Strengthen

49 questions

Question 1Question →

City official: Following the implementation of a new ordinance restricting construction and commercial noise after 10 PM in the downtown district, the number of reported property crimes in the district dropped by 20 percent. This reduction was likely caused by the quieter environment, which allows residents to more easily hear the sounds of forced entry or tampering, thereby deterring criminals who fear being reported.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the city official's argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The reduction in property crimes downtown was almost exclusively due to a drop in crimes involving loud mechanisms, such as shattering windows or prying metal doors.

Answer

The option stating that the reduction in property crimes was almost exclusively due to a drop in crimes involving loud mechanisms.
The city official concludes that the drop in crime was caused by criminals being deterred because the quieter environment allows residents to hear forced entry. The correct answer strengthens this specific causal claim by showing that the reduction in crime was limited to crimes that actually produce the type of noise residents would hear. If all types of property crime had dropped equally, it would suggest a general deterrent. By isolating the drop to loud crimes, the correct answer strongly validates the official's specific hearing-based mechanism.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the argument's structure to identify the premise and the main conclusion.
Premise: Crime dropped 20 percent after a noise ordinance was enacted. Conclusion: The drop was caused by criminals being deterred because the quieter environment allows residents to hear forced entry.
Understanding the exact causal mechanism proposed by the author is necessary to evaluate and strengthen the argument.
2
Determine the task required by the question stem.
The task is to find the choice that most strengthens the city official's argument.
Identifying the question type guides the evaluation of the answer choices.
3
Formulate a strategy to strengthen the specific causal mechanism.
Look for an answer choice that either rules out alternative causes for the crime drop or provides data specifically validating the 'hearing-based' deterrence mechanism.
Strengthening a causal claim requires showing that the effect is specifically tied to the proposed cause.
4
Evaluate the answer choices against the strategy.
The correct option shows that the drop in crime was limited to crimes that make noise. This perfectly aligns with the official's proposed mechanism.
If silent crimes had also dropped, it would suggest a general deterrent like increased police presence. By isolating the drop to loud crimes, the correct answer strongly bolsters the official's reasoning.

Key Concept

Strengthening Causal Arguments by Validating the Proposed Mechanism
Question 2Question →

A comprehensive analysis of e-commerce behavior revealed that individuals utilizing virtual reality (VR) retail platforms make 40 percent more impulse purchases on average than those shopping exclusively via traditional mobile interfaces. From this observation, consumer psychologists deduce that the highly immersive nature of VR inherently degrades a shopper's self-regulation. Accordingly, they forecast that an industry-wide shift toward VR commerce will trigger a drastic escalation in impulsive buying across the general public.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the psychologists' argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Shoppers who exhibit strong baseline tendencies toward impulsive spending are no more likely to adopt VR retail platforms than are highly disciplined shoppers.

Answer

The option stating that shoppers with strong tendencies toward impulsive spending are no more likely to adopt VR platforms.
The argument concludes that VR technology itself causes an increase in impulsive buying by degrading self-regulation. This causal claim is based entirely on a correlation: VR users make more impulse purchases. The most significant vulnerability in this reasoning is self-selection bias—what if inherently impulsive people are simply more attracted to VR apps in the first place? The correct answer explicitly eliminates this alternative cause by stating that impulsive consumers are no more likely to adopt VR than highly disciplined consumers. By ruling out this major alternative explanation, the original claim that the VR environment is responsible for the impulsivity is significantly strengthened.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the argument's premises and main conclusion.
Premise: VR users have a 40 percent higher average rate of impulse purchases. Conclusion: VR's immersive nature inherently degrades self-regulation, causing a surge in impulse buying.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to see that a causal claim is being drawn from correlative survey data.
2
Locate the primary logical gap or vulnerability.
The psychologists assume the VR environment is the cause, ignoring the possibility of self-selection bias (i.e., that naturally impulsive people simply prefer VR shopping).
Identifying the unstated assumption provides the blueprint for strengthening the argument.
3
Evaluate the choices to find the one that defends the causal claim.
The correct choice explicitly eliminates the self-selection alternative by stating impulsive buyers are no more likely to adopt VR than disciplined buyers.
Ruling out an alternative explanation is a definitive method for strengthening a correlational-causal argument on the LSAT.

Key Concept

Strengthening causal arguments by ruling out alternative explanations (such as self-selection bias or reverse causation).
Question 3Question →

Media Analyst: A popular streaming platform recently introduced a "skip credits" button. Data shows that subscribers who frequently click this button watch significantly fewer episodes per viewing session on average than subscribers who let the credits play out. Clearly, the physical act of interacting with the interface breaks the viewer’s narrative immersion, thereby prompting them to end their viewing session earlier.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the media analyst's conclusion?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Subscribers who enable an "auto-skip" setting, which automatically bypasses credits without requiring physical interaction, watch just as many episodes per session as those who watch the full credits.

Answer

Subscribers who enable an "auto-skip" setting, which automatically bypasses credits without requiring physical interaction, watch just as many episodes per session as those who watch the full credits.
The analyst concludes that the physical act of clicking causes the viewer to end their session earlier. The correct answer strengthens this causal claim by showing what happens when the credits are bypassed without the physical act of clicking. Because viewers using the "auto-skip" feature watch just as many episodes as those who watch the full credits, it isolates the physical interaction as the crucial variable, ruling out the possibility that simply missing the credits is what causes shorter sessions.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the physical act of interacting with the interface breaks narrative immersion and causes viewers to end their session earlier.
Understanding the exact claim being made is necessary to know what needs to be strengthened.
2
Identify the premises and the reasoning gap.
The premise is a correlation: frequent skip-button clickers watch fewer episodes per session. The gap is the assumption that the clicking causes the shorter sessions, rather than a third factor or reverse causation.
Strengthening a causal argument usually requires ruling out alternative causes or isolating the proposed cause.
3
Evaluate the options to find one that bridges the gap.
The correct option shows that when the effect of bypassing credits occurs WITHOUT the physical act of clicking (using an 'auto-skip' setting), viewing sessions are not shortened. This isolates the physical act as the true cause.
Demonstrating that the absence of the cause (physical click) leads to the absence of the effect (shorter session) powerfully strengthens a causal claim.

Key Concept

Causal Reasoning and Argument Strengthening
Question 4Question →

Below are four distinct logical arguments (Left) and four highly abstract premises (Right). Match each argument to the single premise that provides the most robust logical strengthening by identifying and patching a critical gap in the argument's reasoning.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Historian: A newly unearthed 12th12^{\text{th}}-century manuscript features text written in an iron-gall ink whose unique spectroscopic signature perfectly matches the ink synthesized exclusively at the St. Jude monastery. Consequently, we can definitively conclude that this manuscript was authored by monks residing at St. Jude.
Medical Researcher: An observational study spanning ten years demonstrates that older adults who routinely engage in solving cryptic crosswords exhibit a measurably slower rate of age-related cognitive decline compared to those who abstain from such puzzles. This confirms that solving cryptic crosswords actively preserves cognitive function.
Economist: Following the government's introduction of a targeted tax subsidy for small enterprises investing in renewable energy infrastructure, the aggregate national expenditure on renewable technologies by all businesses surged by 40%40\%. The subsidy clearly succeeded in motivating small enterprises to adopt green technology.
Ecologist: The native red squirrel population in the highland pine forest has plummeted since the invasive grey squirrel was introduced. Because grey squirrels forage more rapidly and consume the exact same seeds, the red squirrel's decline is undoubtedly attributable to starvation caused by this fierce dietary competition.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The correct pairings match the Historian to the premise regarding unexported materials, the Medical Researcher to the premise ruling out baseline physiological resistance, the Economist to the premise noting no growth in ineligible segments, and the Ecologist to the premise ruling out novel pathogens.
Each correct pairing provides an abstract premise that explicitly patches a specific logical gap in the corresponding argument. The Historian's gap regarding ink distribution is closed by ruling out exports. The Medical Researcher's reverse-causality gap is closed by confirming the habit isn't chosen due to pre-existing health. The Economist's whole-to-part gap is closed by showing that non-subsidized segments did not contribute to the aggregate growth. The Ecologist's alternative-cause gap is closed by eliminating disease as a factor.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the Historian's argument for unstated assumptions.
The argument assumes that St. Jude's exclusive ink could not have been used by anyone outside the monastery.
Identifying the gap in evidence transmission is the first step to strengthening the historical claim.
2
Identify the strengthening premise for the Historian.
The premise stating that the unique materials were never exported or traded perfectly addresses the gap.
Ruling out the possibility of outside use ensures only St. Jude monks could have authored the manuscript.
3
Analyze the Medical Researcher's argument.
The argument assumes causation from correlation, ignoring the possibility of reverse causality.
In observational health studies, one must prove the activity caused the health benefit, not that healthier people simply chose the activity.
4
Identify the strengthening premise for the Medical Researcher.
The premise stating that individuals do not adopt the habit due to pre-existing physiological resistance closes the reverse-causality gap.
This confirms the causal direction runs from the puzzle to cognitive health, not vice versa.
5
Analyze the Economist's argument.
The argument assumes that a 40%40\% aggregate increase was driven exclusively by the small enterprises that received the subsidy.
A whole-to-part logical gap exists when aggregate data is used to prove a claim about a specific subset.
6
Identify the strengthening premise for the Economist.
The premise stating that ineligible market segments experienced no growth proves the aggregate growth must have come from the subsidized segment.
Eliminating the alternative source of the aggregate increase directly supports the conclusion.
7
Analyze the Ecologist's argument.
The argument assumes the decline of red squirrels is exclusively due to starvation from competition.
Causal claims based on a sequence of events must rule out alternative causal mechanisms.
8
Identify the strengthening premise for the Ecologist.
The premise ruling out novel transmissible pathogens eliminates disease as an alternative cause.
Ruling out an alternative cause (disease) significantly strengthens the proposed cause (starvation).

Key Concept

Strengthening causal and statistical arguments by systematically ruling out alternative explanations, reverse causality, and confounding variables.
Estimated Time:3m 0s
Question 5Question →

A recent dietary survey found that individuals who regularly consume fermented foods, such as yogurt and kimchi, report significantly lower levels of daily stress than those who rarely eat such foods. Based on this correlation, nutrition researchers concluded that the specific probiotics prevalent in fermented foods actively reduce the body's physiological stress response.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the researchers' argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: In a subsequent controlled trial, individuals randomly assigned to consume fermented foods daily showed a substantial decrease in blood cortisol, a primary stress hormone.

Answer

The statement detailing a controlled trial where randomly assigned consumption of fermented foods led to a decrease in blood cortisol.
The correct answer strengthens the conclusion by shifting from observational survey data to a controlled experimental trial. By randomly assigning the diet and showing a measurable physiological result (decreased blood cortisol), it establishes a clear timeline and eliminates alternative lifestyle factors, directly supporting the claim that probiotics actively cause a reduction in stress.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the argument's premises and main conclusion.
Premise: Survey shows a correlation between eating fermented foods and lower stress. Conclusion: Probiotics in fermented foods actively reduce the body's stress response.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to pinpoint the exact logical leap being made.
2
Identify the logical gap or vulnerability in the reasoning.
The researchers assume causation based entirely on correlation. They fail to account for alternative causes or reverse causation (e.g., less stressed people having better diets).
Finding the flaw reveals what type of evidence is needed to strengthen the claim.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to find one that bridges the gap.
The correct answer provides a randomized controlled trial showing a direct physiological effect (decreased cortisol) following the introduction of fermented foods.
Controlled experiments eliminate confounding variables and reverse causation, providing the strongest possible support for a causal conclusion.

Key Concept

Strengthening Causal Arguments (Ruling Out Alternatives / Confirming Mechanism)
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Question 6Question →

A recent analysis of dental calculus from the skeletal remains of the ancient Zuri people, who lived in the isolated, arid canyons of the Xylos region 3,000 years ago, revealed significant traces of a unique psychoactive compound. This compound is naturally found only in the leaves of the Tethyan shrub, a plant species strictly native to coastal marshlands located over 500 miles away. Based on this discovery, anthropologists conclude that the ancient Zuri must have engaged in long-distance trade with coastal populations.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most strengthen the anthropologists' conclusion? (Select all that apply)

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The climate of the canyon region 3,000 years ago was just as arid as it is today, making it impossible for the Tethyan shrub to have grown there.; The specific psychoactive compound found in the dental calculus is not synthesized by any other plant species known to have existed in or near the Xylos region.; Isotopic analysis of the Zuri skeletal remains indicates that these individuals lived their entire lives within the canyon region and never traveled to the coast.

Answer

The statements that rule out local historical growth of the plant, eliminate alternative local plant sources, and confirm the Zuri did not travel to the coast themselves.
The anthropologists conclude that the presence of the compound means the Zuri engaged in long-distance trade. The correct answers strengthen this argument by ruling out alternate explanations. One correct answer rules out the possibility that the coastal plant grew locally in the ancient past. Another rules out the possibility that the Zuri traveled to the coast to harvest the plant themselves. The final correct answer rules out the possibility that the compound came from a different, locally available plant species. By eliminating these plausible alternatives, the trade hypothesis becomes significantly stronger.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion and the supporting premises of the argument.
Conclusion: The ancient Zuri engaged in long-distance trade. Premises: Zuri remains from an arid canyon have traces of a compound found only in a coastal shrub 500 miles away.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to expose the logical gaps between the evidence and the conclusion.
2
Brainstorm potential alternative explanations (loopholes) that could explain the premises without the conclusion being true.
Alternative explanations include: the plant grew in the canyon 3,000 years ago, the Zuri traveled to the coast to get it themselves, or the compound came from a completely different local plant.
Identifying alternative explanations is the key to evaluating historical and causal arguments on the LSAT.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to find those that eliminate these alternative explanations.
Three options successfully defend the conclusion by ruling out local climate suitability, alternative local plants, and personal travel by the Zuri.
Ruling out alternate explanations (using Defender Assumptions) is one of the most effective ways to strengthen an argument's conclusion.

Key Concept

Strengthening historical arguments by ruling out alternative explanations
Question 7Question →

The city council is proposing to replace all existing streetlights with new LED models. The council argues that this switch will reduce the city's annual streetlight operating budget. Their sole evidence is that the new LED models consume 40 percent less electricity per hour than the existing streetlights.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the city council's argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Maintenance costs, which make up a large portion of the operating budget, are significantly lower for the LED models than for the existing streetlights.

Answer

Maintenance costs, which make up a large portion of the operating budget, are significantly lower for the LED models than for the existing streetlights.
The correct answer strengthens the argument by addressing a potential gap in the reasoning. The council assumes that the electricity savings will not be outweighed by other expenses. By explicitly stating that maintenance costs (another major part of the budget) will also be lower, this option confirms that the overall operating budget will indeed decrease, making the conclusion much more plausible.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that switching to LED streetlights will reduce the city's annual streetlight operating budget.
Understanding what the argument is trying to prove is the essential first step in evaluating it.
2
Identify the supporting premise.
The premise is that the new LED models consume 40 percent less electricity per hour.
We must know exactly what evidence is being used to support the conclusion.
3
Identify the logical gap or assumption.
The argument assumes that electricity is the only relevant cost, or that other costs (like maintenance or replacement parts) will not increase enough to offset the electricity savings.
Strengthen questions often require finding an option that addresses an unstated assumption or bridges a gap in the reasoning.
4
Evaluate the options to find the strengthener.
The option stating that maintenance costs are significantly lower for LED models eliminates a potential offset to the savings, directly supporting the conclusion that the overall budget will be reduced.
The correct answer must make the conclusion more likely to be true.

Key Concept

Strengthening an argument by ruling out alternative disadvantages
Question 8Question →

A specific species of crop-destroying beetle in Region X recently developed resistance to the primary pesticide used to control its numbers. In response, farmers introduced a new species of wasp that preys exclusively on these beetles. Since the introduction of the wasps, the beetle population in Region X has declined by 40 percent. Therefore, the introduction of the wasp must be responsible for the recent decline in the beetle population.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: In neighboring Region Y, where the pesticide-resistant beetles are present but the wasps were not introduced, the beetle population has not declined.

Answer

The statement showing that in neighboring Region Y, where wasps were not introduced, the beetle population did not decline.
The argument concludes that the introduction of wasps caused the decline in the beetle population, basing this claim entirely on the fact that the decline happened after the wasps were introduced. This is a classic causal argument vulnerable to the possibility of coincidence or alternative causes. The correct answer strengthens the argument by providing a comparative control group (Region Y). By establishing that the beetle population did not decline in a similar region where the wasps were not introduced, it significantly increases the probability that the wasps were indeed the cause of the decline in Region X.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the introduction of the wasp is responsible for the recent decline in the beetle population.
Understanding the exact claim being made is necessary to know what evidence would strengthen it.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
The premises are that wasps were introduced and subsequently the beetle population declined by 40 percent.
Isolating the provided evidence highlights how the author arrived at the conclusion.
3
Identify the logical gap or flaw in the reasoning.
The argument assumes a causal relationship based solely on a chronological correlation. It fails to rule out other potential causes for the decline.
Recognizing the vulnerability of causal arguments dictates the strategy for strengthening them.
4
Evaluate the options to find one that supports the causal relationship.
The option describing Region Y acts as a control group, demonstrating that where the cause (wasps) is absent, the effect (beetle decline) is also absent.
Showing a 'cause-without-effect control' directly bolsters the likelihood that the initial correlation was indeed causal.

Key Concept

Strengthening causal arguments by ruling out alternative explanations or demonstrating a cause-without-effect control scenario.
Question 9Question →

Match each logical argument (left) with the piece of evidence (right) that most strengthens its conclusion.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Since the city launched its new recycling initiative, the tonnage of waste sent to the municipal landfill has decreased by 20%. The mayor concludes that the recycling initiative successfully diverted waste.
A study found that adults who regularly consume dark chocolate have a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease. Researchers hypothesize that dark chocolate protects against cardiovascular disease.
The local cafe saw a revenue increase after offering free Wi-Fi. To combat declining sales, the bookstore next door should also offer free Wi-Fi.
SkyHigh Airlines plans to remove one row of seats from its planes to increase legroom, and charge a 15% higher ticket price for the remaining seats to improve overall profit margins.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The recycling argument matches with the evidence about overall trash tonnage. The dark chocolate argument matches with the evidence about other heart-healthy habits. The bookstore argument matches with the evidence about customer internet motivation. The airline argument matches with the evidence about revenue offsetting seat losses.
Each correct pairing successfully addresses the primary logical vulnerability inherent in its respective argument. The recycling evidence eliminates an alternate cause; the chocolate evidence eliminates a confounding variable; the bookstore evidence confirms a relevant similarity for an analogy; and the airline evidence validates a core cost-benefit assumption.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the Recycling Argument
Identify the causal claim: The recycling program caused the 20% drop in landfill waste. The gap: What if residents simply produced less trash overall? The evidence stating that overall trash tonnage did not decrease resolves this vulnerability.
Ruling out alternative causes is a primary method for strengthening causal arguments.
2
Analyze the Dark Chocolate Argument
Identify the correlation-to-causation claim. The gap: People who eat dark chocolate might have healthier diets or exercise more, causing the lower disease rate. The evidence eliminating this confounding variable strengthens the claim.
Eliminating a third variable that could cause both the observed phenomenon and the effect strengthens the hypothesized causal link.
3
Analyze the Bookstore Argument
Identify the argument by analogy: What worked for the cafe will work for the bookstore. The gap: Are their customers similarly motivated by Wi-Fi? The evidence confirming they are highly motivated by internet access strengthens the analogy.
Arguments by analogy are strengthened by showing that the two cases share the specific traits relevant to the conclusion.
4
Analyze the Airline Argument
Identify the plan's goal: Improve profit margins. The gap: Will the 15% ticket price premium cover the revenue lost from the removed row of seats? The evidence explicitly confirming this offsets the loss strengthens the plan.
Business plans and strategies are strengthened by evidence showing that their expected financial benefits outweigh their inherent costs.

Key Concept

Strengthening an argument requires identifying its core logical gap or assumption, and selecting evidence that bridges that gap, rules out alternative explanations, or validates the premise.
Question 10Question →

Evolutionary Biologist: Fossils of the ancient mammal *Thalassocnus* reveal unusually dense, heavy bones. Some researchers contend this extreme density evolved as a defensive adaptation against blunt-force impacts from terrestrial predators. However, maintaining such bones requires an immense caloric intake rarely justified by defensive needs alone. Because dense bones drastically decrease buoyancy—a vital advantage for foraging aquatic plants in turbulent coastal waters—this skeletal density likely evolved primarily to facilitate underwater grazing rather than as a defense mechanism.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest additional support for the evolutionary biologist's argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Terrestrial herbivores that shared the exact same ecosystem as *Thalassocnus* and faced identical terrestrial predation pressures possessed remarkably light skeletal structures.

Answer

The option stating that terrestrial herbivores sharing the exact same ecosystem and predation pressures possessed remarkably light skeletal structures.
The correct answer strengthens the argument by systematically undermining the competing hypothesis. By demonstrating that other species facing the exact same threat (terrestrial predators) did not evolve dense bones as a defense, it makes it far less likely that predation was the primary evolutionary driver for this extreme trait. Ruling out the primary alternative explanation is a powerful way to strengthen the author's preferred causal hypothesis (aquatic grazing).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion.
The extreme bone density of Thalassocnus evolved primarily to facilitate underwater grazing rather than as a defense mechanism.
Understanding the precise claim being made is necessary to know what needs to be supported.
2
Identify the premises and the alternative explanation.
Premise 1: Dense bones are calorically expensive. Premise 2: Dense bones decrease buoyancy (good for aquatic grazing). Alternative hypothesis: Dense bones evolved as a defense against predators.
Strengthening an argument often involves validating its premises or systematically destroying alternative explanations.
3
Evaluate the options for their impact on the causal relationship.
The correct option shows that the purported alternative cause (predators) existed for other similar species without producing the purported effect (dense bones).
Showing that a competing cause failed to produce the effect in a control group effectively rules out that alternative, leaving the author's proposed cause as the most logical explanation.

Key Concept

Strengthening Causal Arguments by Eliminating Alternative Causes
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Question 11Question →

Below are four distinct logical arguments (Left) and four pieces of evidence (Right). Match each argument to the single piece of evidence that most directly strengthens its conclusion by addressing its specific logical gap.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

A study found that corporate executives who meditate daily report lower stress levels. Thus, the act of meditating reduces stress among executives.
The newly developed synthetic fabric demonstrated a 40% higher tensile strength in laboratory stress tests. Therefore, consumers will find garments made from this fabric to be significantly more durable in everyday wear.
A poll conducted among attendees of an avant-garde film festival revealed overwhelming support for increased municipal arts funding. Clearly, most city taxpayers favor raising the arts budget.
Following the implementation of a new inventory tracking software, Warehouse Q saw a 25% drop in fulfillment errors. The warehouse director concludes the new software caused this improvement.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The correct pairings align each argument's specific logical flaw with evidence that resolves it: the meditation correlation is strengthened by ruling out alternative workloads, the fabric test is strengthened by bridging laboratory results to everyday wear, the arts poll is strengthened by confirming sample representativeness, and the warehouse software is strengthened by showing a control group.
Each correct match directly addresses the specific logical vulnerability of its corresponding argument. The meditation argument's causal claim is supported by ruling out a confounding variable (workload). The fabric argument is supported by explicitly linking the premise's metric (tensile strength) to the conclusion's metric (durability). The arts funding argument is supported by proving its biased-seeming sample is actually representative. The warehouse argument is supported by providing a control group that eliminates alternative temporal explanations.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the executive meditation argument for logical gaps.
Identified a correlation-to-causation flaw where an alternative factor (such as workload) could explain the lower stress.
To determine what specific piece of evidence would eliminate alternate causes.
2
Analyze the synthetic fabric argument for logical gaps.
Identified a scope shift between 'laboratory tensile strength' and 'everyday durability'.
To determine what evidence would bridge these two distinct concepts.
3
Analyze the arts funding poll argument for logical gaps.
Identified a sampling flaw where film festival attendees may not represent all city taxpayers.
To determine what evidence would validate the integrity and representativeness of the sample.
4
Analyze the warehouse inventory argument for logical gaps.
Identified a post-hoc fallacy where a sequential event is assumed to be the sole cause of the improvement.
To determine what evidence would provide a control group to rule out broad systemic or seasonal trends.

Key Concept

Identifying specific logical gaps in arguments and selecting evidence that directly addresses those vulnerabilities.
Question 12Question →

Marine biologist: The newly discovered deep-sea sponge Cladorhiza ventis inhabits waters near hydrothermal vents. Unlike most deep-sea sponges, C. ventis entirely lacks the internal canal systems and pores required for filter-feeding on suspended organic matter. Furthermore, the surrounding water is nearly devoid of the zooplankton that carnivorous sponges typically prey upon. Consequently, it is highly likely that C. ventis relies exclusively on symbiotic chemosynthetic bacteria for its nutritional needs.

Which of the following statements, if true, would strengthen the marine biologist's conclusion? (Select all that apply)

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Isotopic analysis of C. ventis tissues reveals carbon signatures that are identical to those produced by known vent-dwelling chemosynthetic bacteria.; Laboratory observations of C. ventis show that the sponge rapidly deteriorates and starves when exposed to antibiotics that target and eliminate chemosynthetic bacteria.

Answer

The correct options are the statement regarding isotopic analysis matching bacterial carbon signatures, and the statement showing that the sponge starves when exposed to bacteria-killing antibiotics.
The argument concludes that a specific sponge relies entirely on bacteria because it lacks the mechanisms for other known feeding methods. To strengthen this, we must either show direct evidence that the bacteria provide nutrition or show that without the bacteria, the sponge cannot survive. The statement about identical carbon signatures provides direct physical evidence that the sponge's body is built from bacterial byproducts. The statement regarding antibiotics demonstrates that eliminating the bacteria leads to starvation, proving the bacteria are essential for the sponge's survival. Both independently bolster the likelihood of the conclusion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion.
The conclusion is that C. ventis relies exclusively on symbiotic chemosynthetic bacteria for its nutritional needs.
This is the primary claim the marine biologist is trying to prove, marked by the indicator 'Consequently'.
2
Identify the premises and the logical gap.
Premises: The sponge cannot filter-feed (no pores) and cannot hunt (no zooplankton prey). Gap: Ruling out other food sources does not automatically prove bacteria are the actual food source, nor does it rule out other unknown methods of feeding.
Understanding the gap allows us to find evidence that either confirms the bacterial connection directly or rules out remaining alternative explanations.
3
Evaluate the options against the logical gap.
The isotopic analysis confirms a direct nutritional link, and the antibiotic observation proves the bacteria are necessary for survival. Both independently strengthen the argument.
Strengthening an argument requires finding new information that makes the main conclusion more plausible.

Key Concept

Strengthen - Ruling out alternatives and validating mechanisms in causal reasoning.
Question 13Question →

The Vendean people, who inhabit a harsh, densely forested mountain region, have a language containing over fifty distinct words for different types of moss. In contrast, neighboring lowland groups have only three such words. A linguist argues that this linguistic disparity exists because the Vendeans' specific environment forced them to develop a highly specialized moss vocabulary for survival, as they utilize various mosses for crucial medicinal and dietary purposes.

Which of the following, if true, provides the most support for the linguist's argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Indigenous groups living in comparable mountainous forest environments that do not utilize moss for food or medicine have only a few generic words for moss.

Answer

The statement showing that indigenous groups in similar environments who do not use moss lack the specialized vocabulary.
The argument asserts a causal relationship: the necessity of using moss for survival in a harsh environment caused the development of a highly specialized vocabulary. The correct answer strengthens this by providing a control group. By showing that other tribes in the exact same physical environment do not develop the vocabulary if they do not practically utilize the moss, it effectively eliminates the environment alone as an alternative cause and isolates the survival usage as the true driving factor.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion and the premises of the argument.
Conclusion: The harsh environment forced the Vendeans to develop a specialized moss vocabulary for survival (medicinal/dietary use). Premise: The Vendeans have over fifty words for moss, while lowland groups have only three.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to pinpoint the exact causal relationship being claimed.
2
Identify the logical gap or vulnerability in the argument.
The argument assumes a specific causal mechanism: Survival usage in a harsh environment leads to specialized vocabulary. It fails to rule out alternative causes (like sheer biological diversity) and assumes the physical usage is the true catalyst rather than just the environment itself.
Strengthening a causal argument typically requires validating the causal link, ruling out alternate causes, or showing that when the cause is absent, the effect is absent.
3
Evaluate the options to find one that supports the causal mechanism.
The correct answer demonstrates that in similar environments where the proposed cause (using moss for survival) is absent, the effect (specialized vocabulary) is also absent.
This 'control group' comparison strongly validates the linguist's specific claim that the survival usage, rather than just the environmental presence of moss, drove the vocabulary development.

Key Concept

Strengthening Causal Arguments (Cause Without Effect Control)
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Question 14Question →

Researchers compared musicians who frequently improvise to those who exclusively play written music, finding that the improvisers have significantly greater neural density in the prefrontal cortex, a region associated with rapid decision-making. The researchers concluded that engaging in musical improvisation causes structural brain changes that enhance decision-making skills. Consequently, educational policymakers argue that incorporating improvisation into school music programs will improve students' ability to make rapid decisions in novel situations.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the educational policymakers' argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Prior to receiving any musical training, the musicians who eventually specialized in improvisation and those who specialized in written music exhibited no significant differences in prefrontal cortex neural density.

Answer

The statement establishing that both groups of musicians had identical prefrontal cortex neural density prior to their musical training.
The argument concludes that musical improvisation causes an increase in neural density, which in turn improves rapid decision-making. A classic flaw in this type of causal reasoning (which is based on an observed correlation) is reverse causation: perhaps individuals who already have higher neural density (and better decision-making skills) are simply more drawn to improvisation. The correct answer eliminates this alternate explanation by establishing that both groups had identical neural density before any training began. By ruling out reverse causation, this choice significantly strengthens the claim that the improvisation itself caused the structural changes.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the core argument and its main conclusion.
The main conclusion is that incorporating improvisation into school music programs will improve students' ability to make rapid decisions. The premises rely on a study showing a correlation between improvisation and increased neural density.
Understanding the exact claim being made is necessary to identify what evidence would support it.
2
Identify the gaps or assumptions in the argument's reasoning.
The argument assumes a specific causal direction: that improvisation causes increased neural density (which enhances decision-making), rather than preexisting high neural density causing people to choose improvisation.
Causal arguments based on correlational studies are inherently vulnerable to reverse causation and third-variable problems.
3
Evaluate the options to find the one that bridges the gap or rules out an alternate explanation.
The correct option eliminates the possibility of reverse causation by showing that the two groups started with the same neural density, proving the difference arose after the training.
Ruling out a highly plausible alternate cause is one of the most powerful ways to strengthen a causal conclusion on the LSAT.

Key Concept

Strengthening Causal Arguments by Ruling Out Reverse Causation
Question 15Question →

Entomologist: The Corvid butterfly population in the Aral Valley has plummeted over the last decade. Concurrently, there has been a sharp increase in the invasive thread-wasp, a predator of Corvid caterpillars. Nevertheless, the butterfly's decline is almost certainly due to a newly introduced agricultural herbicide, not the wasp. The herbicide, while directly harmless to the insects, accumulates in the soil and severely stunts the milkweed plants that Corvid caterpillars rely on exclusively for food.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the entomologist's argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: In neighboring valleys where the thread-wasp population has increased just as sharply but the new herbicide is not used, the Corvid butterfly population has not declined.

Answer

The option stating that in neighboring valleys where the thread-wasp population has increased just as sharply but the new herbicide is not used, the Corvid butterfly population has not declined.
The correct answer provides a powerful 'cause without effect' control scenario. By demonstrating that an influx of thread-wasps does not cause a decline in the butterfly population as long as the herbicide is absent, this option effectively eliminates the thread-wasp as the alternate cause. This strongly reinforces the entomologist's conclusion that the herbicide is the true culprit.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion and the premises of the argument.
Conclusion: The Corvid butterfly's decline is due to the new herbicide, not the thread-wasp. Premises: The butterfly population plummeted while the wasp population increased; however, the herbicide stunts the milkweed plants the caterpillars exclusively rely on.
Understanding the core argument structure is essential for determining what type of evidence is required to strengthen the specific causal claim.
2
Analyze the causal relationship being asserted.
The entomologist asserts that Cause A (the herbicide) is responsible for the Effect (butterfly decline), and explicitly argues against Cause B (the thread-wasp) being responsible.
Identifying the primary cause and the competing alternate cause allows us to anticipate what kind of evidence would support the author's preferred cause over the alternative.
3
Evaluate the options to find one that supports Cause A or definitively rules out Cause B.
The correct option provides a scenario where Cause B (wasps) is present but Cause A (herbicide) is absent, and the Effect (decline) does not occur.
In logical reasoning, showing that an effect disappears when the suspected cause is removed—even if the alternate cause remains present—is one of the most powerful ways to rule out the alternate cause and strengthen the conclusion.

Key Concept

Strengthening Causal Arguments via Control Groups
Question 16Question →

To investigate the effects of the amino acid taurine, researchers placed laboratory mice on a diet completely devoid of it, adding the synthetic filler Zylotol to maintain identical caloric intake. These mice soon exhibited severe cognitive decline compared to a control group on a standard diet. The researchers concluded that taurine deficiency directly causes cognitive impairment. A critic countered that Zylotol’s mild neurotoxic properties actually caused the observed decline. Nevertheless, the researchers maintained their original conclusion.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers' original conclusion in light of the critic's objection?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: A separate group of mice fed a diet completely devoid of taurine but supplemented with an inert, non-toxic filler instead of Zylotol exhibited the exact same degree of cognitive decline.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that a separate group of mice fed an inert filler instead of Zylotol exhibited the exact same degree of cognitive decline.
The correct answer isolates the proposed cause (taurine deficiency) by completely removing the confounding variable (Zylotol) introduced by the critic. By demonstrating that an inert, non-toxic filler produces the exact same cognitive decline when taurine is absent, it definitively proves that the absence of taurine—not the presence of Zylotol—was the true cause of the impairment. This directly and powerfully supports the researchers' original conclusion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion and the premises.
Conclusion: Taurine deficiency directly causes cognitive impairment. Premise: Mice deprived of taurine and given Zylotol showed severe cognitive decline.
To establish the core argument of the researchers.
2
Identify the gap and the critic's specific objection.
The critic points out a confounding variable: Zylotol's mild neurotoxicity could be the actual cause of the decline, not the lack of taurine.
To understand the vulnerability in the researchers' reasoning that must be addressed.
3
Determine what logical move is needed to strengthen the researchers' conclusion.
We need evidence that isolates taurine deficiency as the true cause by explicitly ruling out Zylotol as the cause of the observed cognitive decline.
A strong strengthener in a causal dispute will effectively eliminate the alternative causal explanation provided by the critic.
4
Evaluate the options against this requirement.
The correct option removes Zylotol from the equation entirely (using an inert filler) and shows the decline still occurs to the exact same degree. This proves taurine deficiency alone is responsible.
To find the only choice that decisively resolves the causal dispute in favor of the researchers.

Key Concept

Causal Reasoning: Ruling Out Alternative Explanations
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Question 17Question →

To alleviate severe traffic congestion, the metropolitan government of Meridia implemented a 'congestion charge'—a substantial toll levied on any vehicle entering the central business district during designated peak commuting hours. One year after the policy's implementation, the total volume of vehicles entering the district during these peak hours had decreased by 25 percent. City officials declared the policy a resounding success. However, critics point out that during the same year, a severe national economic downturn caused a 25 percent drop in office employment within Meridia's central business district. The critics argue that the economic downturn, not the congestion charge, was responsible for the traffic reduction. The city officials reject this criticism, maintaining that the congestion charge was indeed the primary driver of the decreased peak-hour traffic.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest support for the city officials' position?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Following the implementation of the charge, there was a substantial increase in the volume of vehicle traffic entering the central business district during the thirty minutes immediately preceding and the thirty minutes immediately following the designated peak hours.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that there was a substantial increase in vehicle traffic just outside the designated peak hours.
The core logical task is to isolate the true cause of the 25 percent traffic reduction: the congestion charge (as officials claim) or the economic downturn (as critics claim). The correct answer must provide evidence that supports the toll as the active mechanism. If the economic downturn were the primary cause, the unemployed individuals would simply cease their daily commute, leading to a general reduction in morning and evening traffic. However, the correct choice demonstrates a sharp increase in traffic volume in the thirty-minute windows immediately outside the tolled peak hours. This specific behavioral shift—adjusting travel times to avoid a penalty—is a direct fingerprint of the congestion charge. It strongly supports the officials' position by demonstrating that the toll is actively influencing commuter behavior, rather than commuters simply disappearing due to job loss.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion being supported.
The city officials' position is that the congestion charge, not the economic downturn, was the primary driver of the decreased peak-hour traffic.
Before evaluating options, you must isolate the exact claim that needs strengthening.
2
Analyze the logical gap.
The argument presents two concurrent phenomena (the toll and the downturn) that could both cause a reduction in traffic.
To strengthen the officials' claim, we must find evidence that isolates the toll as the active cause and rules out the downturn.
3
Determine the behavioral implications of each cause.
If the downturn caused the drop, unemployed commuters would simply stop driving to the district entirely. If the toll caused the drop, commuters would still need to travel but would shift their schedules to avoid the penalty.
Finding a distinct 'fingerprint' for one of the causes allows us to definitively choose between them.
4
Evaluate the options against this framework.
The option showing a traffic spike in the thirty minutes before and after the peak hours perfectly matches the behavioral fingerprint of a toll.
This definitively proves that the toll is actively influencing commuter behavior, rather than commuters simply disappearing due to job loss.

Key Concept

Isolating Causal Variables
Estimated Time:2m 30s
Question 18Question →

Marine biologist: In the coastal waters of Mako Bay, the overall density of kelp forests has decreased by nearly 30% over the past five years. During this exact same timeframe, the population of purple sea urchins, which aggressively graze on kelp, has doubled. It is clear that the surging purple sea urchin population is responsible for the decline of the kelp forests.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the marine biologist's argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: In sections of Mako Bay where researchers successfully prevented purple sea urchin populations from increasing, the density of kelp forests remained stable over the past five years.

Answer

The statement showing that kelp forests remained stable in areas where sea urchins did not increase.
The marine biologist concludes that an increase in sea urchins caused the decline in kelp based merely on the fact that both events happened concurrently. A highly effective way to strengthen a causal conclusion is to demonstrate that when the purported cause is removed or absent, the effect is also absent. The correct option provides a control scenario within the same environment: in areas where the urchin population did not grow, the kelp did not decline. This strongly supports the idea that the urchins are indeed responsible.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the argument's premises and main conclusion.
Premise: Kelp decreased by 30% while urchins doubled. Conclusion: The urchin increase caused the kelp decrease.
Understanding the structure is required to evaluate what would bolster the argument's logic.
2
Determine the type of reasoning used in the argument.
The argument uses causal reasoning based on a correlation (two things happening at the same time).
Causal arguments have specific vulnerabilities and standard ways to be strengthened.
3
Anticipate what kind of evidence would strengthen this causal claim.
Evidence could eliminate an alternate cause, show that when the cause is absent the effect is absent, or show that the cause and effect always occur together.
Pre-phrasing helps quickly identify the correct structural match among the options.
4
Evaluate the options against the anticipated strengtheners.
The option describing sections of the bay where urchins were kept from increasing and kelp remained stable perfectly matches the 'cause absent, effect absent' method.
This isolates the variable (urchin population) to demonstrate its direct impact on the kelp, ruling out bay-wide environmental factors.

Key Concept

Strengthening Causal Arguments
Question 19Question →

Below are four distinct causal arguments and four potential pieces of evidence. Pair each argument with the single piece of evidence that most effectively bolsters its specific conclusion by addressing an underlying logical vulnerability.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Researchers observed that employees utilizing standing desks report fewer instances of lower back pain than those using traditional seated desks. They conclude that standing desks directly alleviate back pain.
Following the introduction of an invasive hawk species to Elmwood Forest, the population of native ground squirrels declined sharply. Biologists conclude that the hawks are aggressively hunting the ground squirrels.
A recent educational study shows that students who learn to play a musical instrument score significantly higher on standardized math tests. The authors conclude that musical training actively enhances mathematical reasoning skills.
After the city of Morovia initiated a comprehensive tree-planting campaign in its downtown district, average summer daytime temperatures there dropped by two degrees. Planners assert the new trees directly caused this cooling effect.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Match the Standing Desks argument with the evidence ruling out outside exercise; the Hawk argument with the evidence ruling out starvation/disease; the Musical Training argument with the evidence showing no initial math advantage; and the Tree Planting argument with the evidence regarding neighboring municipalities.
Each correct pairing successfully matches a causal argument with the specific piece of evidence that patches its unique logical vulnerability. By ruling out alternative causes (exercise, starvation/disease), eliminating selection bias (pre-existing math skills), and providing a negative control group (neighboring cities), each piece of evidence significantly increases the probability that the stated conclusion is true.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the Standing Desks argument to identify its logical gap.
The argument assumes a correlation between desk type and pain reduction implies causation, ignoring the possibility that standing desk users might simply have healthier habits overall.
Identifying the unstated assumption is necessary to find the evidence that protects the argument from that specific vulnerability.
2
Select the evidence that addresses the gap in the Standing Desks argument.
The evidence stating that standing desk users do not engage in more back-strengthening exercises effectively rules out a major alternative cause, thereby strengthening the original claim.
Ruling out alternative causes is a primary method of strengthening a causal argument.
3
Analyze the Hawk and Squirrel argument and match it with corresponding evidence.
The argument assumes the new predator caused the prey decline. The evidence showing abundant food and no disease rules out the other two most common causes of animal population collapse.
Eliminating alternative explanations strengthens the likelihood that the stated cause is the correct one.
4
Analyze the Musical Training argument and match it with corresponding evidence.
The argument is vulnerable to selection bias. The evidence showing no initial math advantage proves the groups started equal, meaning the music training is the most likely cause of the later divergence in scores.
Establishing a neutral baseline rules out the possibility that the 'effect' actually preceded the 'cause'.
5
Analyze the Tree Planting argument and match it with corresponding evidence.
The argument assumes the local intervention caused the cooling. The evidence showing neighboring cities warmed up provides a control group that isolates the tree planting as the active variable.
Demonstrating that an effect did not occur where the cause was absent strongly supports a causal relationship.

Key Concept

Strengthening causal arguments requires addressing specific vulnerabilities: ruling out alternative explanations, eliminating selection bias, and utilizing control groups to demonstrate cause-without-effect controls.
Question 20Question →

Agronomist: The crop yields of farms in the Delta region have increased by 20 percent since a new soil-aeration technique was introduced three years ago. The developer of this technique claims that it improves nutrient absorption, directly causing the surge in yields. However, this claim is incorrect; the true cause of the increased yields is the unusually favorable rainfall pattern the Delta region has experienced over the same three-year period.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest evidence to support the agronomist's conclusion?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Farms in the neighboring Echo region, which experienced the exact same favorable rainfall patterns but did not adopt the new soil-aeration technique, also saw a 20 percent increase in crop yields over the last three years.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that farms in the neighboring Echo region experienced the exact same favorable rainfall patterns but did not adopt the new soil-aeration technique, and still saw a 20 percent increase in crop yields.
The agronomist claims that favorable rainfall, rather than a newly introduced soil-aeration technique, caused a 20 percent increase in crop yields. This is a classic causal argument where two potential causes occurred at the same time. The correct answer provides a perfect control scenario: a neighboring region that experienced the exact same rainfall but did NOT use the new technique. Because this control region also experienced the identical 20 percent yield increase, it strongly supports the conclusion that the rainfall alone is sufficient to cause the surge, effectively isolating it as the true variable.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion and the premises of the argument.
The main conclusion is that unusually favorable rainfall caused the 20 percent increase in crop yields. The premises are that yields increased after the introduction of a new aeration technique, but favorable rainfall also occurred concurrently.
Evaluating an argument requires a precise understanding of the causal claim the author is attempting to prove.
2
Analyze the logical gap in the agronomist's reasoning.
The agronomist asserts that rainfall, rather than the aeration technique, caused the yield increase, but provides no evidence to definitively separate the effects of these two simultaneous variables.
Identifying the missing link allows you to determine what specific evidence is needed to strengthen the argument.
3
Evaluate the options to find one that isolates the agronomist's proposed cause.
The correct option demonstrates that in a comparable region where only the rainfall occurred (without the aeration technique), the exact same yield increase resulted.
In causal reasoning, showing a 'cause without effect' or an 'effect without the rival cause' (a control group) is the most robust way to strengthen a specific causal hypothesis.

Key Concept

Strengthening Causal Arguments via Control Groups
Estimated Time:1m 45s
Page 1 / 3Next
Strengthen Practice Questions — LSAT | Examkin