Question

An advertiser argues that incandescent lights are not adequate for improving mood on a cloudy day because they do not provide enough light of short wavelength. What argument could be made against this position? 1\. Incandescent lights provide mostly light of short wavelength. 2\. Outdoor light is more intense at longer wavelengths on a sunny day than on a cloudy day. 3\. Outdoor light is more intense at shorter wavelengths on a sunny day than on a cloudy day. 4\. The spectrum produced by electric lights is irrelevant since their intensity is so low.

Short answer

Option 1, which states that incandescent lights provide mostly light of short wavelength, is the best argument against the advertiser's position that incandescent lights are not adequate for improving mood on a cloudy day because they do not provide enough light of short wavelength.

Step-by-step solution

Analyze Option 1

Option 1 states that incandescent lights provide mostly light of short wavelength. This option contradicts the advertiser's point that incandescent lights do not provide enough light of short wavelength. However, we need to analyze other options as well before settling on this option.

Analyze Option 2

Option 2 states that outdoor light is more intense at longer wavelengths on a sunny day than on a cloudy day. This statement does not address the issue of incandescent lights providing enough short-wavelength light or not. Thus, it does not refute the advertiser's position.

Analyze Option 3

Option 3 states that outdoor light is more intense at shorter wavelengths on a sunny day than on a cloudy day. This statement also does not address the issue of incandescent lights providing enough short-wavelength light or not. Consequently, it does not refute the advertiser's position.

Analyze Option 4

Option 4 states that the spectrum produced by electric lights is irrelevant since their intensity is so low. This statement could suggest that incandescent lights may not significantly impact someone's mood, whether they provide enough short-wavelength light or not. Though it could be an argument against the advertiser's position, it is not as direct as Option 1.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis of all the options, Option 1, which states that incandescent lights provide mostly light of short wavelength, is the best argument against the advertiser's position that incandescent lights are not adequate for improving mood on a cloudy day because they do not provide enough light of short wavelength.

Key concepts

LSAT PrepTests Analysis

The Law School Admission Test (LSAT) is a standardized exam designed to measure skills considered essential for success in law school—such as reading comprehension, analytical reasoning, and logical reasoning. LSAT PrepTests are full-length practice exams that are offered to assist students in preparing for the real thing. A thorough analysis of these PrepTests is crucial for candidates looking to improve their performance.

When analyzing LSAT PrepTests, particularly problem-solving questions like the one involving the advertiser's argument about incandescent lights, the key is to dissect each statement critically. It’s similar to a game where each option is a possible move, and strategic thinking is necessary. You must consider how each choice interacts with the information given, and which one best refutes or supports the argument. Through practice with PrepTests, students learn to quickly identify relevant information, isolate distractors, and apply logical principles to arrive at the correct answer.

Critical Reasoning

Critical reasoning involves analyzing and evaluating reasoning in order to improve understanding and decision-making. The ability to think critically is a central focus on the LSAT as it directly impacts the ability to decipher complex arguments.

In the case of the exercise regarding incandescent lights, critical reasoning plays a crucial role. Students must analyze the credibility of the advertiser’s initial claim—that the lights don't improve mood on cloudy days due to the lack of short-wavelength light. They are then tasked to evaluate each provided statement to see which one, if any, logically contests this claim.

Developing critical reasoning skills requires practice and a clear understanding of logical fallacies, argument structures, and the components of sound reasoning. The analysis must be methodical, stripping away peripheral details to focus on the substance of the argument. In training your critical reasoning skills, it's important to approach each argument or statement with an open mind and a healthy dose of skepticism.

Logical Argumentation

Logical argumentation is the process of using a structured sequence of propositions to arrive at a conclusion that logically follows from the given premises. On the LSAT, you're often presented with arguments that must be assessed for logical coherence and strength.

In our textbook example, the problem requires the student to evaluate the logical strength of various counterarguments to the advertiser's claim about incandescent lights. The correct counterargument (Option 1) must not only contradict the advertiser's claim but must also do so in a logically consistent manner. Logical argumentation involves recognizing the form of the argument, understanding the logical connectors, and ensuring that the conclusion is a reasonable inference from the premises.

Improving in this area often involves studying forms of valid inferences and common logical errors. It's not just about what is said; it's also about what is not said and what can be inferred from the given information. Mastery of logical argumentation transforms complex problems into opportunities to apply clear, reasoned thinking to arrive at a valid conclusion.