Point-at-Issue Questions
Point-at-issue questions typically have two people arguing and ask what the "point at issue" is between them; generally there are about two per section. The trick with these is to compare the answers to what the two people said.
Private LSAT lessons are available for $50 per hour...message us today!
1. Erin: There are a lot of grassy fields in this area with one large tree on them. This is probably because the first settlers would use a machine to pull the trees down that utilized another tree, leaving one tree left at the end in a cleared field.
Tyler: No. There have always been grassy fields with single large trees in this region. Prairie fires likely continually burned down the smaller trees, leaving a few large ones surviving here and there.
Erin and Tyler’s statements lend the most support to the claim that they disagree about which one of the following statements?
(A) Only large trees can survive the area’s prairie fires.
(B) There have never been groups of trees in close proximity in this area.
(C) Pulling trees down with a machine was the most common way to clear land for the first settlers in the area.
(D) Most of the area was cleared of trees by settlers who used machines that pulled the trees down.
(E) The existence of single large trees on grassy fields in the region predates the coming of the firstsettlers.
2. Bridget: This deep sea research grant is a waste of taxpayers’ money, and I will not support it. Our government is spending over $200,000 just for scientists to study mollusks.
Michael: I would prefer research into other issues in marine biology, but remember that this is a 10-year program, and thus the expenditures are only $20,000 per year.
Bridget and Michael’s statements provide the most support for holding that they disagree about which one of the following?
(A) The government should give the research grant to the scientists to study the mollusks.
(B) It is worthwhile to spend taxpayers’ money to study mollusks.
(C) The research grant is a waste of taxpayers’ money.
(D) The $200,000 spent studying mollusks would’vebeen better spend on other things.
(E) All of the research grant is going to study mollusks.
3. Leah: If you live in this neighborhood, the best hardware store is Oak Street Hardware. While slightly more expensive than larger stores, it is close and convenient.
Kimberly: Oak Street Hardware has a much smaller selection than the larger store, despite its proximity and convenience. It is better to go to one of the larger stores in the suburbs because these have a better selection.
Leah and Kimberly disagree about the truth of which one of the following?
(A) Larger stores in the suburbs have a better selection than Oak Street Hardware.
(B) Oak Street Hardware is not significantly more expensive than any other hardware store.
(C) Oak Street Hardware does not have as large of a selection of hardware as at least one other store.
(D) For people living closer to larger stores in the suburbs, there is no reason to go to Oak Street Hardware.
(E) The lower prices and greater selection of the hardware stores in the suburbs justifies their lack ofproximity and convenience.
4. Kenny: There should be mandatory pocket searches along the border for drugs. If such searches become mandatory, people will be discouraged from bringing drugs across the border.
Lee: Such mandatory searches would do little good. The largest quantity of drugs are either swallowed in balloons or hidden in the fuel tanks of cars. Mandatory pocket searches would not address these large problems at all.
The issue that Lee raises in objecting to Kenny’s view is whether
(A) small quantities of drugs in pockets are carried across the border
(B) some drugs which are not swallowed in balloons or hidden in fuel tanks are nonetheless large contributors to the drug problem
(C) small quantities of drugs carried in the pockets of individuals are a serious part of the drug influx across the border
(D) the fewer drugs that come across the border, the more the public interest will be served
(E) small quantities of drugs are carried across theborder are never problematic
5. Gregory: People need water to live, yet water is very cheap and often free. Yet diamonds, while almost completely devoid of practical use, are very expensive. There can be no justification for the latter.
Alissa: But diamonds are also considerably rarer than water. There are an estimated trillion gallons of water for every human being living today.
The point at issue between Alissa and Gregory is whether
(A) there is a legitimate basis for the current prices of diamonds and water
(B) diamonds are almost completely devoid of practical use
(C) there are an estimated trillion gallons of water for every human being living today
(D) it is ever justified for something devoid of practical use to be very expensive
(E) something that people need to live should ever cheaper than something virtually devoid of practical use