91Ó°ÊÓ

Some people believe that witnessing violence in movies will discharge aggressive energy. Does watching someone else eat fill one's own stomach? In which one of the following does the reasoning most closely parallel that employed in the passage? (A) Some people think appropriating supplies at work for their own personal use is morally wrong. Isn't shoplifting morally wrong? (B) Some people think nationalism is defensible. Hasn't nationalism been the excuse for committing abominable crimes? (C) Some people think that boxing is fixed just because wrestling usually is. Are the two sports managed by the same sort of people? (D) Some people think that economists can control inflation. Can meteorologists make the sun shine? (E) Some people think workaholics are compensating for a lack of interpersonal skills. However, aren't most doctors workaholics?

Step by step solution

01

Analyze the Given Argument

The given argument suggests that watching violence in movies does not discharge one's aggressive energy, much like watching someone eat does not make you feel full. The comparison highlights that observing an action does not lead to experiencing the results of that action personally.

02

Identify the Argument Structure

The structure of the argument can be broken down into the belief of cause and effect. The passage implies questioning the effectiveness of an assumed cause (watching violence will discharge aggressive energy) by drawing a parallel to the ineffectiveness of a similar observation (watching eating doesn't fill you up).

03

Evaluate the Choices

Now, compare each option to see if they follow a similar structure: questioning the effectiveness of a cause by comparing it to another cause-and-effect situation that does not logically support the assumption.

04

Review Choice D

Choice D asks if economists can control inflation similarly to whether meteorologists can make the sun shine. Both suggest skepticism about expected outcomes (influencing inflation and weather, respectively). This parallels the given argument's structure of questioning cause-effect assumptions by comparing to a clearly ineffective scenario.

05

Confirm the Match

Choice D matches the logic of the passage because it uses a similarly structured comparison to illustrate the potential shortcomings of assumed causality.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

• Full Textbook Solutions

  Get detailed explanations and key concepts

• Unlimited Al creation

  Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

• Ads-free access

  To over 500 millions flashcards

• Money-back guarantee

  We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Logical Reasoning

Logical reasoning is the process of using rational, systematic steps to arrive at a conclusion. In the context of LSAT practice problems, it's important to understand that logical reasoning involves analyzing arguments and assessing their validity.
These types of problems often present a statement or passage and require you to evaluate the strength of its logic. To succeed, you will need to:

• Identify assumptions in the argument
• Determine the relationship between premises and conclusion
• Evaluate the credibility of evidence or support presented
• Spot any logical fallacies or errors in reasoning

Logical reasoning speaks to our ability to decipher a valid argument from a flawed one, a crucial skill in these kinds of analytical exercises.

Argument Structure

Understanding argument structure is key to solving logical reasoning questions in LSAT practice problems. The structure of an argument is essentially the framework upon which it is built. An argument typically has:

• A premise or set of premises: statements or facts that provide support
• A conclusion: the statement the argument is trying to prove

For example, in the original exercise, the premise suggests that watching violence in movies does not discharge aggressive energy. The conclusion drawn is that merely observing an action does not mean experiencing its results personally.
In LSAT questions, identifying these components is vital. You need to differentiate between what's being asserted and how they back up the claim. This helps determine if an argument holds or falls apart under analysis.

Parallel Reasoning

Parallel reasoning refers to identifying arguments that follow the same logical pattern. In the exercise, our job was to find an argument that mimics the structure of the given passage.
This involves matching argument frameworks rather than content. It's about seeing if the logical structure holds up across different scenarios. When working through parallel reasoning problems, focus less on the specific topics and more on:

• The logical structure: is it similar in form?
• How premises relate to the conclusion
• Whether similar logical connections are maintained

For example, choice D in the exercise paralleled the passage by comparing the inefficacy of certain actions to yield the desired result, much like the original. This thought process is essential in discerning parallel reasoning.

Cause and Effect Analysis

Cause and effect analysis is a significant component of reasoning questions, especially evident in the exercise provided. It requires examining how one event or action might influence another.
In the original problem, we see a debate about whether observing an action can produce the expected outcome, likened to watching eating but not feeling full. The analysis here questions the validity of assumed cause-and-effect relationships.
When evaluating cause and effect, consider:

• Is the cause truly sufficient to produce the effect?
• Are there alternative explanations?
• Is there a clear logical connection between cause and effect?

By thoroughly understanding these connections, you can better evaluate or challenge assumed relationships within LSAT problems, ultimately honing your analytical skills.