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

(A) We should attempt to popularize this parking policy among either the faculty or students.

(B) We should modify this parking policy only if this will not reduce its popularity among students.

(D) If the parking policy is popular among students, then we should adopt a new policy.

(E) If this parking policy is popular with the faculty, then we should adopt a new policy.

We're told to assume that the statements in the argument are true, so we need not doubt, for example, whether the policy will indeed be unpopular either with the faculty or among students.

From our initial read, what we know is that the stimulus contains some suggestions of what to do if a parking policy is unpopular with either the faculty or the students, then states that the policy will indeed be unpopular with either the faculty or the students.

The correct answer is (E), and it is provable based on the text.

We are told that the policy is unpopular either with the faculty or the students. If it is popular with the faculty, therefore, it MUST BE TRUE that it is unpopular with the students. If it is unpopular with the students, we are told, we should adopt a new policy. Therefore, if it is popular with faculty, it must be true that we should adopt a new policy.

Let's take a look at the other answer choices:

(A) We should attempt to popularize this parking policy among either the faculty or students.

This is not provable. The author gives no indication that an attempt should be made to popularize the policy with one group or another.

(B) We should modify this parking policy only if this will not reduce its popularity among students.

This is not provable. It links elements of the argument together in incorrect ways. Reducing popularity with students has no direct relation to when the policy should be modified.

This is not provable. We haven't been given information that can help us evaluate whether modifications will or won't result in reducing popularity with faculty.

(D) If the parking policy is popular among students, then we should adopt a new policy.

This is not provable. In fact, we're told we should adopt a new policy if it is unpopular with students.

Notice the “If” and the “then” in the original sentence. This argument can also be more formally considered in terms of conditional logic, and it can be helpful to do so. To illustrate, let's break this argument down into a simpler form:

If this parking policy is unpopular with the faculty, then we should modify it.

We can notate this as follows: –PF M

If it is unpopular among students, we should adopt a new policy.

–PS N

And, it is bound to be unpopular either with the faculty or among students.

If this statement is true, we know that if it is popular with the faculty, it must be unpopular with the students, and if it is popular with students, it must be unpopular with the faculty.

We can represent these two relationships in this way:

PF –PS
PS –PF

Note that this statement does NOT mean that if it is unpopular with either group, it must be popular with the other. This would be an illegal reversal of the terms (For more on this, please refer to the Conditional Logic chapter.)

The four relationships we know are as follows:

–PF images M
–PS images N
PF images –PS
PS images –PF

If you can see the links easily, go ahead and write them out quickly:

PS –PF M (If it's popular with students, we should modify it.)
PF –PS N (If it's popular with faculty, we should adopt a new policy.)

Now, let's see if any of our answers match one of the two chains above.

(A) We should attempt to popularize this parking policy among either the faculty or students.

It's tough to match this answer up with the conditionals above, and that's with good reason—who we ought to popularize this policy with is not discussed.

(B) We should modify this parking policy only if this will not reduce its popularity among students.

M reduce PS.

Reducing popularity is also not discussed. Notice in no way can we manipulate any of the known conditionals so that M acts as a trigger that results in this particular consequence.

We can try to warp this into a conditional:

(M –PF) M

But that's a bit of a stretch and, in any case, clearly not something provable based on the text.

(D) If the parking policy is popular among students, then we should adopt a new policy.

PS N

This answer translates more cleanly, but it is not something provable from the conditionals we laid out above.

(E) If this parking policy is popular with the faculty, then we should adopt a new policy.

PF N

This is indeed provable. It's the second of our two chains.

That is, if the policy is popular with the faculty, we should adopt a new policy.

As you can see, being able to notate arguments in a formal fashion can be very helpful, especially for verifying the correct answer, or choosing between two attractive answers to a MUST BE TRUE Inference question.

Do always keep in mind that these notations are one tool, but not your only tool. When transferring from English to conditional notation, be careful that you don't forget about the nuances of the argument.

In the above example, it is critical to recognize the fact that the argument is about the consequences of being popular or unpopular, whereas several of the answer choices are about becoming more or less popular. This is the type of difference that can be obscured by notation.

Now let's take a look at a question that asks us to find the MOST provable answer:

PT36, S1, Q4

Most antidepressant drugs cause weight gain. While dieting can help reduce the amount of weight gained while taking such antidepressants, some weight gain is unlikely to be preventable.

The information above most strongly supports which one of the following?

(A) A physician should not prescribe any antidepressant drug for a patient if that patient is overweight.

(B) People who are trying to lose weight should not ask their doctors for an antidepressant drug.

(D) The weight gain experienced by patients taking antidepressant drugs should be attributed to lack of dieting.

(E) All patients taking antidepressant drugs should diet to maintain their weight.

The correct answer for this question was (C).

What we know from the argument is that most antidepressant drugs cause weight gain, and that some weight gain from such antidepressants is unlikely to be preventable.

Taken together, it's reasonable to conclude that at least some patients taking antidepressant drugs gain weight as a result of taking them.

Is this answer 100% provable? Far from it. For one, “unlikely to be preventable” does not mean it won't be preventable. Furthermore, imagine a scenario where most antidepressant drugs cause weight gain, but everyone happens to take the one antidepressant drug that doesn't cause weight gain. In this case, answer choice (C) would not be true.

So, answer (C) is far from totally provable, but it is clearly the best available answer.

Let's discuss the other answer choices:

(A) A physician should not prescribe any antidepressant drug for a patient if that patient is overweight.

This is an answer that might be tempting if you oversimplify the argument, but it makes little sense otherwise. There could be other reasons, far more important than weight, that would cause a physician to prescribe such antidepressants anyway. The argument hasn't given us proof otherwise.

(B) People who are trying to lose weight should not ask their doctors for an antidepressant drug.

This is similar to answer choice (A). Perhaps there are people for whom the benefits of antidepressants outweigh the negative consequences of weight gain.

(D) The weight gain experienced by patients taking antidepressant drugs should be attributed to lack of dieting.

This answer is clearly not provable based on the statements in the argument. While dieting is mentioned as something that can sometimes alleviate the weight gain, lack of dieting is not mentioned as the cause of weight gain.

(E) All patients taking antidepressant drugs should diet to maintain their weight.

This answer extrapolates too far from the argument. Perhaps there are patients for whom dieting has negative consequences more significant than gaining weight.

Note that there will be right answers to “Must be true” questions that seem less than perfect, and answers to “Support” questions that seem 100 percent provable. However, in general, it is helpful to look out for absolute terms, such as “must,” versus relative terms, such as “most,” to help get a sense of how strongly the right answer needs to be supported.

Note that there are many other questions that fall into a gray area between the two. Here is one more problem. Take 1:30 to solve before reading the explanation.

PT27, S4, Q5

Ticks attach themselves to host animals to feed. Having fed to capacity, and not before then, the ticks drop off their host. Deer ticks feeding off white-footed mice invariably drop off their hosts between noon and sunset, regardless of time of attachment. White-footed mice are strictly nocturnal animals that spend all daytime hours in their underground nests.

Which one of the following conclusions can be properly drawn from the statements above?

(A) Deer ticks all attach themselves to white-footed mice during the same part of the day, regardless of day of attachment.

(B) Deer ticks sometimes drop off their hosts without having fed at all.

(D) White-footed mice to which deer ticks have attached themselves are not aware of the ticks.

(E) White-footed mice are hosts to stable numbers of deer ticks, regardless of season of the year.

Notice that in this stimulus we are given many absolute statements:

Ticks drop off host when fed to capacity, and not before.
Deer ticks feeding off white-footed mice must drop off between noon and sunset.
White-footed mice are strictly nocturnal.
White-footed mice spend all daytime hours in underground nests.

Armed with all these truths, let's see which answer can be properly drawn:

(A) Deer ticks all attach themselves to white-footed mice during the same part of the day, regardless of day of attachment.

We don't know what time of day ticks attach to the mice, and we don't have a clear way to define “same part” of day.

(B) Deer ticks sometimes drop off their hosts without having fed at all.

This is not inferable. In fact, it's false. We know they don't fall off until fed to capacity.

The deer ticks fall off during the day, and the mice are in underground nests during the day. Let's keep it.

(D) White-footed mice to which deer ticks have attached themselves are not aware of the ticks.

We don't know anything about what the mice are aware of!

(E) White-footed mice are hosts to stable numbers of deer ticks, regardless of season of the year.

The number of ticks on any mouse, and the consistency of that number, is not discussed in the argument. (E) is not inferable.

One might think, based on the stringency of the LSAT in general, that a conclusion that is properly drawn must be 100 percent provable.

Is (C) 100 percent provable? That's a matter of debate perhaps, but people who live at the higher latitudes, at which night can sometimes take up 23 hours of the day, might feel it's not.

Again, one point we strongly want to emphasize is that while it might be helpful during your studies to develop a good sense of what is 90 percent provable versus 100 percent provable, this type of thinking can be a distraction during the exam.

It is important for you to know that these questions are not designed for you to differentiate between that which is almost provable and that which is absolutely provable—almost all of these problems are designed for you to separate out one answer that could fall into either of those categories from the four that, upon careful review, clearly cannot.

Therefore, your ability to see that four answers are indeed not provable is what is most crucial to your success.

Get to the Right Answer by Eliminating Wrong Answers

Because there are so many potentially correct answers, and because the paths to these potential answers are fraught with danger, the best approach for Inference questions is to focus on knocking off those answers that are most certainly not provable based on the information given.

Here are some guiding principles to help you in your process:

1. Look for term shifts between argument and answer choice. Many answer choices to Inference questions are designed to test your ability to accurately discern differences in the meaning of words and phrases. A great way to spot these differences is to actively look for “mismatches” in subject matter or attribute between the answer choice and the stimulus. Once you get in this habit, you will see that these differences jump out at you more and more.

Let's use the following stimulus to discuss some significant term shifts that you are likely to see in incorrect answers to Inference questions.

Most people with significant credit card debt will benefit from this bill. Many of these people may be able to eliminate interest payments altogether.

Invalid Inference	Why the Answer Would Be Incorrect
This bill will benefit all people with significant credit card debt.	This answer has a degree issue. We're told the bill can benefit “most” of these people, not all.
Very few people with significant credit card debt will benefit from this bill.	This answer has the opposite meaning. This is more common than you might think.
Most people who pay large credit card bills monthly will benefit from this bill.	This answer has a detail creep, or a subtle change in detail. Paying a large credit card bill is not the same as having a large credit card debt. For example, the person can pay the complete bill each month and have no debt.
This new bill is popular with most people with significant credit card debt.	This answer has scope issues. We have not been given any evidence to show that the bill is popular with one group or another.

2. Be suspicious of answers with faulty reasoning. Many answers are incorrect because they require inferences that go beyond what the given stimulus can reasonably support. Here are some examples that are representative of common reasoning issues:

Most people with significant credit card debt will benefit from this bill. Many of these people may be able to eliminate interest payments altogether.

Invalid Inference	Why the Answer Would Be Incorrect
If someone with significant credit card debt benefited, it was due to this bill.	This answer reverses the logic of the argument. We're told the bill will benefit the people, but that does not mean that if people benefit, it was due to the bill. They can benefit through other means.
This bill will benefit the debt situation of the country as a whole.	This answer incorrectly generalizes from the text. We don't have nearly enough evidence to show that the bill will impact the country as a whole.
All people with interest payments have significant credit card debt.	This answer hinges on unjustified connections. The argument discusses interest payments, and it discusses those with significant credit card debt, but this answer choice falsely connects those ideas.

As we've stated in other chapters, there is great overlap in incorrect answer characteristics, and many answers are incorrect for multiple reasons. However, it's to your benefit to develop as specific a sense as you can of incorrect answer characteristics. This will help in both your timing and your accuracy.

Let's finish this lesson by taking a look at four final sample problems. We will use these to get a more complete understanding of incorrect answer characteristics.

The first is from the “Getting Familiar” section. Consider carefully why you eliminated each incorrect choice before moving on to the explanation.

PT30, S4, Q22

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

(A) Alcohol is metabolized more quickly by the body than are other foods or drinks.

(B) In the general population, alcohol is the primary cause of gains in body fat.

(D) Body fat gain is not dependent solely on the number of calories one consumes.

(E) The proportion of calories from alcohol in a diet is more significant for body fat gain than are the total calories from alcohol.

As you evaluate the answers, you should be focused on trying to identify the characteristics that indicate that a particular answer is not provable based on the text. We've highlighted some of them here.

(A) Alcohol is metabolized more quickly by the body than are other foods or drinks.

How fast alcohol and other food or drinks are metabolized is not discussed, and we can consider this answer out of scope.

(B) In the general population, alcohol is the primary cause of gains in body fat.

This answer generalizes and has degree issues. We know nothing of the general population; this stimulus presents no evidence that proves that alcohol is a primary cause, let alone the primary cause, of gains in body fat for this population.

We don't have enough information to infer any relationship between body fat and weight gain, and in fact, weight gain is never discussed.

(D) Body fat gain is not dependent solely on the number of calories one consumes.

(D) is the correct answer. Notice that one group changed the total amount of calories it consumed, while the other group did not. Both groups gained the same amount of body fat. Since both groups attained the same result even though they consumed a different number of calories, it's reasonable to conclude there must be factors other than calories that are involved.

(E) The proportion of calories from alcohol in a diet is more significant for body fat gain than are the total calories from alcohol.

(E) is a tempting answer that brings together various elements of the argument, but it is not provable. In fact, the evidence seems to suggest that since the results were the same for both groups, calories from alcohol may play a bigger role than proportion. Even if it wasn't a reversal of what the text implies, there would not be enough evidence from this argument to support a claim such as this one. This is an answer that relies on an incorrect linking of elements of the stimulus.

Here's another example. Again, be specific about why you feel the wrong answers are wrong before moving on to the explanation.

PT37, S4, Q8

Commentator: In the new century, only nations with all the latest electronic technology will experience great economic prosperity. The people in these nations will be constantly bombarded with images of how people in other countries live. This will increase their tendency to question their own customs and traditions, leading to a dissolution of those customs and traditions. Hence, in the new century, the stability of a nation's cultural identity will likely ______________.

Which one of the following most logically completes the commentator's argument?

(A) depend on a just distribution of electronic technology among all nations

(B) decrease if that nation comes to have a high level of economic wealth

(D) be threatened only if the people of that culture fail to acquire the latest technical skills

(E) be best maintained by ensuring gradual assimilation of new technical knowledge and skills

Of all questions that are categorized as Inference, Completes the Argument are perhaps the questions that have the most predictable correct answers. This is due to a few reasons. One reason is that these questions tend to be associated with arguments that have clean, almost mathematical, structures to their logic.

In this problem, the first sentence gives us our first absolute statement: “only nations with….” From there, there is a simple order to the new ideas that are introduced, and we can see that these ideas are meant to link together:

Remember, our job in an Inference question is NOT to question the validity of the reasoning, but rather just to see it clearly.

A second reason why answers to Completes the Argument are a bit more predictable has to do with the structure of stimulus: we are given a portion of that which we are meant to infer. This narrows the scope of what could be the right answer.

In this case, we are given the phrase, “Hence, in the new century, the stability of a nation's cultural identity will likely ______________.” In terms of the information we've already been presented with in the argument, “stability of a nation's cultural identity” is most directly related to the statement that immediately precedes the sentence: “a dissolution of those customs and traditions.”

Let's discuss the exact wording of the question: “completes the commentator's argument.” We are not looking for something that we ourselves can conclude from the given information, but rather what we expect that the commentator is likely to conclude—what is most reasonable for this commentator to conclude.

We know that those with the latest technology—the only ones who will experience economic prosperity—will have a dissolution of customs and traditions. A dissolution of customs and traditions is something that typically goes very much against the idea of having stability in cultural identity—if customs and traditions are being dissolved, cultural identity is losing stability. If we know that he believes those with the latest technology—the only ones who will experience economic prosperity—will have a decrease in the stability of their cultural identity, we can predict that the author would conclude…

“Hence, in the new century, the stability of a nation's cultural identity will likely decrease if that nation comes to have a high level of economic wealth.”

This is what answer choice (B) states, and (B) is the correct answer.

If you were able to predict that answer, great. However, we want to stress that even if you know that you are amazing at predicting the right answer, we strongly recommend that you arrive at that right answer by eliminating wrong ones. There will be Completes the Argument questions where the answer is not what you would predict, and there will be ones where the right answer is written in such a convoluted way that you can't tell that it's what you predicted. Eliminating wrong choices first gives you the best chance at consistent success.

Whether you predicted (B) or not, you can get there by eliminating the other answers:

(A) depend on a just distribution of electronic technology among all nations

This answer is tempting, because a just distribution seems like it could pass for being the opposite of only wealthy nations having the latest technology, but we have no evidence at all that just distribution would lead in any way to stability. There is also a detail creep—distribution of technology is different from the distribution of the latest technology. By this point, we can see that this answer is clearly not inferable based on the text.

We are given no information about such laws, and this answer can be eliminated very quickly because it is out of scope.

(D) be threatened only if the people of that culture fail to acquire the latest technical skills

This is an answer that conflicts with the information we are given. Per the given argument, those who acquire the latest technology will feel a threat to their stability. There is also an unjustified shift from technology to technical skills.

(E) be best maintained by ensuring gradual assimilation of new technical knowledge and skills

Like (A), (E) poses as some sort of opposite or remedy of the situation the author describes. However, the author's argument is only about nations with the latest technology, and it's unlikely that those nations who “ensure” gradual assimilation will be relevant to this discussion. Furthermore, as mentioned before, technical knowledge and skills are not the same as technology itself. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we have not nearly enough information to conclude anything about what would be “best” for maintaining a stable social identity.

The four wrong choices have clearly defining characteristics. Once we eliminate these choices, we are left with (B), the correct choice.

Here's another one. Again, focus your attention on eliminating answers that are not provable.

PT27, S4, Q23

Much of today's literature is inferior: most of our authors are intellectually and emotionally inexperienced, and their works lack both the intricacy and the focus on the significant that characterize good literature. However, Hypatia's latest novel is promising; it shows a maturity, complexity, and grace that far exceeds that of her earlier works.

Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by the information in the passage?

(A) Much of today's literature focuses less on the significant than Hypatia's latest novel focuses on the significant.

(B) Much of today's literature at least lacks the property of grace.

(D) Hypatia's latest novel is clearly better than the majority of today's literature.

(E) Hypatia's latest novel has at least one property of good literature to a greater degree than her earlier works.

In this argument there is discussion of two distinct subjects—“Much of today's literature,” and the work of Hypatia. There is a temptation, built into the structure of the argument itself, to compare Hypatia's work to today's literature, but read though the argument again carefully and you should realize that there is very little overlap between these two subjects.

(A) Much of today's literature focuses less on the significant than Hypatia's latest novel focuses on the significant.

(A) links elements from the text together incorrectly. We have no idea how much Hypatia's latest novel focuses on the significant, and, in this regard, we have no idea how it relates to much of today's literature.

(B) Much of today's literature at least lacks the property of grace.

(B) links elements from the text together incorrectly. We're told Hypatia's latest novel has a grace that was lacking from her earlier work, but, again, we have no idea how this relates to today's literature. The author does not connect the concept of grace together with much of today's literature.

(C) links elements from the text together incorrectly. Again, we have no idea how Hypatia's novel compares to much of today's literature, and we have no idea if it is good enough to fall into the category of good literature—we only know that her novel is stronger, in certain ways, than her own previous work.

(D) Hypatia's latest novel is clearly better than the majority of today's literature.

(D) links elements from the text together incorrectly. Again, we have no idea how Hypatia's novel compares to much of today's literature.

(E) Hypatia's latest novel has at least one property of good literature to a greater degree than her earlier works.

(E) is the correct answer. We know that intricacy is a characteristic of good literature. Intricacy and complexity are very similar concepts, and we know that her current novel has more complexity than her previous work. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that Hypatia's latest novel has at least one property of good literature to a greater degree than her earlier works.

Here is one final challenging example for which it can be tempting to make false links. Remember to eliminate incorrect answers before verifying the correct one.

PT29, S1, Q18

Some planning committee members—those representing the construction industry—have significant financial interests in the committee's decisions. No one who is on the planning committee lives in the suburbs, although many of them work there.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

(A) No persons with significant financial interests in the planning committee's decisions are not in the construction industry.

(B) No person who has significant financial interest in the planning committee's decisions lives in the suburbs.

(D) Some planning committee members who represent the construction industry do not work in the suburbs.

(E) Some persons with significant financial interests in the planning committee's decisions do not live in the suburbs.

Each part of the argument taken by itself is simple enough. However, for those who are familiar with the LSAT, this is the type of argument that SCREAMS danger. There is various information that can be connected in a variety of ways, and there is also a great risk of combining information in an incorrect way—in fact, the four wrong answers will try to tempt you to do just that.

One way we can organize this information is to consider it in terms of larger groups and subgroups. Let's think about each sentence in those terms:

“Some planning committee members—those representing the construction industry—have significant financial interests in the committee's decisions.”

The larger group, in this case, are the members of the planning committee. Out of this larger group, a subgroup—those members representing the construction industry—have a significant financial interest in the committee's decisions. We can visualize this in the following manner:

Planning Committee Members

In Construction/Financial Interest

Now let's take a look at the second statement:

“No one who is on the planning committee lives in the suburbs, although many of them work there.”

Notice the larger group in this case is also the planning committee—of this group, we know none live in the suburbs, and many work there. We can represent that as follows:

Planning Committee Members (No one lives in suburbs)

Work in Suburbs

These diagrams are just meant to be learning tools, and in general we do not feel it is necessary to draw the arguments out in this manner in order to get the questions correct. However, if you find these types of visual systems helpful, you may want to practice such drawing tools to be used for test day. Let's put the images up one more time, side by side, and use them to knock off the four wrong choices.

Planning Committee Members

In Construction/Financial Interest

Planning Committee Members (No one lives in suburbs)

Work in Suburbs

(A) No persons with significant financial interests in the planning committee's decisions are not in the construction industry.

Notice that we only know about people who are on the planning committee—we know nothing about people in general with financial interests. Some people with a financial interest in the committee's decisions may not be on the committee! Therefore, we don't have the information to evaluate this conclusion, and it cannot be proven.

(B) No person who has significant financial interest in the planning committee's decisions lives in the suburbs.

For the same reason, (B) can't be proven. We have some information about people with a financial interest who happen to be on the committee, but without knowing more about others who have financial interests, we can't prove that this answer is true.

Again, since we don't know about all the people with financial interests, this answer could be true. We also know many committee members work in the suburbs, and that makes this answer tempting. However, we have no direct proof that those with financial interests are the ones working in the suburbs (perhaps the “many” committee members who work in the suburbs don't have a financial interest).

(D) Some planning committee members who represent the construction industry do not work in the suburbs.

This answer is similar to (C)—we know many members work in the suburbs, but we don't know which ones. It could be those in the construction industry, or it could not.

(E) Some persons with significant financial interests in the planning committee's decisions do not live in the suburbs.

We know that those on the committee who are in the construction industry have a significant financial interest, and we know they do not live in the suburbs. Therefore, we can prove that at least some people who have a financial interest do not live in the suburbs.

Answer choice (E) is correct.

Conclusion

1. Understand what inference questions are NOT. It is critical that you develop processes that are specific to each question type. Be careful not to let your understanding of Assumption Family questions hinder your process on Inference questions.

2. Right answers are not predictable. Again, some right answers will match up with your expectations, and others will not. Therefore, in general, you should not expect to predict the right answer.

3. Right answers have a range of provability. Some questions require us to find the answer that must be true, others ask for something that is most provable, and finally others fall somewhere in between. It's dangerous to think every answer must be 100 percent provable. No matter the question stem, you can never go wrong by trying to find the most provable of the five choices.

4. Get to the right answer by eliminating wrong answers. Incorrect answers for Inference questions are generally easier to identify than correct answers are. Many don't match up with the stimulus in terms of what is being discussed. Many contain reasoning that is faulty. Your success on Inference questions hinges on your ability to see what is not provable.

DRILL IT: Inference Questions

Give yourself no more than 20 minutes to complete the following problems.

1. PT39, S2, Q6

Poor writers often express mundane ideas with elaborate syntax and esoteric vocabulary. Inattentive readers may be impressed but may well misunderstand the writing, while alert readers will easily see through the pretentiousness. Thus, a good principle for writers is: _____.

Which one of the following completes the passage most logically?

(A) the simpler the style, the better the writing

(B) inattentive readers are not worth writing for

(D) a writing style should not be more complex than the ideas expressed

(E) alert readers are the only readers who are sensitive to writing style

2. PT30, S4, Q4

A certain gene can be stimulated by chemicals in cigarette smoke, causing lung cells to metabolize the chemicals in a way that makes the cells cancerous. Yet smokers in whom this gene is not stimulated have as high a risk of developing lung cancer from smoking as other smokers do.

If the statements above are true, it can be concluded on the basis of them that

(A) stimulation of the gene by chemicals in cigarette smoke is not the only factor affecting the risk for smokers of developing lung cancer

(B) nonsmokers have as high a risk of developing lung cancer as do smokers in whom the gene has not been stimulated

(D) the gene is more likely to be stimulated by chemicals in cigarette smoke than by other chemicals

(E) smokers are less likely to develop lung cancer if they do not have the gene

3. PT37, S2, Q2

The solidity of bridge piers built on pilings depends largely on how deep the pilings are driven. Prior to 1700, pilings were driven to “refusal,” that is, to the point at which they refused to go any deeper. In a 1588 inquiry into the solidity of piers for Venice's Rialto Bridge, it was determined that the bridge's builder, Antonio Da Ponte, had met the contemporary standard for refusal: he had caused the pilings to be driven until additional penetration into the ground was no greater than two inches after twenty-four hammer blows.

Which one of the following can properly be inferred from the passage?

(A) The Rialto Bridge was built on unsafe pilings.

(B) The standard of refusal was not sufficient to ensure the safety of a bridge.

(D) After 1588, no bridges were built on pilings that were driven to the point of refusal.

(E) It is possible that the pilings of the Rialto Bridge could have been driven deeper even after the standard of refusal had been met.

4. PT37, S4, Q3

An instructor presented two paintings to a class. She said that the first had hung in prestigious museums but the second was produced by an unknown amateur. Each student was asked which painting was better. Everyone selected the first. The instructor later presented the same two paintings in the same order to a different class. This time she said that the first was produced by an unknown amateur but the second had hung in prestigious museums. In this class, everyone said that the second painting was better.

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) Most of the students would not like any work of art that they believed to have been produced by an unknown amateur.

(B) None of the claims that the instructor made about the paintings was true.

(D) In judging the paintings, some of the students were affected by what they had been told about the history of the paintings.

(E) Had the instructor presented the paintings without telling the students anything about them, almost all of the students would have judged them to be roughly equal in artistic worth.

5. PT37, S4, Q1

Criminals often have an unusual self-image. Embezzlers often think of their actions as “only borrowing money.” Many people convicted of violent crimes rationalize their actions by some sort of denial; either the victim “deserved it” and so the action was justified, or “it simply wasn't my fault.” Thus, in many cases, by criminals’ characterization of their situations,.

Which one of the following most logically completes the passage?

(A) they ought to be rewarded for their actions

(B) they are perceived to be the victim of some other criminal

(D) the criminal justice system is inherently unfair

(E) they deserve only a light sentence for their crimes

6. PT37, S4, Q6

In a study, infant monkeys given a choice between two surrogate mothers—a bare wire structure equipped with a milk bottle, or a soft, suede-covered wire structure equipped with a milk bottle—unhesitatingly chose the latter. When given a choice between a bare wire structure equipped with a milk bottle and a soft, suede-covered wire structure lacking a milk bottle, they unhesitatingly chose the former.

Which one of the following is most supported by the information above?

(A) Infant monkeys’ desire for warmth and comfort is nearly as strong as their desire for food.

(B) For infant monkeys, suede is a less convincing substitute for their mother's touch than animal fur would be.

(C) For infant monkeys, a milk bottle is a less convincing substitute for their mother's teat than suede is for their mother's touch.

(D) For infant monkeys, a milk bottle is an equally convincing substitute for their mother's teat as suede is for their mother's touch.

(E) Infant monkeys’ desire for food is stronger than their desire for warmth and comfort.

7. PT39, S4, Q6

A politician can neither be reelected nor avoid censure by his or her colleagues if that politician is known to be involved in any serious scandals. Several prominent politicians have just now been shown to be involved in a conspiracy that turned into a serious scandal. These politicians will therefore not be reelected.

If the statements above are all true, which one of the following statements must also be true?

(A) The prominent politicians cannot escape censure by their colleagues.

(B) If there had been no scandal, the prominent politicians would be reelected.

(D) The prominent politicians initially benefited from the conspiracy that caused the scandal.

(E) Some politicians who are involved in scandalous conspiracies avoid detection and censure.

8. PT33, S3, Q13

Editorialist: Some people argue that ramps and other accommodations for people using wheelchairs are unnecessary in certain business areas because those areas are not frequented by wheelchair users. What happens, however, is that once ramps and other accommodations are installed in these business areas, people who use wheelchairs come there to shop and work.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the editorialist's statements?

(A) Owners of business areas not frequented by wheelchair users generally are reluctant to make modifications.

(B) Businesses that install proper accommodations for wheelchair users have greater profits than those that do not.

(D) Most businesses are not modified to accommodate wheelchair users.

(E) Some business areas are not frequented by wheelchair users because the areas lack proper accommodations.

9. PT30, S4, Q10

Twelve healthy volunteers with the Apo-A-IV-1 gene and twelve healthy volunteers who instead have the Apo-A-IV-2 gene each consumed a standard diet supplemented daily by a high-cholesterol food. A high level of cholesterol in the blood is associated with an increased risk of heart disease. After three weeks, the blood cholesterol levels of the subjects in the second group were unchanged, whereas the blood cholesterol levels of those with the Apo-A-IV-1 gene rose 20 percent.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

(A) Approximately half the population carries a gene that lowers cholesterol levels.

(B) Most of those at risk of heart disease may be able to reduce their risk by adopting a low-cholesterol diet.

(D) The presence of the Apo-A-IV-1 gene seems to indicate that a person has a lower risk of heart disease.

(E) The presence of the Apo-A-IV-2 gene may inhibit the elevation of blood cholesterol.

10. PT37, S2, Q7

Newtonian physics dominated science for over two centuries. It found consistently successful application, becoming one of the most highly substantiated and accepted theories in the history of science. Nevertheless, Einstein's theories came to show the fundamental limits of Newtonian physics and to surpass the Newtonian view in the early 1900s, giving rise once again to a physics that has so far enjoyed wide success.

Which one of the following logically follows from the statements above?

(A) The history of physics is characterized by a pattern of one successful theory subsequently surpassed by another.

(B) Long-standing success of substantiation of a theory of physics is no guarantee that the theory will continue to be dominant indefinitely.

(D) Once a theory of physics is accepted, it will remain dominant for centuries.

(E) If a long-accepted theory of physics is surpassed, it must be surpassed by a theory that is equally successful.

Challenge Questions

11. PT36, S3, Q17

The purpose of a general theory of art is to explain every aesthetic feature that is found in any of the arts. Premodern general theories of art, however, focused primarily on painting and sculpture. Every premodern general theory of art, even those that succeed as theories of painting and sculpture, fails to explain some aesthetic feature of music.

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) Any general theory of art that explains the aesthetic features of painting also explains those of sculpture.

(B) A general theory of art that explains every aesthetic feature of music will achieve its purpose.

(D) No premodern general theory of art achieves its purpose unless music is not art.

(E) No premodern general theory of art explains any aesthetic features of music that are not shared with painting and sculpture.

12. PT37, S2, Q12

Rosen: One cannot prepare a good meal from bad food, produce good food from bad soil, maintain good soil without good farming, or have good farming without a culture that places value on the proper maintenance of all its natural resources so that needed supplies are always available.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from Rosen's statement?

(A) The creation of good meals depends on both natural and cultural conditions.

(B) Natural resources cannot be maintained properly without good farming practices.

(D) Any society with good cultural values will have a good cuisine.

(E) When food is bad, it is because of poor soil and, ultimately, bad farming practices.

13. PT38, S4, Q24

Most land-dwelling vertebrates have rotating limbs terminating in digits, a characteristic useful for land movement. Biologists who assume that this characteristic evolved only after animals abandoned aquatic environments must consider the Acanthostega, a newly discovered ancestor of all land vertebrates. It possessed rotating limbs terminating in digits, but its skeleton was too feeble for land movement. It also breathed using only internal gills, indicating that it and its predecessors were exclusively aquatic.

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) Many anatomical characteristics common to most land animals represent a disadvantage for survival underwater.

(B) None of the anatomical characteristics common to most aquatic animals represent an advantage for survival on land.

(C) Acanthostega originated as a land-dwelling species, but evolved gills only after moving to an underwater environment.

(D) All anatomical characteristics not useful for land movement but common to most land animals represent an advantage for survival underwater.

(E) Certain anatomical characteristics common to some aquatic animals represent an advantage for survival on land.

14. PT33, S3, Q8

Most people invest in the stock market without doing any research of their own. Some of these people rely solely on their broker's advice, whereas some others make decisions based merely on hunches. Other people do some research of their own, but just as often rely only on their broker or on hunches. Only a few always do their own research before investing. Nonetheless, a majority of investors in the stock market make a profit.

If the statements in the passage are true, which one of the following must also be true?

(A) Some people who make a profit on their investments in the stock market do so without doing any research of their own.

(B) Most people who invest in the stock market either rely solely on their broker or make decisions based merely on hunches.

(C) Some people who do investment research on their own, while just as often relying on their broker or on hunches, make a profit in the stock market.

(D) Most people who invest in the stock market without doing any research of their own make a profit.

(E) Most people who rely solely on their broker rather than on hunches make a profit in the stock market.

15. PT30, S4, Q7

Critic: Emily Dickinson's poetry demonstrates that meaning cannot reside entirely within a poem itself, but is always the unique result of an interaction between a reader's system of beliefs and the poem; and, of course, any two readers from different cultures or eras have radically different systems of beliefs.

If the critic's statements are true, each of the following could be true EXCEPT:

(A) A reader's interpretation of a poem by Dickinson is affected by someone else's interpretation of it.

(B) A modern reader and a nineteenth-century reader interpret one of Shakespeare's sonnets in the same way.

(D) Two readers from the same era arrive at different interpretations of the same poem.

(E) A reader's enjoyment of a poem is enhanced by knowing the poet's interpretation of it.

SOLUTIONS: Inference Questions

1. PT39, S2, Q6

Which one of the following completes the passage most logically?

(A) the simpler the style, the better the writing

(B) inattentive readers are not worth writing for

(D) a writing style should not be more complex than the ideas expressed

(E) alert readers are the only readers who are sensitive to writing style

Answer choice (D) is correct.

In the stimulus we are told that poor writers often represent simple ideas in overly complex ways. Then we are told of two negative consequences of this—poor readers, who may be falsely impressed, may misunderstand the writing, and alert readers will see easily see through the pretentiousness.

Let's consider what could follow logically:

(A) is very attractive. The author seems to be advocating for a simpler style. However, on closer inspection, (A) is not supportable based on the text. The stimulus is about a mismatch in the complexity levels of the subject matter and style of writing—not about simple writing in general.

(B) is not supported by the statements. We are given no indication of who is or is not worth writing for.

(C) is not supported by the statements. We have almost no information about who can or cannot successfully adopt a complex style.

(E) is not supported by the statements. In fact, we know that inattentive readers are sensitive to writing style too—here we are told they may be impressed by poor writing style.

Answer choice (D) is most supported and it is therefore correct. In the first sentence we are told that a writing style that is more complex than the ideas expressed is representative of poor writing, and in the second sentence we are given two negative consequences of a writing style more complex than the ideas expressed. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that a writing style should not have this characteristic.

2. PT30, S4, Q4

If the statements above are true, it can be concluded on the basis of them that

(A) stimulation of the gene by chemicals in cigarette smoke is not the only factor affecting the risk for smokers of developing lung cancer

(B) nonsmokers have as high a risk of developing lung cancer as do smokers in whom the gene has not been stimulated

(D) the gene is more likely to be stimulated by chemicals in cigarette smoke than by other chemicals

(D) smokers are less likely to develop lung cancer if they do not have the gene

Answer choice (A) is correct.

The passage states that stimulating a certain gene via smoke can cause cancer, but that smokers without a stimulated gene have as high a risk as developing smoking-related lung cancer as other smokers (who do not have the stimulated gene) do. The words “it can be concluded” signal that we are dealing with an Inference question—there might be an inference that quickly comes to mind (for example, if people with the nonstimulated gene still have a high risk of developing smoking-related lung cancer, then there may be other factors at play)—but remember that what you are expecting may not be what they give you.

(B) is tempting if you misread “nonsmokers” as “smokers”—we are not given any information comparing nonsmokers and smokers at all! The passage only compares smokers with the stimulated gene and those without; this choice is out of scope.

(C) is not supported by the statements. The exact wording of the statements is that smokers with the nonstimulated gene “have as high a risk”—this does not necessarily mean they are more likely to develop cancer. Eliminate.

(D) is not supported by the statements. There is no comparison of different chemicals—only the chemicals in cigarette smoke are mentioned.

(E) is not supported by the statements. The passage never distinguishes between those who have the gene and those who don't have the gene—it only distinguishes between groups that have the gene stimulated and those who do not. Additionally, having the gene (and having it stimulated) does not necessarily mean a lower risk of lung cancer, since those without the stimulated gene had “as high a risk” as other smokers.

Choice (A), in this case, was exactly what we predicted: even though the stimulated gene is cancerous, people without the gene still have as high a risk of developing lung cancer as those with the gene, so something else must affect risk! If it were the only factor, then we would see a higher risk for those with the stimulated gene. This is our answer.

3. PT37, S2, Q2

Which one of the following can properly be inferred from the passage?

(A) The Rialto Bridge was built on unsafe pilings.

(B) The standard of refusal was not sufficient to ensure the safety of a bridge.

(D) After 1588, no bridges were built on pilings that were driven to the point of refusal.

(E) It is possible that the pilings of the Rialto Bridge could have been driven deeper even after the standard of refusal had been met.

Answer choice (E) is correct.

When an Inference question contains this much information, the test writers hope that you will forget or confuse details due to the length of the statements. Be vigilant!

(A) is not supported by the passage. What would constitute “unsafe” bridges is never discussed.

(B) is not supported by the passage. What would constitute “the safety” of bridges is never discussed.

(C) is not supported by the passage. Da Ponte “met the contemporary standard for refusal,” and we have no other information about others’ standards.

(D) is not supported by the passage. The statements only say that building pilings were driven to refusal prior to 1700; we do not have information about any other bridges built between 1588 and 1700.

Choice (E) uses the vague wording “it is possible.” Could the pilings of the Rialto have been driven deeper? Da Ponte met the standard and drove the pilings “until additional penetration into the ground was not greater than 2 inches after twenty-four hammer blows”—within 24 hammer blows, the pilings could have gone anywhere from 0 to 2 inches deeper. That is quite different from refusing to go any deeper at all. The standard could be met and exceeded—as long as the additional possible depth was less than 2 inches after 24 hammer blows.

4. PT37, S4, Q3

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) Most of the students would not like any work of art that they believed to have been produced by an unknown amateur.

(B) None of the claims that the instructor made about the paintings was true.

(D) In judging the paintings, some of the students were affected by what they had been told about the history of the paintings.

(E) Had the instructor presented the paintings without telling the students anything about them, almost all of the students would have judged them to be roughly equal in artistic worth.

The correct answer is (D).

All we know is that every single one of the students in each class preferred the museum painting (even though that painting was not preferred when presented as an unknown artist's painting). If we had heard this story in real life, we might jump to all kinds of conclusions about the reason for the discrepancy in the two different classes. However, be extra suspicious of what a “normal” person might think when confronted with LSAT information—the test-writers will try to trip us up with those expectations!

(A) is not supported by the statements. The extreme wording “any” demands an extreme justification, as does “most.” If choice (A) were true, then the situation we described might result—but we want to know what is most likely to be true given the situation, not the other way around. Technically, we don't know anything about why students said one painting was better than the other; we just know that under these two different circumstances, two different classes said they preferred different paintings. Eliminate it.

(B) is tempting, because the instructor switches the description of the paintings to the different classes, and these descriptions may at first seem to be mutually exclusive. However, the statements don't tell us anything about the accuracy of the claims. In fact, either set of claims (or both!) could be true. A painting produced by an unknown amateur could be sold and find its way into a prestigious museum. Eliminate it.

(C) is not supported by the statements. Notice the extreme wording here: “any” prestigious museum? “Each” (meaning every single one) of the students? Eliminate it.

(E) is not supported by the statements. This is an extreme claim in disguise. “Equal” artistic worth? That is a very specific claim to make about a hypothetical situation, and nothing in the statements is strong enough to give us that degree of specificity. Eliminate it.

Choice (D) is not something that must be true. It is possible that the students were not swayed by what they had been told. But the fact that everyone in each class preferred the “museum” painting (even when those paintings were different pieces) does imply there was something related to that information involved in the decision, even if we can't be certain about to what degree.

Notice the word “some” is used here—a nice, vague term that could mean as few as one. Choice (D) is by no means provably true—in fact, there are many other possibilities that could have caused the discrepancy (the differences in students themselves, the instructor's nonverbal cues, etc.). But out of the five choices, this is the one that requires the smallest jump in logic to justify, because so many of the other answers make specific and more extreme claims. This is our answer.

5. PT37, S4, Q1

Which one of the following most logically completes the passage?

(A) they ought to be rewarded for their actions

(B) they are perceived to be the victim of some other criminal

(D) the criminal justice system is inherently unfair

(E) they deserve only a light sentence for their crimes

Answer choice (C) is correct.

The information in this paragraph can be boiled down to the following:

Criminals have unusual self-image.
Embezzlers often think they are “only borrowing money.”
Many violent criminals rationalize or deny their crimes.

(A) is not supported by the statements. While the criminals may not accept blame for their actions, nowhere is it said that these people actually expect a reward. This generalization goes too far.

(B) is not supported by the statements. Nowhere are “other criminals” mentioned.

(D) is not supported by the statements. There is nothing mentioned about the criminal justice system; the passage only discusses how criminals perceive their own actions.

(E) is not supported by the statements. Someone in the “real world” might infer that these criminals (who take their own actions lightly) would think they deserved only a light sentence, but this is the LSAT! There is nothing mentioned about what types of sentences are deserved. Since none of the criminals seem to think their actions were that bad, it's quite possible that they might think they don't deserve sentences at all.

Choice (C) does require a small jump—what would it mean for an action to be “truly criminal?” We're never told, but if the criminals are rationalizing or denying their crimes, it's likely that their perceptions fall short of their own standard for being “truly criminal.” The question asks for which choice “most logically completes the passage,” and the other choices contain more concrete and severe flaws, so (C) is our answer.

6. PT37, S4, Q6

Which one of the following is most supported by the information above?

(A) Infant monkeys’ desire for warmth and comfort is nearly as strong as their desire for food.

(B) For infant monkeys, suede is a less convincing substitute for their mother's touch than animal fur would be.

(C) For infant monkeys, a milk bottle is a less convincing substitute for their mother's teat than suede is for their mother's touch.

(D) For infant monkeys, a milk bottle is an equally convincing substitute for their mother's teat as suede is for their mother's touch.

(E) Infant monkeys’ desire for food is stronger than their desire for warmth and comfort.

Answer choice (E) is correct.

We know the following facts:

1. baby monkeys preferred the soft/milk mother to the wire/milk mother.

2. baby monkeys preferred the wire/milk mother to the soft/no-milk mother.

What is the difference between these two sets of circumstances? In the second, the softer suede mother no longer had milk—and the babies switched their previous preference. This suggests that this variable (milk/no milk) is somehow important.

(A) is tempting because it seems to address the underlying decision between warmth/food, but this choice is ultimately not supported by the statements. We know that the babies chose milk over no-milk in the second experiment (and can infer that this is a choice of food over warmth), but we have no way to compare that desire with the level of preference for the soft mother in the first experiment. What if they strongly preferred food, but only marginally cared about warmth/comfort? We have no way of knowing.

(B) is not supported by the statements. We cannot make a comparison to fur when this experiment only involves a distinction between suede and wire.

(C) is not supported by the statements. The only comparisons in this experiment are between soft/wire and milk/no milk—we cannot make any inferences about how comparable the experimental conditions were to “real” mother conditions.

(D) is not supported by the statements. We cannot make a comparison to the features of a real monkey mother when this experiment only involves a distinction between suede and wire.

Choice (E) contains many of the same words as choice (A), but with an important difference: choice (E) only makes a statement about which of the two types of desire (for food/for warmth)—when in conflict with each other—wins out. If the monkeys preferred the soft mother all other things being equal, but when confronted with a choice between soft/no food and wire/food went with the wire/food mother, this indicates that their previous preference was overpowered by the food/no food distinction. This is our answer.

7. PT39, S4, Q6

If the statements above are all true, which one of the following statements must also be true?

(A) The prominent politicians cannot escape censure by their colleagues.

(B) If there had been no scandal, the prominent politicians would be reelected.

(D) The prominent politicians initially benefited from the conspiracy that caused the scandal.

(E) Some politicians who are involved in scandalous conspiracies avoid detection and censure.

Answer choice (A) is correct.

From the statement we know the following truths:

If politician is known to be involved in serious scandals, politician can't be reelected.

If politician is known to be involved in serious scandals, politician can't avoid censure.

Several prominent politicians now known to be involved in conspiracy that is now serious scandal.

These politicians will not be reelected.

(A) must be true. We are told these politicians are known to be involved in a serious scandal, and we know that an absolute consequence is that they cannot avoid censure.

(B) is not supported. The statement gives us no evidence that the politicians would be reelected otherwise. They could not get reelected for other reasons.

(C) is not supported. Just because being involved in scandal results in censure does not meant it is the only action that results in censure. Perhaps a politician can be censured for another reason.

(D) is not supported by any part of the text.

(E) is not supported by any part of the text.

8. PT33, S3, Q13

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the editorialist's statements?

(A) Owners of business areas not frequented by wheelchair users generally are reluctant to make modifications.

(B) Businesses that install proper accommodations for wheelchair users have greater profits than those that do not.

(D) Most businesses are not modified to accommodate wheelchair users.

(E) Some business areas are not frequented by wheelchair users because the areas lack proper accommodations.

Answer choice (E) is correct.

This passage is fairly brief and straightforward, but be just as vigilant about sticking to the details.

(A) is not supported by the statements. We do not have enough information about what owners of these types of businesses “generally” are or are not reluctant to do. The statements only mention that “some people” argue that ramps/accommodations are unnecessary. Watch out for detail creep—these two groups are not interchangeable!

(B) is not supported by the statements. Profitability is not mentioned for either type of business.

(D) is not supported by the statements. There is no information about what “most businesses” do—only what “some people” argue and what happens when “certain” businesses adopt accommodations.

Notice the vague wording of answer (E)—“some business areas.” Is there at least one instance in which a business area may not be frequented by wheelchair users due to a lack of accommodations? If a certain area without accommodations was not frequented by wheelchair users, then accommodations are installed and wheelchair users begin to frequent that business area, then that does imply that the lack of accommodations may have kept them away in the first place. Is this necessarily true? No. But it is likely, since wheelchair users would not have been able to easily access the businesses before, and once that variable shifts the wheelchair users’ behavior also shifts.

9. PT30, S4, Q10

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

(A) Approximately half the population carries a gene that lowers cholesterol levels.

(B) Most of those at risk of heart disease may be able to reduce their risk by adopting a low-cholesterol diet.

(D) The presence of the Apo-A-IV-1 gene seems to indicate that a person has a lower risk of heart disease.

(E) The presence of the Apo-A-IV-2 gene may inhibit the elevation of blood cholesterol.

Answer choice (E) is correct.

Two healthy groups with two different genes consumed standard diets plus a high-cholesterol food, but only one group had a 20% increase in blood cholesterol. We are also told that high blood cholesterol is associated with increased heart disease risk. What is most likely to be true given these facts?

(A) is not supported by the statements. We are not given any information about the relative frequency of Apo-A-IV-1 and –2 in the general population. Also, does the gene “lower” cholesterol levels? The statements say that the type 2 group was stable, while the type 1 group's levels increased—there is no lowering mentioned.

(B) is not supported by the statements. A low-cholesterol diet is never mentioned, so this answer choice is out of scope.

(C) is tempting because it may be a plausible explanation for the results, but the question does not ask for an explanation, it merely asks what is most strongly supported. Eliminate it.

(D) is tempting because there is a link between the two types of genes and high blood cholesterol, which in turn is linked to risk of heart disease. But be very careful! There is an important detail creep here—the type 1 gene group had higher blood cholesterol levels after the diet, and this choice implies the opposite. Eliminate it.

Choice (E) is not necessarily true—there could be other explanations for the results of this experiment. But the test writers use the vague word “may,” and since the type 1 group had levels of cholesterol that rose, while the type 2 group had stable levels, this statement expresses a very strong possibility (and is certainly more strongly supported than answers (A) through (D), which have fatal flaws).

10. PT37, S2, Q7

Which one of the following logically follows from the statements above?

(A) The history of physics is characterized by a pattern of one successful theory subsequently surpassed by another.

(B) Long-standing success of substantiation of a theory of physics is no guarantee that the theory will continue to be dominant indefinitely.

(D) Once a theory of physics is accepted, it will remain dominant for centuries.

(E) If a long-accepted theory of physics is surpassed, it must be surpassed by a theory that is equally successful.

Answer choice (B) is correct.

(A) is not supported by the statements. Only two theories are mentioned in the statements, and we cannot generalize a pattern about the history of physics from these two theories.

(C) is not supported by the statements. Notice the extreme wording here—“every” theory is surpassed by a more successful theory? Only two theories are mentioned.

(D) is not supported by the statements. Once any theory of physics is accepted it will remain dominant? Only two theories are mentioned in the statements, so we cannot make such a broad generalization.

(E) is tempting because it seems like “real-world” logic—if a theory is surpassed, the newer theory must be just as successful, right? However, we are looking for what follows logically from the exact information given, and there is no explicit comparison of the success of the two theories.

Choice (B) is demonstrably true. Newtonian physics had long-standing successful applications and was highly substantiated, but was surpassed by Einstein's theories (i.e., lost its dominance). This is our answer.

Notice how many of the distracters contained generalizations that were too broad given the exact statements. Stick closely to what you're given!

Challenge Question

11. PT36, S3, Q17

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) Any general theory of art that explains the aesthetic features of painting also explains those of sculpture.

(B) A general theory of art that explains every aesthetic feature of music will achieve its purpose.

(D) No premodern general theory of art achieves its purpose unless music is not art.

(E) No premodern general theory of art explains any aesthetic features of music that are not shared with painting and sculpture.

Answer choice (D) is correct.

We know from the argument the following:

The purpose of general theories of art (GTA) is to explain EVERY aesthetic feature of ANY art (notice the extreme wording)
Premodern GTA focused on painting and sculpture
EVERY premodern GTA failed to explain SOME aesthetic feature of music

(A) is not supported by the statements. We do not have enough information to make this claim about any GTA. Would it be possible, given these statements, for GTA to explain painting but NOT explain sculpture (or vice versa)? Absolutely—the statements say only that premodern theories focused “primarily” on painting and sculpture, and that “some” premodern theories succeeded for painting and sculpture. Eliminate it.

(B) is not supported by the statements. What if the theory explained every feature of music but did not explain every feature of painting and sculpture (or other arts)? Eliminate it.

(C) is not supported by the statements. If the word “any” were replaced with “some,” we would have our answer, but we do not have enough information to make this claim about “any” GTA. What about non-premodern GTA that focused on painting and sculpture? We don't know anything about them, and there's nothing that says they couldn't fully explain music's aesthetic features. Eliminate it.

(E) is tempting because it combines many of the words from the passage, throwing in a “no” and a “not” to confuse us more. But look at exactly what this choice says. All we know about music/premodern GTA is that premodern GTA did not fully explain music—meaning there was at least one feature of music that couldn't be explained by those theories. Does that mean those theories did not explain any parts of music that didn't overlap with painting and sculpture? Absolutely not.

Choice (D) combines what we know about premodern GTA (that they failed to fully explain some aesthetic feature of music) and the purpose of GTA—to explain fully all aesthetic features of the arts. If music is an art, then a premodern GTA cannot fulfill its purpose, so a premodern GTA cannot achieve its purpose unless we exclude music as a category. This is our answer.

12. PT37, S2, Q12

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from Rosen's statement?

(A) The creation of good meals depends on both natural and cultural conditions.

(B) Natural resources cannot be maintained properly without good farming practices.

(D) Any society with good cultural values will have a good cuisine.

(E) When food is bad, it is because of poor soil and, ultimately, bad farming practices.

The correct answer is (A).

This paragraph contains a string of prerequisites. Good meals require nonbad food; good (nonbad) food requires good (nonbad) soil; maintaining good (nonbad) soil requires good farming; and good farming requires a certain type of culture.

If you prefer, you can also understand prerequisites as if/then statements (A cannot lead to B, so if A, there was not B). It might be helpful to list them out:

If good meals

NOT made from bad food

If good food

NOT made from bad food

If good soil is maintained

there was good farming

If there was good farming

there was culture that valued proper maintenance of natural resources

These last two statements can be combined:

Let's keep the links in mind when looking at the answers.

(B) is not supported by the statements. Maintenance of natural resources (or rather a culture that places value on such maintenance) is a prerequisite for (meaning the thing needed before) good farming, not the other way around. Eliminate it.

(C) is tempting if you wrote “good soil good farming” rather than “If good soil is maintained there was good farming”—these two statements are NOT the same. The first statement does not contain the element of time, which is necessary because one element of each if/then statement concerns what had to be in place before the other element. Good farming is the prerequisite for good soil, not the other way around. Eliminate it.

(D) is not supported by the statements. What exactly are “good cultural values” or “good cuisine?” This choice is out of scope.

(E) is tempting but goes too far. We know that good (nonbad) soil is a prerequisite for good food, but we are never told that good soil is sufficient in and of itself to make food good. What if the soil was good, but the food was left out for weeks and spoiled? Likewise, you could argue that bad soil could have been the result of good farming practices (for example, if a natural disaster wrecked a good farmer's work). Eliminate it.

If you understood that all the things mentioned were prerequisites for good meals, you may have arrived at answer choice (A) quickly—good meals depend on good food, which depends on good soil/farming (natural conditions) and cultural conditions (valuing maintenance of natural resources).

If you chose instead to use a more formal approach and write these prerequisites as if/then statements, we could say the following:

String these together to get the following:

We also know that

Therefore, answer choice (A) is our answer.

Note: you could make the very real criticism that soil doesn't have to be “good” or “bad”—it could also be “neutral,” but it's unclear what “neutral” would mean in this context. And doing so would leave us without a correct answer, since all the other choices have more severe flaws. In this case, as in many others, you must go with what is the smallest possible jump in logic.

13. PT38, S4, Q24

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) Many anatomical characteristics common to most land animals represent a disadvantage for survival underwater.

(B) None of the anatomical characteristics common to most aquatic animals represent an advantage for survival on land.

(C) Acanthostega originated as a land-dwelling species, but evolved gills only after moving to an underwater environment.

(D) All anatomical characteristics not useful for land movement but common to most land animals represent an advantage for survival underwater.

(E) Certain anatomical characteristics common to some aquatic animals represent an advantage for survival on land.

Answer choice (E) is correct.

Remember that for an Inference question, the right answer does not need to represent the author's conclusion. Here, the argument seems to imply that certain biologists (who assume that rotating limbs ending in digits evolved in land, not aquatic, animals) are wrong. However, none of the choices directly address this implication—our job in an Inference question is merely to identify what is most likely to be true given the statements. What have we been told explicitly?

Most land-dwelling vertebrates have rotating limbs w/digits.
Acanthostega had rotating limbs w/digits but was too feeble for land movement.
Acanthostega breathed with gills, so it must have been aquatic.

Acanthostega seems to refute certain biologists’ expectations, but we can't necessarily predict what else will follow, so stick closely to the exactly wording of the statements when approaching the answers.

(A) is not supported by the statements, which do not discuss “many anatomical characteristics common to most land animals.” Only one characteristic related to land animals (rotating limbs with digits) is discussed. Eliminate.

(B) is not supported by the statements. Only two characteristics of aquatic animals are discussed—gills and the rotating limbs of Acanthostega. This is not enough information to make an extreme claim about all possible anatomical characteristics’ usefulness.

(C) is tempting because it would explain the discrepancy, but this is not an “explain the discrepancy” question! We want to know what is most likely to be true given the statements, not just something that could be true.

(D) is not supported by the statements. Characteristics that represent an advantage for survival underwater are never mentioned (unless you count gills), and there is not enough information to make an extreme claim about all possible characteristics not useful for land movement.

Choice (E) contains many of the same words as choices (A), (B), and (D), but notice that (E) makes a far weaker claim (“certain” characteristics and “some” animals). Weaker claims are often easier to support—an extreme claim may be disproved by one exception, but a vague claim may not be. The “anatomical characteristics common to some aquatic animals” mentioned in the statements are Acanthostega's gills and rotating limbs—does one of these “represent an advantage for survival on land?” Absolutely—the first statement says that rotating limbs with digits is useful for land movement. This is our answer.

14. PT33, S3, Q8

If the statements in the passage are true, which one of the following must also be true?

(A) Some people who make a profit on their investments in the stock market do so without doing any research of their own.

(B) Most people who invest in the stock market either rely solely on their broker or make decisions based merely on hunches.

(C) Some people who do investment research on their own, while just as often relying on their broker or on hunches, make a profit in the stock market.

(D) Most people who invest in the stock market without doing any research of their own make a profit.

(E) Most people who rely solely on their broker rather than on hunches make a profit in the stock market.

Answer choice (A) is correct.

This paragraph contains the same few terms—“invest,” “research,” “broker,” and “hunches”—over and over again, so it may help to rewrite the claims in simpler terms:

Most people invest w/o research (some rely only on brokers, some only on hunches).
Others do research sometimes (but sometimes rely only on brokers or hunches).
A few always do research.
BUT a majority make a profit.

What “must also be true” given these facts? Be vigilant about the specific small words in each answer, and don't let the repetitive nature of the choices confuse you.

(B) is not supported by the statements. What does the passage tell us about those who rely solely on their brokers or solely on hunches? Out of the group of people who invest without research, “some” rely only on brokers, and “some others” on hunches. Are these the only possible groups? No, they could be just “some” of the people. What if the rest of the people (a potentially large proportion) rely both on their broker's advice AND hunches, or neither? Eliminate it.

(C) is tempting because if most investors make a profit, it may be possible that members of the group of “other people” who do research AND rely on their broker AND rely on hunches make a profit. But is this necessarily true? Is it possible that this could be the one subgroup that fails to make a profit? Yes, so eliminate it.

(D) is tempting because most people invest in the stock market without research, and a majority of investors make a profit. But what exactly constitutes a majority? Anything over 50 percent. Try testing the smallest possible majorities: if 51 out of 100 people make a profit, and 51 out of 100 people invest without doing research, does that mean that most of the 51 who invested without research made a profit? Is there a way this could be false? Absolutely—check out the Venn diagram below:

In this scenario, only 10 out of the 41 people who invested without research made a profit. Testing the “extremes” of the words “some,” “most,” etc. can often be a useful tactic. Eliminate it.

(E) is not supported by the statements. We don't know anything about the number of people who rely solely on their brokers rather than on hunches (except that it is “some” of the population), so we can't make a claim about what “most” of this group does.

The meaning of choice (A) is very similar to that of (D), but with the substitution of “some” for “most” to describe the overlap between these two groups. Does choice (A) have to be true? Is there any way it could not be? Imagine if none of the people who make a profit on their investments in the stock market do so without doing research, then the overlap of the two circles would be empty—0 people. This would leave 51 investors who make a profit (w/o research) and 51 people who do no research (w/o profit). That would mean we would have a minimum of 51 + 51 = 102 people—more people than our total population of 100!

Of course, that's not possible. In order for our numbers to work out, we must have some overlap, so choice (A) is our answer.

By the way, we're not suggesting you draw Venn diagrams—there are plenty of times when they will not work (e.g., when there are five categories).

15. PT30, S4, Q7

If the critic's statements are true, each of the following could be true EXCEPT:

(A) A reader's interpretation of a poem by Dickinson is affected by someone else's interpretation of it.

(B) A modern reader and a nineteenth-century reader interpret one of Shakespeare's sonnets in the same way.

(D) Two readers from the same era arrive at different interpretations of the same poem.

(E) A reader's enjoyment of a poem is enhanced by knowing the poet's interpretation of it.

Answer choice (B) is correct.

This question is tricky not only because it asks us to distinguish what could be true (whereas we're more often asked what must be or is most likely to be true), but also because it is an EXCEPT question. That means we should expect four answers that could be true and one that must be false.

(A) could be true. There is nothing in the passage that makes it impossible for one reader's interpretation to affect another's—in fact, the interplay between two readers’ interpretations is never mentioned, so this answer choice is fair game.

(D) is tempting because the critic distinguishes between readers of different time periods, saying these readers will have radically different systems of belief. Does that mean, however, that readers from the same period must have the same systems of belief? No. In fact, the critic states that meaning is “always the unique result” of the poem colliding with the reader's system of beliefs—if meaning is always unique, then interpretations cannot be identical.

(E) could be true. There is nothing in the passage that makes it impossible for the poet's interpretation to affect the reader's—this type of interplay is never mentioned, so choice (E) is fair game.

As mentioned in our discussion of choice (D), the passage implies that meaning is unique to every reader. Furthermore, the critic states that two readers from different eras have radically different systems of belief. If each of the two meanings/interpretations of the readers in (B) are unique results of the poem colliding with their radically different systems of belief, then these meanings/interpretations cannot be identical.