| LSAT Questions: 10 LSAT Questions 1-3 are based on the following Logic Game :
A legion of linguists claim to be able to determine human geographic origins by conducting a phonetic examination of non-phonemic utterances. As indicated by the following conditions, they assert that some sounds have a greater index than others.
|
|
A "grunt" is comparable to a "cough" and an "implosion." |
|
A "laugh" is akin to a "grunt," an "oops" and an "implosion." |
|
An "implosion" is the equivalent of three "ahhhs." |
|
Three "grunts" match exactly one "laugh." |
|
An "ahhh" is the same as a "cough." |
|
| 1. |
If the above are true, which one of the following groups of utterances are arranged from greatest to least index?
(A) "laugh," "grunt," "oops," "ahhh,"
"cough"
(B) "laugh," "implosion," "grunt,"
"oops," "cough"
(C) "laugh," "oops," "implosion,"
"grunt," "cough"
(D) "laugh," "oops," "grunt," "implosion,"
"cough"
(E) "laugh," "implosion," "oops,"
"grunt," "cough"
|
|
| 2. |
If the above are true, an implosion is exactly half of . . .
(A) a "laugh" minus an "oops"
(B) an "implosion" and a "grunt" combined
(C) a "cough" and an "oops" combined
(D) an "implosion," an "ahhh" and a "cough"
combined.
(E) an "ahhh," an "oops" and a "cough"
combined
|
|
| 3. |
If a "sigh" is added as an utterance that is
exactly 25% of an "ahhh," how many "sighs" would be
required to equal twice the combined index value of an "oops"
and an "implosion?"
(A) 96
(B) 84
(C) 72
(D) 64
(E) 48
|
LSAT Questions 4-5 below are based on the following stimulus. Click only the one BEST answer to each question. |
A psychiatric investigator divided thirty-four child abusers into two distinct groups: one group of sporadic abusers and the other group of chronic abusers, based on each person's documented record of felony convictions for this illicit behavior. A significantly larger percentage of the chronic-abuser group demonstrated a higher level of anxiety than that demonstrated by the sporadic-abuser group. Published in the Journal of Medicine, a report by the investigator claimed that it was chronic abuse that resulted in higher anxiety. |
4. |
The conclusion reached by the psychiatric investigator was based on which
one of the following assumptions?
|
5. |
Which one of the above answer choices, if true, most seriously weakens the investigator's conclusion?
|
Directions: Based on what is stated or
implied in the passage,
click the answer to question 6.
|
| |
Words are indispensable but also
can be fatal - the only begetters
of all civilization, all angelic
goodness, and the only begetters |
| 5. |
at the same time of all
superstition, all collective
madness and stupidity, all
worse-than-bestial diabolism, all
the dismal, historical succession |
| 10. |
of crimes in the name of God,
King, Nation, Party, Dogma.
Never before, thanks to the
techniques of mass
communication, have so many |
| 15. |
listeners been so completely at
the mercy of so few speakers.
Never have misused words-
those hideously efficient tools of
all tyrants, war-mongers, |
| 20. |
persecutors, and heresy hunters-
been so widely and disastrously |
|
| |
influential as they are today.
Generals, politicians, clergymen,
advertisers, and rulers of |
| 25. |
totalitarian states - all have good
reasons for disliking the idea
of universal education in the
rational use of the language.
To the military, government, |
| 30. |
clerical, propagandist,
and authoritarian mind such
training seems (and rightfully seems)
profoundly subversive. |
6. The author will most likely go on to discuss:
|
LSAT Questions 7-10 are based on the following Logic Game :
A top-tier law school challenges, individually, each of five, law-school applicants, who have parallel credentials for admission to the law school, to determine the equilibrium self-allocation of a $100,000 fellowship (divisible in allocations of $1,000 only). The allocation process is governed by the following conditions:
First, the five applicants draw straws to determine their respective, sequential turns to submit their equilibrium self-allocations of the $100,000 fellowship. Second, applicant #1 submits his/her allocation that is either accepted or rejected by a majority vote of the five applicants.
Each law-school applicant must take his/her chronological turn; there can be no abstentions. A tie vote is to be considered a majority vote.
If applicant #1 submits an allocation that does not win a majority of the five votes, then #1's application to the top-tier law school is rejected, and the challenge is passed to applicant #2. If applicant #2 submits an allocation that does not win a tie or a majority vote, then #2's application to the top-tier law school is rejected, and the challenge is passed to applicant #3. This process is iterated until either a tie or a majority is reached, or only the remaining applicant #5 is admitted to the top-tier law school with a $100,000 fellowship.
There must be no collusion whatsoever, and the only motivation(s) of each applicant is to win the $100,000 fellowship and/or avoid rejection by the top-tier law school.
|
| 7. |
If #1's suggestion wins a majority vote, which applicant must get
most of the $100,000?
(A) #1
(B) #2
(C) #3
(D) #4
(E) #5
|
|
| 8. |
If #1's suggestion should win a majority vote, which of the following
must be the number of law-school applicants who would receive none
of the $100,000.00?
(A) 0
(B) 1
(C) 2
(D) 3
(E) 4
|
|
| 9. |
Which one of the following is a complete and accurate number of
applicants that must be rejected by the law school as a result of the
equilibrium allocation of the $100,000?
(A) 0
(B) 1
(C) 2
(D) 3
(E) 4
|
|
| 10. |
Which one of the following is the most logical pairing of the law school applicant and the exact amount of the $100,000 that he/she could receive as a result of the equilibrium allocation?
(A) #1, $ 1,000.00
(B) #2, $ 97,000.00
(C) #3, $ 98,000.00
(D) #4, $100,000.00
(E) #5, $100,000.00
|
/
|