1. The LSAT's first question on this section asks for the Editorial's error, which is the assumption that all those who are unemployed are necessarily actively seeking employment. The problem is that perhaps some of those who are unemployed have stopped seeking employment, described in choice (C).

(A) mentions the government, which is irrelevant. The Editorial neither explicitly states nor implies any connection to the government.

(B) describes a sampling error and refers to a "general" trend, but no sampling error occurs. The conclusion is about the "past two years" and the premise refers to "that period".

(D) refers to the government and "high-paying" jobs, both of which are out of scope. The Editorial is not concerned with how much money those who are employed are making, simply that they are employed.

(E) refers to other economic factors, which are irrelevant because the argument is only concerned with unemployment rate.

 

2. The LSAT somewhat rarely provides this type of evaluate the argument question, but these are similar to doing assumption questions. The argument makes a comparison assumption that the only difference between the two groups is the consumption of garlic tablets. We want to know whether or not any differences exist, as in choice (B). If it turns out that the two groups ate the same diets, then the argument would be strengthened. If it turns out that the two had different diets, and that the group taking the garlic tablets had been on an especially healthful diet, then the argument would be weakened, as the possibility that the diet, rather than garlic, caused the reductions. Notice that the conclusion is only about "eating garlic", not about the garlic tablets. The argument is not trying to promote the sale or consumption of the garlic tablets. Also note the scope of the argument, which may be better understood when posed as a question: Does the consumption of garlic cause a reduction in the cholesterol and triglyceride levels?

(A) is irrelevant. The conclusion is only about garlic, not garlic tablets. The argument does not claim that the garlic tablets would result in reduced cholesterol for the public.

Choice (C) is irrelevant. The conclusion does not place any time factor on when the garlic brings about the desired results, just that the consumption will.

(D) is irrelevant. The argument does not claim that the public, or anyone for that matter, will, in fact, see a decrease. The argument simply states that consumption of garlic leads to a decrease.

(E) refers to the manufacturer's possible use of the results in advertising. This would have no effect on the argument's reasoning. When we hear of a manufacturer funding a study, we become suspicious of the results, and thus might be suspicious of any conclusions drawn on the basis of those results. This might reduce the persuasive power of an argument, but even had the garlic tablet manufacturer funded the study, this would still not be an error of reasoning.

 

3. This LSAT inference question asks for what must be true based on the passage information.

The key word in (A) is "Increasingly". The passage provides no clue as to whether or not this is occurring more often, and thus (A) is simply a guess. Similarly, the key word in (B) is "easier". The passage provides no information about the ease or difficulty for students, or whether that ease or difficulty is reducing or increasing.

(C) is a guess -- the Educator doesn't seem fond of degrees and certificates, but we don't know whether s/he wishes the granting of degrees and certificates stopped.

(D) is the correct choice. The third sentence states that one has the ability to gain a degree or certificate without obtaining much valuable knowledge.

(E) The passage does not discuss the relationship between effort and benefit.