LSAT考试全真题二SECTION2（5）

21. Several years ago, as a measure to reduce the population of gypsy moths², which depend on oak leaves for food, entomologists introduced into many oak forests a species of fungus³ that is poisonous to gypsy moth¹ caterpillars⁴. Since then the population of both caterpillars and adult moths has significantly declined in those areas. Entomologists have concluded that the decline is attributable to the presence of the poisonous fungus.
　
　Which one of the following. If true most strongly supports the conclusion drawn⁵ by the entomologists?

　(A) A strain of gypsy moth whose caterpillars are unaffected by the fungus has increased its share of the total gypsy moth population
　(B) The fungus that was introduced to control the gypsy moth population is poisonous to few insect species other than the gypsy moth
　(C) An increase in number of both gypsy moth caterpillars and gypsy moth adults followed a drop in the number of some of the species that prey⁶ on the moths.
　(D) In the past several years, air pollution and acid rain have been responsible for a substantial decline in oak tree populations.
　(E) The current decline in the gypsy moth population in forests where the fungus was introduced is no greater than a decline that occurred concurrently⁷ in other forests.
　　
　22. Director of personnel: Ms. Tours has formally requested a salary adjustment on the grounds that she was denied merit raises to which she was entitled. Since such grounds provide a possible basis for adjustments, an official response is required. Ms. Tours presents compelling evidence that her job performance has been both excellent in itself and markedly superior to that of others in her department who were awarded merit raises. Her complaint that she was treated unfairly thus appears justified⁸. Nevertheless her request should be denied. To raise Ms. Tours's salary because of her complaint would jeopardize⁹ the integrity of the firm's merit-based reward system by sending the message that employees can get their salaries raised if they just complain enough.

　The personnel director's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
　　
　(A) fails to consider the possibility that Ms. Tours's complainl could be handled on an unofficial basis
　(B) attempts to undermine the persuasiveness¹⁰ of Ms. Tours's evidence by characterizing it as "mere¹¹ complaining"
　(C) sidesteps the issue of whether superior job performance is a sultable basis for awarding salary increases
　(D) ignores the possibility that some of the people who did receive merit increases were not entitled to them
　(E) overlooks the implications for the integrity of the firm's merit-based reward system of denying Ms. Tours's request
　　
　23. S:　People who are old enough to fight for their country are old enough to vote for the people who make decisions about war and peace. This government clearly regards 17 year olds as old enough to fight, so it should acknowledge their right to vote.

　T: 　Your argument is a good one only to the extent that fighting and voting are the same kind of activity. Fighting well requires strength. Muscular coordination¹² and in a modern army instant and automatic response to orders. Performed responsibly, voting, unlike fighting is essentially¹³ a deliberative activity requiring reasoning power and knowledge of both history and human nature.T responds to S's argument by

　　(A) clting evidence overlooked S that would have supported S's conclusion
　　(B) calling into question S's understanding of the concept of rights
　　(C) showing that S has ignored the distinction between having an obligation to do that thing
　　(D) challenging-the truth of a claim on which S's conclusion is based
　　(E) arguing for a conclusion opposite to the one drawn by S

　24. The role of the Uplandian supreme¹⁴ court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power. Since the constitution of Uplandia is not excplicit about all human rights the supreme court must sometimes resort to principles outside the explicit¹⁵ provisions of the constitution in justifying¹⁷ its decisions. However, human rights will be subject to the whim¹⁸ of whoever holds judicial¹⁹ power unless the supreme court is bound to adhere to a single objective standard, namely, the constitution. Therefore, nothing but the explicit provisions of the constitution can be used to justify¹⁶ the court's decisions. Since these conclusions are inconsistent with each other, it cannot be true that the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power.

　The reasoning that leads to the conclusion that the first sentence in the passage is false is flawed because the argument
　　
　(A) ignores date that offer reasonable support for a general claim and focuses on a single example that argues against that claim
　(B) seeks to defend a view on the grounds that the view is widely held and the decisions based on that view are often accepted as correct
　(C) rejects a claim as false on the grounds that those who make that claim could profit if that claim is accepted by others
　(D) makers an unwarranted assumption that what is true of each member of a group taken separately is also true of the group as a whole
　(E) concludes that a particular premise is false when it is equally possible for that premise to be true and some other premise false