Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - nonameee

Pages: [1]
Studying for the LSAT / weaken
« on: December 02, 2011, 09:39:09 AM »
Chronic fatigue syndrome, a condition that afflicts thousands of people, is invariably associated with lower-than-normal concentrations of magnesium in the blood. Further, malabsorption of magnesium from the digestive tract to the blood is also often associated with some types of fatigue. These facts in themselves demonstrate that treatments that raise the concentration of magnesium in the blood would provide an effective cure for the fatigue involved in the syndrome.

The argument is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?

(A) It fails to establish that lower-than-normal concentrations of magnesium in the blood are invariably due to malabsorption of magnesium.

(D) It offers no evidence that fatigue itself does not induct lowered concentrations of magnesium in the blood.

(C) It ignores the possibility that even in people who are not afflicted with chronic fatigue. Syndrome concentration of magnesium in the blood fluctuates.

(D) It neglects to state the exact concentration of magnesium in the blood which is considered the normal concentration.

(E) It does not specify what methods would be most effective in raising the concentration of magnesium in the blood.


Can someone please explain the OA?

Thanks a lot.

Studying for the LSAT / LSAT Feb 1993 Weaken
« on: November 25, 2011, 09:35:17 AM »
22. A scientist made three observations: (1) in the world's temperate zones, food is more plentiful in the ocean than it is in fresh water; (2) migratory fish in temperate zones generally mature in the ocean and spawn in fresh water; and (3) migratory fish need much nourishment as they mature but little or none during the part of their lives when they spawn. On the basis of those observations, the scientist formulated the hypothesis that food availability is a determining factor in the migration of migratory fish. Subsequently the scientist learned that in the tropics migratory fish generally mature in fresh water and spawn in the ocean.

Which one of the following would it be most helpful to know in order to judge whether what the scientist subsequently learned calls into question the hypothesis?

(A) whether in the world's temperate zones, the temperatures of bodies of fresh water tend to be lower than those of the regions of the oceans into which they flow

(B) whether the types of foods that migratory fish eat while they inhabit the ocean are similar to those that they eat while they inhabit bodies of fresh water

(C) whether any species of fish with populations in temperate zones also have populations that live in the tropics

(D) whether there are more species of migratory fish in the tropics than there are in temperate zones

(E) whether in the tropics food is less plentiful in the ocean than in fresh water

I got the question right. But I'm not sure why B is wrong here. My reasoning with B goes like this:

If the fish in tropical area moved into the ocean or fresh water not in accordance with food availability in them (which is the author's hypothesis), then it would show another reason for the behavior of the fish. Thus, it would weaken his argument.

Please explain.


Pages: [1]