Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardStrengthen

Match each of the following arguments with the supplementary finding that most effectively strengthens its central conclusion.

  • Marine Biologist: Nearshore corals exposed to estuarine sediment plumes suffered substantially less thermal bleaching during a recent heatwave than offshore corals in clear waters, despite both experiencing identical peak water temperatures. Thus, suspended sediment particles shielded nearshore corals from intense solar radiation, mitigating thermal bleaching.In controlled mesocosm trials, clear-water offshore corals subjected to artificial solar shading in heated water exhibited the same reduced bleaching rates as nearshore corals, whereas nearshore corals placed in sediment-filtered water bleached severely.
  • Aviation Analyst: Air traffic sectors that implemented a redesigned automated tracking interface experienced a 40 percent decline in near-miss incidents over six months. Therefore, the interface's dynamic visual alerts directly enhanced controllers' speed and accuracy in resolving flight path conflicts.Sector flight density and controller shift schedules remained constant throughout the trial, and temporarily disabling only the visual alert component while preserving all other software updates caused conflict resolution times to return to baseline levels.
  • Agronomist: In field trials conducted during severe drought conditions, wheat inoculated with a specialized fungal endophyte produced 25 percent higher grain yields than non-inoculated control crops. Hence, the inoculant confers drought resilience primarily by stimulating cellular osmotic regulation rather than by expanding the root network.Total root biomass, rooting depth, and soil moisture extraction profiles were identical between inoculated and control crops, whereas cellular concentrations of protective osmoprotectant solutes were significantly elevated exclusively in the inoculated wheat.

Answer

Each argument matches the supplementary premise that eliminates alternative causal explanations and isolates the hypothesized mechanism: the marine biologist's argument matches the controlled shading and filtration finding; the aviation analyst's argument matches the component-isolation finding; and the agronomist's argument matches the finding ruling out root expansion while confirming osmoprotectant increases.
Each pair correctly matches an argument with evidence that specifically addresses its primary logical gap. The coral argument requires evidence that sediment shading—rather than inherent physiological differences in nearshore populations—mitigated bleaching, which is established by the artificial shading and filtration trials. The aviation argument requires isolating the visual alert feature from external factors such as traffic volume or other interface changes, which the ablation test provides. The crop argument requires demonstrating that root morphology did not change while cellular osmoprotectants increased, confirming the hypothesized physiological pathway.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze each argument's conclusion and underlying logical gap.
Argument 1 presumes sediment shading rather than native genetic tolerance explains coral survival; Argument 2 presumes visual alerts rather than general system changes or lower traffic density caused fewer aviation incidents; Argument 3 presumes biochemical osmotic regulation rather than deeper water extraction via root expansion drove crop yields.
Strengthening an argument requires identifying the unstated assumption or potential competing hypothesis and evaluating which supplementary evidence resolves that vulnerability.
2
Evaluate the evidentiary mechanism provided in each supplementary finding.
The first finding uses control trials to isolate shading as both necessary and sufficient for protection; the second finding controls for traffic volume and conducts an ablation test on visual alerts; the third finding measures root parameters directly to eliminate the anatomical hypothesis while verifying the biochemical mechanism.
A valid strengthener must establish a direct causal link or rule out plausible rival explanations.
3
Pair each specific argument with its corresponding validating evidence.
Estuary coral argument pairs with the mesocosm solar shading trial; aviation interface argument pairs with the alert ablation and traffic stability data; wheat endophyte argument pairs with the root invariance and osmolyte concentration data.
Each supplementary finding targets and resolves the exact causal gap present in its respective argument.

Key Concept

Strengthening causal and mechanistic arguments on the LSAT by ruling out alternative explanations and confirming the specific operational mechanism.
Estimated Time:2m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Strengthen

More questions from this topic