Miscellaneous LSAT Questions

[lsatquestion]

.

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

Fun questions!

I'll grab a few before I head out to tiny town--a strange place in Colorado anyone with a young one should check out:

1/ When a LR or RC question uses the term "contemporary" or "recent", just how recent does it usually mean?

It depends on the context, I'm afraid. More importantly, I can't think of a situation in which it was important to define one of those terms more specifically than the broad manner in which it is introduced in the passage.

2/ Some LG questions have answers that are or statements (for example, the answer to "Who can be in position 4?" might be "Q or Z". According to formal logic, the or statement is true even if only one of the options can be true. So using that same example, technically, "Q or Z" is true even if Q can be in position 4 but Z can never be. On the LSAT, given an or statement, will both options always be viable?

No, if one part of a what can be true/must be true can't be true, then it's not the answer.

3/ For RC questions, is there a difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

Not particularly that I can think of matters -- do you have a question where that seems to be an issue? In general, a hypothesis is established and then tested, a theory doesn't need to be tested, and often indicates more of an effort to explain a phenomenon. But, from your question, I theorize that you know that.

4/ For RC questions, is there a difference between a claim and a statement?

A statement can be a statement of fact, a claim could never be. But, a statement could be a claim. But, I don't recall moments when the difference was tested.

5/ Some question talk about a statement "contributing" to some theory/argument/claim/etc. Does a revision or rejection of that theory count as a contribution?

No.

6/ Some RC questions ask about which answer choice is "most consistent" with the author's claims. It seems like an answer choice that is completely out of scope would be consistent, just because there's no chance of the author's claims conflicting with the answer choice. For example, if the author is discussing why utilitarianism is the best moral theory, a claim about apple pie being delicious would, by default, be consistent with his arguments. On the LSAT, will the correct answer to a consistency question be 100% out of scope?

Maybe some more encyclopedic LSAT geek will produce a counter-example, but I would be very surprised. The consistent with wording is testing that you see which answers will violate some established rule. Logically, yes, out of scope stuff would be consistent, but it would be un-LSAT like.

[rudolph14237]

Seems like a revision of a theory would be a contribution to a theory.