Argument Evaluation

289 soru

Soru 101Soru →

Analyze the four logical arguments below. Each argument contains a specific causal gap or unstated vulnerability. Match each argument to the single piece of new evidence that most robustly strengthens its conclusion by resolving that specific gap.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Tracking data over fifteen years shows the median life expectancy of Alpine marmots rising sharply, mirroring a localized collapse in the golden eagle population. Ecologists assert that the alleviation of direct eagle predation allowed the marmots to achieve longer lifespans.
Following the implementation of aggressive state subsidies for domestic solar panel manufacturing, the nation's volume of fossil fuel imports plummeted by 30%. Policymakers argue these financial incentives were the primary driver of the reduced reliance on traditional energy.
Participants navigating complex logical tasks in rooms illuminated by short-wavelength blue light completed them 15% faster than cohorts in red-lit rooms. Researchers conclude the specific spectral frequency of the light intrinsically accelerates neurological processing speed.
Artifact analysis at an excavation reveals that 85% of recovered cutting implements exhibit asymmetrical micro-abrasions exclusively on their leftward-facing edges. Anthropologists hypothesize this ancient population possessed a disproportionately high rate of left-handedness.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings successfully align each causal gap with the evidence that bridges it: the marmot predation claim with aerial trauma data, the solar policy claim with total energy audits, the light frequency claim with color-neutralization controls, and the anthropology claim with experimental tool replication.
Each correct match directly addresses the critical flaw in its respective argument. The marmot argument is strengthened by directly confirming the mechanism of reduced mortality (aerial ambush). The solar subsidy argument is strengthened by ruling out the most likely alternative causes (lower energy demand or other renewables). The blue light argument is strengthened by a control test that isolates light frequency as the active variable. The tool argument is strengthened by explicitly verifying the mechanical relationship between hand dominance and wear patterns.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Alpine marmot argument to identify its causal gap.
Identified that the correlation between fewer eagles and longer-living marmots could be coincidental (e.g., caused by better food).
Strengthening a causal claim requires showing that the proposed cause directly produced the effect.
2
Match the marmot argument to the available evidence.
Selected the evidence regarding 'aerial ambush trauma' mortality analyses.
This explicitly links the specific predator mechanism to the exact statistical change in survivorship.
3
Analyze the solar subsidy and blue light arguments for vulnerabilities.
Identified that fossil fuel drops could stem from overall lower energy use, and blue light speed could stem from other factors in the room.
Ruling out alternative causes and utilizing control tests are two primary methods of strengthening causal arguments.
4
Match the solar and blue light arguments to their respective strengthening evidence.
Matched solar with the energy demand audit, and blue light with the color-neutralizing lenses experiment.
The energy audit rules out alternative economic causes, while the lens experiment isolates the visual frequency as the active variable.
5
Evaluate the anthropology argument regarding left-handed tools.
Matched it with the experimental replication evidence.
This bridges the gap by proving the unstated assumption that left-edge wear is physically dictated by left-handed use.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening causal arguments by ruling out alternative explanations, utilizing control groups to isolate variables, and confirming underlying mechanical linkages.
Soru 102Soru →

Macroeconomist: A national currency cannot achieve global reserve status unless its issuing central bank operates completely independent of short-term political pressures. Some analysts argue that the newly launched Solarian Credit will achieve global reserve status because it is backed by vast physical commodity reserves. However, any currency backed by vast physical commodity reserves inherently subjects its valuation to unpredictable global market fluctuations. Furthermore, no central bank can successfully prioritize long-term economic stability if its currency's valuation is subjected to such unpredictable market fluctuations. Therefore, the Solarian Credit cannot achieve global reserve status.

Which of the following, if assumed, enables the macroeconomist's conclusion to be properly drawn?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any central bank that operates completely independent of short-term political pressures is able to successfully prioritize long-term economic stability.

Cevap

The statement that any central bank that operates completely independent of short-term political pressures is able to successfully prioritize long-term economic stability.
The macroeconomist's argument relies on a chain of formal logic that remains incomplete. To prove the Solarian Credit cannot achieve global reserve status, the first premise dictates we must prove it lacks independence from political pressure. The evidence provided only proves that the Solarian Credit's central bank cannot prioritize long-term economic stability (due to commodity backing causing market fluctuations). To bridge the gap, we must assume that an inability to prioritize long-term stability guarantees a lack of political independence. The correct answer states this exact rule in its contrapositive form: Any bank that IS independent MUST be able to prioritize long-term stability. If we add this rule, the Solarian Credit's inability to prioritize stability guarantees it lacks independence, which in turn guarantees it cannot achieve global reserve status.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the required condition for the conclusion.
The conclusion is that the Solarian Credit will not achieve global reserve status. According to the first premise, the only stated way to prove this is to prove that its central bank is NOT completely independent of short-term political pressures.
Establishing the endpoint of the logical chain needed to mathematically guarantee the conclusion.
2
Map the chain of established premises regarding the Solarian Credit.
Solarian Credit -> Backed by commodities -> Subjected to market fluctuations -> Cannot successfully prioritize long-term economic stability.
Determines the furthest point we can reach using the explicit evidence provided in the stimulus.
3
Identify the logical gap.
The explicit chain ends at 'Cannot prioritize long-term stability'. The required trigger to prove the conclusion is 'Not independent of political pressures'. Therefore, the missing link is: 'If a bank cannot prioritize long-term stability, it is not independent of political pressures.'
A sufficient assumption must perfectly connect the end of the premise chain to the trigger for the conclusion.
4
Formulate the contrapositive of the missing link to find the correct answer.
The contrapositive of 'If it cannot prioritize stability, it is not independent' is exactly: 'If a bank is independent of political pressures, it must be able to successfully prioritize long-term economic stability.'
LSAT questions frequently present the correct sufficient assumption in its contrapositive form to test advanced formal logic translation.

Anahtar Kavram

Sufficient Assumption (Conditional Logic Chains and Contrapositives)
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 103Soru →

Analyze the four arguments below. Match each argument (Left) to the specific piece of new evidence (Right) that most severely weakens its conclusion by exposing its underlying logical flaw.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Paleontologist: The extinction of the large flightless birds in this region was almost certainly driven by the arrival of early human settlers. Fossil evidence demonstrates a rapid collapse in the bird population that perfectly coincides with the earliest known human encampments in the valley.
Financial Analyst: To maximize long-term profitability, our corporation must immediately transition to an open-allocation management structure. A comprehensive industry review shows that 85% of the most highly profitable tech companies currently utilize an open-allocation framework.
School Board Administrator: The new intensive tutoring program is clearly working to improve overall math proficiency. In the district where it was implemented, the absolute number of students failing the standardized math assessment plummeted by nearly 50% this year.
Medical Researcher: The new synthetic-polymer heart valve is more effective than the traditional mechanical valve. Clinical surveys show that patients who received the synthetic valve experienced a significantly lower rate of post-surgical complications and faster recovery times.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The Paleontologist argument matches the climatic shift evidence (exposing a third-variable cause). The Financial Analyst argument matches the capital baseline evidence (exposing reverse causation). The School Board argument matches the population exodus evidence (exposing a numbers vs. percentages flaw). The Medical Researcher argument matches the younger patients evidence (exposing selection bias).
Each correct pairing perfectly exploits the specific logical gap in the stimulus. The climate shift introduces a common cause for the paleontological correlation. The capital requirement introduces reverse causation for the financial correlation. The population drop attacks the numerical basis of the educational claim. The surgical instructions expose a fatal selection bias in the medical claim.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the Paleontologist argument for its logical gap.
Identified a correlation-to-causation flaw based on simultaneous occurrences.
Finding an alternate cause or a third factor that causes both events is the standard way to weaken this type of causal claim.
2
Analyze the Financial Analyst argument.
Identified a correlation between a management structure and profitability.
Since the evidence is just a cross-sectional snapshot (highly profitable companies have this structure), it is vulnerable to reverse causation—they might have the structure because they are profitable.
3
Analyze the School Board Administrator argument.
Identified a claim of improved proficiency based solely on a drop in the absolute number of failures.
Absolute numbers cannot prove a change in rate or quality without knowing the total base size. A change in the base population is the most direct weakener.
4
Analyze the Medical Researcher argument.
Identified an observational comparison between two groups of patients with different treatments.
Without a randomized controlled trial, the groups might not be equivalent. Pointing out a pre-existing advantage in one group (selection bias) destroys the conclusion that the treatment itself caused the better outcome.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying and attacking specific structural flaws in causal reasoning, statistical evidence, and observational comparisons.
Soru 104Soru →

Archaeologist: Any ancient civilization that possessed a centralized government was capable of organizing large-scale public works. Extensive excavations in the region historically inhabited by the Moradi civilization have revealed absolutely no evidence of monumental architecture, such as pyramids, large temples, or administrative palaces. Therefore, it is clear that the Moradi did not possess a centralized government.

The archaeologist's conclusion is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Any ancient civilization that was capable of organizing large-scale public works left behind evidence of monumental architecture.

Cevap

The correct assumption is that any ancient civilization that was capable of organizing large-scale public works left behind evidence of monumental architecture.
The argument relies on connecting the evidence (no monumental architecture) to the conclusion (no centralized government). The premise states that a centralized government guarantees the capability for large-scale public works. To strictly guarantee the conclusion, we must prove the Moradi lacked this capability. The correct assumption provides the missing link: if any civilization capable of public works left behind monumental architecture, then the Moradi's lack of such architecture proves they were incapable of public works, thus perfectly proving they lacked a centralized government.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the premises and the conclusion of the argument.
Premise: Centralized Government -> Capable of Public Works. Evidence: Moradi -> NO Monumental Architecture. Conclusion: Moradi -> NO Centralized Government.
Deconstructing the argument into its conditional logic components is essential for identifying the missing link.
2
Determine the logical gap between the stated premises and the conclusion.
To prove NO Centralized Government, we must trigger the contrapositive of the premise, which requires proving NO Capability of Public Works. The evidence only establishes NO Monumental Architecture.
Identifying the exact deductive gap dictates what the sufficient assumption must provide to logically complete the argument.
3
Formulate the required sufficient assumption to bridge the gap.
The assumption must link the evidence to the required trigger: NO Monumental Architecture -> NO Capability of Public Works. The contrapositive of this is: Capable of Public Works -> Monumental Architecture.
A sufficient assumption must logically guarantee the conclusion, meaning it must complete the conditional chain perfectly without logical leaps.

Anahtar Kavram

Sufficient Assumption (Deductive Bridge)
Soru 105Soru →

Automotive Industry Analyst: Five years ago, the government introduced a subsidy to encourage the production of electric vehicles (EVs). Since then, the percentage of newly manufactured EVs that fail their initial quality assurance inspections has fallen from 12 percent to 4 percent. Therefore, the subsidy program has successfully decreased the total number of EVs failing these critical safety inspections.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the analyst's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It overlooks the possibility that the overall production volume of electric vehicles has expanded enough to offset the lower failure rate.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument overlooks an expansion in the overall production volume.
The argument commits a classic proportion versus quantity error. It concludes that an absolute number has decreased (total EVs failing inspections) based entirely on evidence that a proportion has decreased (the percentage failing). If the total number of EVs manufactured has tripled, a 4 percent failure rate would yield a higher absolute number of failed inspections than a 12 percent rate did previously.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the total number of EVs failing safety inspections has decreased.
Understanding the precise claim the author is making is the first step in evaluating reasoning.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
The premise is that the percentage of newly manufactured EVs failing the inspection dropped from 12 percent to 4 percent.
We must isolate the evidence used to justify the conclusion.
3
Compare the nature of the premise to the nature of the conclusion.
The premise presents evidence about a proportion (percentage), while the conclusion makes a claim about an absolute number (total number).
A mismatch between the type of evidence provided and the claim made usually reveals the logical flaw.
4
Determine if the premise mathematically guarantees the conclusion.
It does not. If total EV production increased dramatically, 4 percent of a massive new total could be a larger absolute number than 12 percent of a smaller old total.
Testing the logic with hypothetical numbers confirms that a percentage drop does not guarantee a drop in absolute numbers.

Anahtar Kavram

Percentage vs. Number Flaw
Soru 106Soru →

Historian: The rapid population growth in the Aethelian Valley during the 11th century was almost certainly driven by the introduction of the heavy iron plow. Prior to its introduction in 1012, the valley's population had been stagnant for over two centuries. By 1050, the population had nearly doubled. The heavy plow allowed farmers to cultivate the dense, clay-rich soils of the valley floor, significantly increasing the total agricultural yield and thus supporting a much larger population.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the historian's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: In 1012, a devastating conflict in a neighboring kingdom caused a massive influx of refugees to permanently resettle in the Aethelian Valley, bringing the heavy plow technology with them.

Cevap

The statement detailing a massive influx of refugees in 1012 who brought the plow with them most seriously weakens the argument.
This option weakens the argument by introducing a compelling third variable: a massive influx of refugees. If tens of thousands of refugees settled in the valley in 1012, this immigration wave serves as a more direct alternative cause for the population doubling by 1050. Furthermore, because these refugees brought the plow with them, it explains why the plow's arrival correlated perfectly with the population boom, completely dismantling the historian's claim that the plow itself drove the population growth via agricultural yield.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the stimulus to identify the core argument structure.
Conclusion: The heavy iron plow caused the rapid population growth. Premises: Population was stagnant before the plow's arrival in 1012; population doubled by 1050; the plow increased agricultural yield.
Understanding the causal claim is necessary to evaluate which piece of new evidence would most effectively undermine it.
2
Identify the primary vulnerability in the historian's reasoning.
The historian assumes that because the plow's introduction preceded the population growth, it must have caused it (correlation to causation).
Recognizing a causal flaw directs the search for an answer choice that provides an alternative cause, reverse causation, or a third variable.
3
Evaluate the answer choices against the identified vulnerability.
The correct option reveals that an influx of refugees concurrently caused the population jump and introduced the plow, severing the historian's causal link.
An effective alternative cause must comprehensively explain the observed phenomenon without relying on the author's stated mechanism.

Anahtar Kavram

Weakening Causal Arguments
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 107Soru →

Ornithologist: A recent study found that urban crows living in close proximity to fast-food restaurants have significantly higher average body weights than crows living in rural habitats. The diet of these urban crows consists heavily of discarded processed foods, which are notoriously high in calories. Therefore, it is clear that the consumption of these high-calorie processed foods is the primary cause of the increased body weight in these urban crows.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the ornithologist's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Due to the high concentration of readily available food, urban crows near fast-food restaurants expend significantly fewer calories daily flying and foraging than rural crows do.

Cevap

The option stating that urban crows near fast-food restaurants expend significantly fewer calories daily flying and foraging than rural crows do.
The argument concludes that a high-calorie diet is the primary cause of the urban crows' higher body weight. However, body weight depends on both caloric intake and caloric expenditure. By pointing out that these urban crows expend significantly fewer calories because their food is highly concentrated, this statement introduces a compelling alternate explanation for their increased weight. This severs the assumed direct link between the high-calorie food itself and the weight gain, thereby severely weakening the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's premises and main conclusion.
Premises: Urban crows near fast food weigh more than rural crows, and they eat a high-calorie processed diet. Conclusion: The high-calorie diet causes the increased body weight.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to spot the logical gap.
2
Determine the type of reasoning and its inherent vulnerabilities.
The argument uses causal reasoning based on a correlation. A vulnerability is that there might be an alternate cause for the effect (increased body weight).
Understanding the flaw type directs the search for the correct weakening statement.
3
Evaluate the options to find the one that exploits this vulnerability.
The correct option points out that urban crows burn fewer calories. Since weight is determined by calories in minus calories out, a lower expenditure of calories is a plausible alternate explanation for the higher weight.
Introducing a viable alternate explanation is the standard method for weakening a causal argument on the LSAT.

Anahtar Kavram

Weakening causal arguments by identifying alternate explanations
Soru 108Soru →

Human Resources Director: Six months ago, our company replaced its open-plan office layout with private cubicles in an effort to boost employee productivity. Recent observational data reveals that employees are currently spending 30 percent less time engaging in casual conversations in the office corridors than they did before the renovation. Clearly, the transition to private cubicles has successfully increased overall worker productivity by reducing social distractions.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the human resources director's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The company's most innovative and profitable projects typically emerge from ideas generated during spontaneous, casual conversations in common areas.

Cevap

The statement that the company's most innovative and profitable projects typically emerge from ideas generated during spontaneous, casual conversations in common areas.
This statement directly attacks the core assumption in the human resources director's argument. The director assumes that less time spent in casual corridor conversations equates to fewer 'social distractions' and therefore higher productivity. However, if these casual conversations are actually the source of the company's most innovative and profitable projects, then a 30 percent reduction in these conversations would likely damage the company's productivity. This severs the logical connection between the premise (less corridor chatting) and the conclusion (increased productivity).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the transition to private cubicles has increased overall worker productivity by reducing social distractions.
To evaluate or weaken an argument, you must first isolate the exact claim the author is attempting to prove.
2
Identify the premise provided in support of the conclusion.
The premise is that employees are spending 30 percent less time engaging in casual corridor conversations since the cubicles were installed.
Understanding the evidence highlights the gap between what is explicitly stated and what is concluded.
3
Find the logical gap or unstated assumption in the reasoning.
The director assumes that 'casual conversations in the corridors' are strictly unproductive 'social distractions' that hinder work.
Identifying the assumption reveals the argument's vulnerability.
4
Select the option that attacks this assumption.
The correct option demonstrates that these casual conversations are actually highly productive because they lead to profitable and innovative projects.
By showing that the supposed 'distraction' is actually a driver of productivity, the link between the premise and the conclusion is severed, severely weakening the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Argument Evaluation: Weakening an Argument by Attacking an Unstated Assumption
Soru 109Soru →

Public Health Official: In our city, individuals who regularly engage in community gardening experience noticeably lower rates of stress-related illnesses compared to individuals who do not. This clearly demonstrates that the practice of community gardening directly reduces a person's vulnerability to stress-related conditions.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the public health official's reasoning?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It infers a causal relationship solely from an observed association between two phenomena.

Cevap

It infers a causal relationship solely from an observed association between two phenomena.
The correct answer accurately identifies that the argument commits a correlation-causation fallacy. The public health official observes that community gardening and lower stress-related illnesses occur together (an association). From this observation alone, the official concludes that gardening causes the reduction in stress. This reasoning is flawed because it ignores other possibilities, such as reverse causation (being healthier and less stressed gives people the energy and desire to garden) or a third factor (such as higher socioeconomic status or more free time) causing both the gardening and the lower stress levels.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the premises provided in the argument.
The premise establishes a correlation: individuals who garden have lower rates of stress-related illnesses than those who do not.
Identifying the exact evidence is necessary to determine what kind of conclusion can logically follow.
2
Analyze the conclusion drawn by the official.
The conclusion is a definitive causal claim: community gardening directly reduces vulnerability to stress-related conditions.
Comparing the conclusion to the premises reveals the logical gap.
3
Identify the gap between the premise and the conclusion.
The argument leaps from a correlation (two things happening together) to causation (one thing causing the other), failing to rule out alternative explanations.
This gap represents the core flaw in the reasoning.

Anahtar Kavram

Correlation vs. Causation
Soru 110Soru →

Nutritionist: Residents of the mountainous region of Vargia consume an unusually high amount of the local root vegetable kalian, and they also boast the lowest rates of heart disease in the country. To combat rising rates of heart disease nationwide, the government should subsidize the cultivation of kalian and promote its consumption among the general population.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the nutritionist's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The steep, rugged terrain of Vargia requires its residents to engage in intense daily physical exertion, a lifestyle factor known to drastically reduce the risk of heart disease.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the steep, rugged terrain of Vargia requires intense daily physical exertion, which drastically reduces the risk of heart disease.
The argument relies on a correlation between kalian consumption and low heart disease rates to conclude that kalian causes heart health. The correct answer introduces a highly plausible alternative cause (intense physical exertion due to terrain) for the low heart disease rates in Vargia. This alternate explanation severs the assumed causal link, making it much less likely that promoting kalian nationwide will have the desired effect.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's premises and conclusion.
Premises: Vargians eat lots of kalian AND have the lowest rates of heart disease. Conclusion: Promoting kalian nationwide will combat rising heart disease rates.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to evaluate the logical leap being made.
2
Analyze the logical gap (flaw) between the premises and the conclusion.
The nutritionist assumes a causal relationship (kalian prevents heart disease) based solely on a correlation in Vargia.
Identifying the flaw helps predict what type of information would most effectively weaken the argument.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to find the one that exploits this logical gap.
The option about Vargia's rugged terrain introduces an alternative cause (physical exertion) for the low heart disease rates, destroying the assumed causal link to kalian.
A valid weaken answer typically introduces new information that makes the conclusion less likely to follow from the premises.

Anahtar Kavram

Alternative Explanations in Causal Arguments
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 111Soru →

Anthropologist: The recently discovered Makuri manuscripts, dated to the 12th century, contain numerous loanwords from the coastal Zandian dialect. Because inland Makuri villages were separated from the coast by the treacherous High Ridge mountains, historians previously believed there was no interaction between these groups before the 15th century. However, the presence of these loanwords proves that an extensive trade network must have connected these two groups by the 12th century.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the anthropologist's argument depends?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The Zandian loanwords did not enter the Makuri language solely through non-commercial forms of contact, such as migration or warfare.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the Zandian loanwords did not enter the Makuri language solely through non-commercial forms of contact.
The argument concludes that trade networks existed because loanwords were found. For this to be logically valid, the author must assume that the loanwords didn't get there exclusively through some other mechanism. If the loanwords were introduced purely through war or migration, the presence of the words would not prove the existence of trade. Therefore, ruling out these alternative explanations is a necessary assumption (a 'Defender' assumption).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is: 'An extensive trade network must have connected these two groups by the 12th century.'
Locating the conclusion is essential for understanding what the author is trying to prove.
2
Identify the primary premise supporting the conclusion.
The premise is: '12th-century Makuri manuscripts contain numerous loanwords from the coastal Zandian dialect.'
The premise shows the evidence used to justify the conclusion.
3
Find the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion.
The author jumps from 'they share loanwords' to 'they engaged in extensive trade.'
Identifying the gap reveals what the author takes for granted (the assumption).
4
Apply the Negation Test to the correct answer to verify it is necessary.
Negating the correct option yields: 'The loanwords DID enter the language solely through non-commercial forms of contact.' This directly destroys the conclusion that trade must have connected them.
The Negation Test is the definitive method for confirming a necessary assumption in logical reasoning.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption
Soru 112Soru →

Medical Researcher: A recent observational study found that individuals who drink green tea on a daily basis have a significantly lower incidence of heart disease compared to those who rarely or never drink it. Green tea is uniquely rich in a specific antioxidant compound known as EGCG. Based on these findings, we can conclude that the consumption of EGCG actively helps to prevent the development of heart disease.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the medical researcher's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: In a separate, controlled trial, participants who were given purified EGCG supplements but did not alter their regular diets exhibited a substantial decrease in indicators of heart disease.

Cevap

The correct answer is the statement showing that purified EGCG supplements, when given to participants without other dietary changes, result in a substantial decrease in indicators of heart disease.
The argument concludes that EGCG causes a reduction in heart disease based on a correlation between drinking green tea (which contains EGCG) and lower heart disease rates. The correct answer isolates the proposed cause (EGCG) from other variables in green tea or the drinkers' lifestyles, demonstrating that EGCG alone leads to a reduction in heart disease indicators. This actively validates the causal mechanism and supports the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the consumption of EGCG actively helps to prevent the development of heart disease.
Understanding the exact conclusion is necessary to determine what kind of evidence will make it more plausible.
2
Identify the premises and the logical gap in the reasoning.
The argument relies on a correlation between drinking green tea and lower heart disease, noting that green tea contains EGCG. The gap is the assumption that EGCG itself is the cause, ignoring other compounds in the tea or lifestyle habits of the drinkers.
Strengthening a causal argument typically requires addressing its underlying assumptions, such as ruling out alternative causes or isolating the mechanism.
3
Evaluate the options to find one that bridges the gap or validates the causal mechanism.
The correct answer demonstrates that when EGCG is administered by itself in a controlled trial, the health benefit still occurs.
Showing that the hypothesized cause produces the desired effect even when separated from confounding variables strongly validates the causal claim.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening a Causal Argument by Isolating the Variable
Soru 113Soru →

Match each logical argument (on the left) with the additional premise (on the right) that most strongly bridges its logical gap and supports its conclusion.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Argument A (Causal): Adults who read fiction regularly have higher empathy scores. Therefore, reading fiction increases a person's empathy.
Argument B (Causal/Trend): The city implemented a new recycling program, and total landfill waste decreased by 20% this year. Thus, the recycling program successfully reduced waste.
Argument C (Sampling): A survey of customers at a luxury sports car dealership found that 90% prefer leather seats. Therefore, most car buyers prefer leather seats.
Argument D (Analogy): Implementing a casual dress code boosted employee morale at the local tech startup. A casual dress code will certainly boost morale at the traditional law firm.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Argument A pairs with ruling out reverse causation. Argument B pairs with ruling out an alternate cause for the trend. Argument C pairs with validating the representativeness of the sample. Argument D pairs with validating the relevant similarities in the analogy.
Each correct match directly patches the specific logical hole in the corresponding argument. Argument A requires defense against reverse causation. Argument B requires defense against alternative explanations for a trend. Argument C requires validation of an unrepresentative sample. Argument D requires validation of an analogy between two vastly different workplaces.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze Argument A to identify its logical vulnerability.
The argument assumes causation from a mere correlation between reading fiction and empathy.
To strengthen a causal claim based on correlation, the best premise will rule out reverse causation or a third variable.
2
Analyze Argument B to identify its logical vulnerability.
The argument assumes the recycling program is the sole cause of the 20% drop in landfill waste.
To strengthen this, we must rule out alternative explanations, such as residents simply producing less trash overall.
3
Analyze Argument C to identify its logical vulnerability.
The argument uses a highly specific, potentially biased sample (luxury car buyers) to make a claim about all car buyers.
To strengthen a conclusion based on a survey, a premise must show that the sample is representative of the whole group.
4
Analyze Argument D to identify its logical vulnerability.
The argument relies on an analogy between a tech startup and a traditional law firm.
To strengthen an analogy, a premise must confirm that the two entities are similar in ways that are relevant to the conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening arguments by diagnosing specific logical gaps (causation, sampling, analogies) and supplying premises that directly address those vulnerabilities.
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 114Soru →

The recent discovery of monumental stone enclosures at a prehistoric site challenges the consensus that centralized political leadership emerged only after societies transitioned to agriculture. Radiocarbon dating confirms these structures predate domesticated crops by millennia. However, quarrying and transporting such massive pillars would have required the sustained, coordinated effort of numerous distinct nomadic bands. Therefore, the successful construction of these enclosures demonstrates that these pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers had already developed a centralized political authority capable of directing large-scale communal labor.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The level of sustained coordination required to quarry and transport the massive pillars could not have been achieved in the absence of a centralized political authority.

Cevap

The level of sustained coordination required to quarry and transport the massive pillars could not have been achieved in the absence of a centralized political authority.
The argument claims that because the construction required the sustained coordination of numerous nomadic bands, the society must have possessed a centralized political authority. This logic inherently assumes that such large-scale coordination is impossible without a centralized authority. If we apply the Negation Test to the correct answer, we get: 'The level of sustained coordination required... COULD have been achieved in the absence of a centralized political authority.' If this were true, the physical evidence of coordination would no longer demonstrate the existence of a centralized political authority, causing the argument to collapse entirely. Therefore, this assumption is logically required.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers had developed a centralized political authority capable of directing large-scale labor.
This is signaled by the word 'Therefore' in the final sentence.
2
Identify the premises supporting this conclusion.
The primary premise is that quarrying and transporting the massive pillars required the sustained, coordinated effort of numerous distinct nomadic bands.
This establishes the factual basis from which the conclusion is logically drawn.
3
Locate the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument jumps from 'sustained, coordinated effort' to 'centralized political authority.'
Coordinated effort does not inherently guarantee a centralized political authority; it could theoretically be achieved through egalitarian or decentralized cooperation.
4
Formulate the necessary assumption to bridge this gap.
The argument must assume that the required coordination could not have happened without a centralized political authority.
If it could happen without one, the evidence of coordination would no longer 'demonstrate' that they had already developed one.
5
Apply the Negation Test to verify the correct option.
Negating the correct answer yields: 'The coordination COULD have been achieved in the absence of a centralized political authority.'
This negated statement destroys the argument's core reasoning, confirming it is indeed the required necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption (Bridging the Gap / Defender)
Soru 115Soru →

A local wine shop recently alternated the background music it played, switching between classical music and pop music. The store's records show that on days when classical music was played, the average price of a purchased bottle of wine was 20 percent higher than on days when pop music was played. The store owner concludes that listening to classical music induces customers to purchase more expensive wines.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the store owner's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The average income and demographics of the customers visiting the shop were nearly identical on both classical music days and pop music days.

Cevap

The average income and demographics of the customers visiting the shop were nearly identical on both classical music days and pop music days.
The argument claims a direct causal relationship between the type of music played and the amount of money spent per bottle. A classic way to strengthen a causal claim is to rule out a viable alternate cause. If the customers on classical music days were generally much wealthier than those on pop music days, that wealth difference would be a strong alternate explanation for the higher spending. The correct answer eliminates that alternate cause by stating the demographics and incomes were identical across both scenarios, thereby strengthening the likelihood that the music itself caused the behavior.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion and the primary premise of the argument.
Conclusion: Listening to classical music induces customers to buy more expensive wines. Premise: The average price of wine purchased was 20 percent higher on classical music days than on pop music days.
Understanding the structure of the argument is essential for evaluating its logical strength.
2
Analyze the logical gap in the argument.
The argument assumes a causal relationship (music causes spending) based entirely on a correlation. It fails to consider alternate causes, such as different types of customers visiting the store on different days.
Strengthening a causal argument usually requires eliminating potential alternate explanations.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to find one that addresses the logical gap.
The correct choice explicitly rules out the possibility that the demographic or income of the shoppers caused the difference in spending.
By holding the customer base constant, the evidence more strongly points to the music itself as the direct cause of the higher spending.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening causal arguments by ruling out alternate causes
Tahmini Süre:1m 15s
Soru 116Soru →

Argument: The new Z-100 electric vehicle has a maximum battery range of 400 miles per charge, which is 100 miles greater than the range of any other electric vehicle currently on the market. Based on this significant advantage, industry analysts conclude that the Z-100 will become the top-selling electric vehicle next year.

Statement: A logically necessary assumption of this argument is that consumers consider battery range to be the only important factor when deciding which electric vehicle to purchase.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

The statement is False because the proposed assumption uses extreme language that makes it sufficient to prove the conclusion, but it is not strictly necessary for the argument to survive.
The statement is false because it provides a sufficient assumption rather than a necessary one. A necessary assumption would be much milder, such as 'The Z-100 is not prohibitively expensive compared to other electric vehicles.' The extreme word 'only' makes the statement too strong to be an absolute requirement of the argument.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structure of the argument.
Premise: The Z-100 has a significant 100-mile range advantage over competitors. Conclusion: The Z-100 will be the top-selling electric vehicle next year.
Identifying the premise and conclusion is required to spot the logical gap in the reasoning.
2
Identify the logical gap.
The author jumps from a single competitive advantage (range) to absolute market dominance (top-selling), ignoring other factors that influence sales.
Understanding the flaw helps distinguish between what would fix the argument (sufficient) and what the argument absolutely depends on (necessary).
3
Evaluate the provided statement using the Negation Test.
Negated statement: 'Consumers do NOT consider battery range to be the ONLY important factor' (meaning other factors also matter).
The Negation Test is the definitive method for proving if an assumption is logically necessary.
4
Determine if the negated statement destroys the conclusion.
It does not. Even if consumers care about price and safety in addition to range, the Z-100 could still be the top seller. Therefore, the original extreme statement is not required.
Because the conclusion survives the negation of the statement, the statement is not a necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Applying the Negation Test and distinguishing between Necessary and Sufficient assumptions.
Soru 117Soru →

Conservationist: The Azure Warbler relies exclusively on the Silver Birch tree for nesting. Over the last decade, a fungal disease has destroyed roughly 30 percent of the Silver Birch trees in the regional park. Because of this significant loss of nesting habitats, the population of Azure Warblers in the park will inevitably decline over the next few years.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the conservationist's argument depends?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The remaining Silver Birch trees in the park do not provide enough nesting capacity to support the current population of Azure Warblers.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the remaining Silver Birch trees in the park do not provide enough nesting capacity to support the current population of Azure Warblers.
The correct answer identifies the core assumption bridging the gap between the loss of trees and the decline of the bird population. For the argument to hold, it must be true that the park did not previously have a massive surplus of Silver Birch trees. If the remaining 70 percent of the trees are still sufficient to comfortably accommodate all the Azure Warblers, then the population would not inevitably decline. By negating this option ('The remaining trees DO provide enough capacity'), the conclusion is completely undermined, proving this assumption is strictly necessary.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core argument's premises and conclusion.
Conclusion: The Azure Warbler population will decline. Premises: Warblers rely exclusively on Silver Birch trees for nesting, and a disease has destroyed 30% of these trees in the park.
Finding the assumption requires understanding exactly what evidence is provided and what claim is being made based on that evidence.
2
Identify the logical gap between the evidence and the conclusion.
The argument assumes that the 30% loss of trees actually creates a shortage. If there were a massive surplus of trees before the disease struck, a 30% drop might not affect the birds' ability to nest at all.
An argument's necessary assumption bridges the gap between the stated evidence and the conclusion by ruling out potential flaws or alternate possibilities.
3
Apply the Negation Test to the potential answers.
Negating the correct option yields: 'The remaining trees DO provide enough nesting capacity.' If this negated statement is true, the conclusion that the population will inevitably decline due to a lack of trees completely falls apart.
The Negation Test is the most reliable way to prove whether an assumption is logically necessary. If negating an option destroys the argument, that option is the correct necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption and the Negation Test
Soru 118Soru →

To combat the invasive lionfish damaging local marine ecosystems, coastal authorities introduced a financial bounty for every lionfish captured by recreational divers. In the twelve months following the program's implementation, the number of lionfish recorded during standardized visual surveys of the local reefs decreased by roughly 40 percent. Based on this decline, officials concluded that the bounty program successfully motivated divers to catch enough lionfish to significantly diminish their overall population in the area.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the officials' argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The decline in the number of lionfish spotted during the visual surveys was not primarily the result of the lionfish altering their behavior to evade the increased presence of divers.

Cevap

The argument requires assuming that the decline in lionfish spotted during surveys was not primarily the result of the lionfish altering their behavior to evade divers.
The argument relies on a shift from observed data (fewer lionfish seen during visual surveys) to a factual conclusion about population size (fewer lionfish exist). For this logic to hold true, the officials must assume that the drop in sightings accurately reflects a drop in actual numbers, rather than a mere change in the animals' behavior, such as hiding from the increased diving activity.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The officials conclude that the bounty program successfully motivated divers to catch enough lionfish to diminish the population.
Understanding the exact claim being made is the first step in finding the logical gap.
2
Identify the premises supporting this conclusion.
A bounty was introduced, and subsequently, visual survey sightings of lionfish decreased by 40 percent.
Premises represent the evidence provided to support the conclusion.
3
Locate the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The evidence is about a drop in 'sightings' (lionfish recorded during visual surveys), but the conclusion makes a definitive claim about a drop in the 'actual population'.
An argument is vulnerable where its evidence does not perfectly match its conclusion.
4
Evaluate the correct option using the Negation Test.
Negating the correct option yields: 'The decline in sightings WAS primarily the result of lionfish altering their behavior to hide.' If this is true, the population didn't necessarily drop, destroying the officials' conclusion.
A necessary assumption is one that, if proven false, completely undermines the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Applying the Negation Test to identify a 'Defender' assumption that rules out an alternative explanation for the observed evidence.
Tahmini Süre:1m 45s
Soru 119Soru →

A local bakery recently replaced its conventional flour with organic flour for all its bread recipes. In the month following this change, the bakery's daily bread sales volume increased by 20 percent. The bakery's owner concludes that the new bread sells better because customers prefer the taste of organic flour over conventional flour.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most strengthen the bakery owner's argument? (Select all that apply)

Geçerli olan tümünü seçin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: In blind taste tests, the bakery's customers consistently chose the bread made with organic flour over the bread made with conventional flour.; During the month following the change, the bakery did not alter its prices, change its location, or run any new advertising campaigns.

Cevap

The statements that strengthen the argument are: (1) independent evidence showing a taste preference in blind tests, and (2) the elimination of alternative causes such as changes in price or advertising.
The argument concludes that a specific cause (taste preference for organic flour) led to a specific effect (increased sales). The first correct statement strengthens this by providing direct, independent evidence that the proposed mechanism (taste preference) actually exists. The second correct statement strengthens the argument by explicitly ruling out the most common alternative causes for an increase in retail sales (pricing, location, marketing), thereby making the author's proposed cause more likely to be the true one.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion and the premises.
Conclusion: Customers prefer the taste of organic flour. Premise: Bread sales increased by 20 percent after switching to organic flour.
Understanding the structure of the argument is essential to evaluating its logical gaps.
2
Identify the logical gap in the causal argument.
The owner assumes that the correlation between the new flour and increased sales is a direct causal relationship based specifically on taste, ignoring other potential factors.
Causal arguments on the LSAT are vulnerable to alternative causes, reverse causation, or coincidental trends.
3
Evaluate each option to see if it bridges the gap or supports the conclusion.
One option provides direct evidence of taste preference. Another option rules out alternative causes for the sales increase. Both strengthen the argument.
Strengthening a causal argument typically involves confirming the cause-and-effect relationship or eliminating alternative explanations.

Anahtar Kavram

To strengthen a causal argument, you must either provide direct evidence that validates the causal mechanism or rule out plausible alternative causes for the observed effect.
Soru 120Soru →

A recent study of a popular mobile game showed that players who purchased the game's premium subscription played for an average of fifteen hours per week. In contrast, players who did not purchase the subscription played for an average of only four hours per week. Based on these findings, the game's developers concluded that the premium subscription directly causes players to engage more deeply with the game.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the developers' conclusion?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Before purchasing the premium subscription, the users in the premium group played the game for an average of exactly four hours per week.

Cevap

The option stating that before purchasing the premium subscription, users in the premium group played for an average of exactly four hours per week.
The developers' argument assumes a causal relationship based strictly on a correlation. A common flaw in this type of reasoning is the possibility of reverse causation—the idea that players who already engaged deeply with the game were naturally the ones who decided to purchase the subscription. The correct answer successfully eliminates this alternative explanation by demonstrating that the premium players actually had low engagement levels prior to their purchase. By ruling out the possibility that the heavy playtime preceded the subscription, the option heavily strengthens the claim that the subscription itself caused the increase in playtime.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's premises and main conclusion.
Premise: Premium subscribers play 15 hours/week, non-subscribers play 4 hours/week. Conclusion: The subscription causes deeper engagement.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to spot the logical gap.
2
Identify the logical flaw or gap in the reasoning.
The developers assume causation from a simple correlation. They ignore the possibility of reverse causation (i.e., that people who already play a lot are simply the ones most likely to buy a subscription).
Strengthen questions often require identifying a vulnerability and finding an answer choice that patches it.
3
Evaluate the options to find one that defends against this vulnerability.
The correct option demonstrates that premium subscribers were not already playing 15 hours a week before they bought the subscription.
Eliminating an alternative explanation (reverse causation) is one of the most robust ways to strengthen a causal conclusion on the LSAT.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening Causal Arguments by Ruling Out Alternate Causes (Reverse Causation)
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
ÖncekiSayfa 6 / 15Sonraki