Reasoning Question

[Amby]

I see that people answer questions here sometimes. I have one from The December 2004 LSAT, Question #22. The question is about compact discs. I don't understand what they are saying, and I don't understand what they are asking.

The LSAT sucks. 

[Dr. Troy]

Hey Amby,

This is a question where you are asked to choose an answer choice that proves that the conclusion is absolutely correct. So we need to first begin by identifying the conclusion. Here, the conclusion is that most jazz recordings will not be transferred onto compact discs. What support does the author offer to try to show that this conclusion is true? First, the author states that record companies only transfer recordings  that they believe will sell well enough on CD to be profitable, and then the author also tells us that few classic jazz recordings are played on the radio. So what we must do here to prove that most jazz recordings will not be transferred to CD is to show that recordings not played on the radio (jazz recordings in this case) will not be thought to be profitable on compact disc (meaning record companies won't transfer them, since profit is a requirement of the transfer). Essentially what we are doing is connecting the unconnected pieces in the argument, a very common task in this type of question.

Answer choice E does this nicely by stating that recordings that are not played on the radio (classical jazz recordings) are believed by record companies to not be profitable on CD, meaning that those classical jazz recordings will not be transferred. This matches the conclusion and shows that it is correct.

Diagrammatically:

Classic Jazz Recordings --> Not played radio --> Not believed profitable --> Not transferred to CD
                     (last sentence)          (answer choice E)             (first sentence)


Hope this helps!

[Amby]

And exactly how is this supposed to prove I'll be a good lawyer?

Regardless, thanks.

[Dr. Troy]

Haha I wonder that same thing sometimes!

I think you'll find though that a lot of the fundamental skills that the LSAT tests are actually pretty applicable to what will be required of you in law school: efficiently reading and comprehending dense/complex passages, recognizing the strength and nature of of language (the difference is words like "all" vs "most", for instance), making proper inferences and avoiding unknown assumptions, etc. And that should come as good news, since it means that as you get better at the LSAT you'll also be developing tools that will help you out down the road.

[Jeffort]

Haha I wonder that same thing sometimes!

I think you'll find though that a lot of the fundamental skills that the LSAT tests are actually pretty applicable to what will be required of you in law school: efficiently reading and comprehending dense/complex passages, recognizing the strength and nature of of language (the difference is words like "all" vs "most", for instance), making proper inferences and avoiding unknown assumptions, etc. And that should come as good news, since it means that as you get better at the LSAT you'll also be developing tools that will help you out down the road.

 

With the LSAT, the content of the questions and types of question asked are not designed to and do not test your knowledge of or proficiency with the law because you have not yet learned the fundamentals of the law by having gone to Law School.  Rather, you are being screened as a candidate seeking to get educated about the law and being evaluated about whether or not you have acquired the relevant and necessary intellectual and logical thinking skills to be able to succeed in Law School.

The LSAT is a test designed to measure a defined range and set of skills and abilities that are necessary to perform well in Law School:  Excellent reading, comprehension, knowledge/understanding of and ability to apply valid reasoning well to new facts of varied subject matter in arguments and other types of materials from various angles.  That's why the various different types of logical reasoning question types ask you to perform types of analysis of the material in the stimulus that are common types of analysis tasks lawyers must do.

These are all skills that are vital to being a successful Law Student and then a Lawyer.  It also tests your ability to sort through distracter fluff information (in court cases and trials ever heard of the defense tactic "smoke and mirrors"), your ability to manage time wisely, your endurance and stamina (lawyers typically work many more than 8 hours a day) and many other important abilities.

I think it's a pretty well designed test for screening Law School hopefuls.