LSAT Diagnostic

JavaScript isn't enabled in your browser, so this file can't be opened. Enable and reload.

LSAT Diagnostic

This form provides a baseline for understanding your approach to the LSAT questions.

What is your first and last name? *

Analyzing the Question Type: The reasoning above conforms most closely to which one of the following propositions? *

This question is asking me to compare two lines of thought.

This question is asking for a necessary assumption.

This question is asking for a generalization that stems from the logical sequence.

Other:

Before we look at the whole question it is important to know WHY you chose the response you did. Please explain below: *

Question Prompt: Car companies solicit consumer information on such human factors as whether a seat is comfortable or whether a set of controls is easy to use. However, designer interaction with consumers is superior to survey data; the data may tell the designer why a feature on last year's model was given a low rating, but data will not explain how that feature needs to be changed in order to receive a higher rating. The reasoning above conforms most closely to which one of the following propositions? *

Getting consumer input for design modifications can contribute to successful product design.

Car companies traditionally conduct extensive postmarket surveys.

A car will have unappealing features if consumers are not consulted during its design stage.

Consumer input affects external rather than internal design components of cars.

Now, in your own words, explain the logical argument being made in the question prompt. You will want to do this "checking" until you feel comfortable with the sequence of questions. *

Analyzing the Question Type: The hospital executive's argument is most vulnerable to which one of the following objections? What is this question type asking you to do? *

It is important to note that the question type is not asking you to prove that the argument is wrong, misguided, nor support the argument. Why is this question type helpful in analyzing arguments not known to be true or false yet? *

Question prompt: Hospital executive - at a recent conference on nonprofit management, several computer experts maintained that the most significant threat faced by large institutions such as universities and hospitals is unauthorized access to confidential data. In light of this testimony, we should make the protection of our clients' confidentiality our highest priority. The hospital executive's argument is most vulnerable to which one of the following objections? *

The argument confuses the causes of a problem with the appropriate solutions to that problem.

The argument relies on the testimony of experts whose expertise is not shown to be sufficiently broad to support their general claim.

The argument draws a general conclusion about a group based on data about an unrepresentative sample of that group.

The argument infers that a property belonging to large institutions belongs to all institutions.

It is unlikely the last response is the correct answer, why is it unlikely an answer will use the word infer when referring to a argument? *

Why are the first answer and the third answer the same in their "wrongness"? *

Looking back at the argument, what is the necessary condition stated? *

Why is that necessary condition not also sufficient to complete the logical argument? *

This is the last question in this diagnostic. Most summers since 1893, young developmental and evolutionary biologists have flocked to Woods Hole, Massachusetts, to master the tricks of their trade. At the world-famous Marine Biological Laboratory there, students in its annual embryology course dissect sea urchins and comb jellies, and graft cells together from different animals. But for the last three years, the keen apprentices have been learning something new: gene editing.The precise, efficient CRISPR–Cas9 gene-editing technique has already taken life-sciences labs by storm. Now it is sweeping through evo-devo, the field that seeks to explain the developmental changes underlying evolutionary adaptations.Rather than simply infer what caused historic transitions, such as how fish developed limbs, scientists can check their hypotheses directly with CRISPR. The idea is simple: cut out the fish genes thought to be involved in making fins, and see whether the fish start to form something resembling feet. That is exactly what researchers report today in Nature, using CRISPR to help explain how fish developed feet and started walking1. Others have wielded the technique to determine how butterflies evolved exquisite colour vision, and how crustaceans acquired claws.“CRISPR is a revolution all across biology, but for evo-devo it’s transformative,” says Arnaud Martin, an evolutionary developmental biologist at George Washington University in Washington DC. “We can do things we were not able to do before.” How fins became feetNeil Shubin, a palaeontologist and developmental biologist at the University of Chicago in Illinois, has used gene-editing to examine how the tips of fish fins, or rays, were replaced by feet and digits in four-legged land vertebrates, or tetrapods.While researchers know that ancient fish developed limbs – Shubin led the team that in 2004 discovered a 375-million-year-old fossil that seemed to catch that transition in the act – they also thought that the foot was an evolutionary novelty without an equivalent in fish, because rays and feet are made of different kinds of bone.But Shubin says gene-editing has changed his mind. His team used CRISPR to engineer zebrafish lacking various combinations of the several hox13 genes they possess – genes that researchers already thought played an important role in laying down fin rays.None of the mutants grew fully fledged feet, Shubin notes, but some possessed “fingery fins” made of the same kind of bone that builds fingers and toes in tetrapods. “As a palaeontologist I studied and trained thinking these are two different kinds of bones that are completely unrelated developmentally or evolutionarily,” says Shubin. “These results challenge that assumption.”The zebrafish is a popular model organism, whose genome is regularly manipulated in the lab. But CRISPR vastly sped up the experiments performed by Shubin's team. One next step will be to knock out hox13 genes in fish species that more closely resemble the ancient fish that gained limbs, say Aditya Saxena and Kimberly Cooper, evolutionary developmental biologists at the University of California, San Diego. Those experiments are now conceivable thanks to CRISPR, they note in a commentary that accompanies Shubin's article[2]. What does the technique CRISPR do and will it apply to other unrelated species? *

Submit

Clear form

Never submit passwords through Google Forms.

This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Report Abuse - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy

Forms