Onward through the June 2007 LSAT. Section 3, number 7 presents a conversation between two people, Antonio and Maria. The question asks “Antonio and Maria disagree over,” so the task here is to figure out what Antonio and Maria are really fighting about. Are they fighting about the evidence? If so, which part of the evidence? Or do they agree about the evidence, but disagree about what that evidence means, i.e., the conclusion? Let’s see.

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, III, #7’ »

Carolyn makes no conclusion, but she implies one. If it’s true that Marc Quinn has put DNA fragments behind glass and called it a “portrait” of Sir John, and if it’s also true that to be a portrait, something must bear a recognizable resemblance to its subject, then it’s a short leap to “DNA doesn’t look like Sir John, therefore Marc Quinn’s ‘portrait’ is not actually a portrait.”

Arnold disagrees. He calls the work a “maximally realistic portrait.” His rationale is that “it holds actual instructions” for creating Sir John.

Okay, so what have these two disagreed about? Make sure you make a prediction before looking at the answer choices. (By the way, we’re on Section 3, #3, of the  June 2007 LSAT.)

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, III, #3’ »

Taylor says one thing; Sandra says something else.  Question 16 in Section 2 of the June 2007 LSAT says “The statements above provide the most support for holding that Sandra would disagree with Taylor about which one of the following statements?”  In other words:  What, exactly, are these folks fighting about?

Imagine these two just walked into your office, looking to settle their dispute.  They certainly disagree in part, but they might not disagree on everything.  Your job is to help them focus on their actual disagreement.

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, II, #16’ »