Argument Structure and Method

190 soru

Soru 101Soru →

The city council is considering planting more oak trees in the downtown plaza. Oak trees provide significantly more shade than the currently planted elm trees. Therefore, planting oak trees will make the plaza cooler during the summer months. Because a cooler plaza will attract more visitors to the downtown area, the city council should proceed with the plan to plant oak trees.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that planting oak trees will make the plaza cooler during the summer months?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is an intermediate conclusion that is supported by a premise about tree shade and is used to support the argument's main recommendation.

Cevap

The statement acts as an intermediate conclusion, drawing on the premise about shade and leading to the main conclusion about proceeding with the plan.
The correct answer accurately maps the two-way relationship of the target statement: it receives support (from the premise about shade) and gives support (to the main conclusion about adopting the plan), making it an intermediate conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is the final sentence: 'the city council should proceed with the plan to plant oak trees.'
Finding the main conclusion provides the anchor for understanding how all other statements function.
2
Identify the specific statement referenced in the question stem.
The target statement is: 'planting oak trees will make the plaza cooler during the summer months.'
This focuses attention on the exact phrase that needs to be analyzed.
3
Determine the relationship between the target statement and the rest of the argument.
The statement is supported by the previous sentence ('Oak trees provide significantly more shade...') and it supports the subsequent claim ('Because a cooler plaza will attract more visitors... the city council should proceed...').
Tracing the logical flow reveals that the statement functions as a stepping stone (intermediate conclusion) between a basic premise and the main conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying intermediate (subsidiary) conclusions in standard argument structures.
Soru 102Soru →

In an argument by elimination, competing hypotheses are systematically ruled out by specific premises until only one valid option remains. Match each proposed hypothesis for the sudden decline in a local bee population (left) with the specific evidence that logically eliminates it from consideration (right).

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The bees were killed by a newly introduced pesticide.
The hive was destroyed by a fungal infection.
The bees starved due to a lack of local flowering plants.
The population was decimated by predatory wasps.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Pesticide hypothesis pairs with the absence of synthetic toxins; Fungal infection pairs with the lack of spores; Starvation pairs with the abundance of blooming flora; Predatory wasps pairs with the absence of bite marks or invasive insects.
Each hypothesis is successfully eliminated by a piece of evidence that directly contradicts a necessary condition for that hypothesis to be true. Recognizing these connections is the foundational skill required to evaluate arguments by elimination.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the pesticide hypothesis.
Match with the evidence regarding chemical analysis and synthetic toxins.
Pesticides are synthetic chemical toxins, so their complete absence directly eliminates this proposed cause.
2
Analyze the fungal infection hypothesis.
Match with the laboratory autopsies finding no spores.
Fungi spread and reproduce via spores and mycelium. The lack of this biological evidence rules out a fungal cause.
3
Analyze the starvation hypothesis.
Match with the botanical surveys showing abundant flora.
Bees rely on blooming flora for nectar and pollen. An abundance of food sources eliminates the possibility of starvation.
4
Analyze the predatory wasp hypothesis.
Match with the observation of no bite marks or invasive insects.
Predatory attacks would leave physical evidence on the hives and the bees. The absence of such damage rules out predators.

Anahtar Kavram

Argument by Elimination
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Soru 103Soru →

Some art historians argue that the painting Tobias and the Angel should be reclassified as primarily a work of Leonardo da Vinci rather than his master, Andrea del Verrocchio. This proposed reclassification is fundamentally misguided. Laboratory analysis of the painting does reveal brushwork characteristics distinctly matching those of a young da Vinci, and Verrocchio routinely allowed senior apprentices to execute significant portions of his commissions. Thus, da Vinci almost certainly painted the majority of the figures in this specific piece. Nevertheless, Renaissance definitions of authorship dictate that a painting belongs to the master whose workshop contracted and supervised the piece, regardless of whose hand actually applied the paint.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The proposal to reclassify Tobias and the Angel as primarily a work of Leonardo da Vinci is flawed.

Cevap

The main conclusion is that the proposal to reclassify Tobias and the Angel as primarily a work of Leonardo da Vinci is flawed.
The correct answer accurately captures the author's central claim: that the effort to reclassify the painting is misguided. Every other part of the argument—the background context, the intermediate conclusion about who painted the figures, and the premise about Renaissance authorship—serves ultimately to explain or support this overarching point.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the stimulus to separate the author's voice from opposing viewpoints.
The first sentence introduces a view held by 'some art historians'. The second sentence represents the author's rejection of that view.
Identifying shifts in perspective helps isolate the author's primary argument.
2
Identify the structural role of the indicator word 'Thus'.
The statement following 'Thus' (da Vinci painted the majority of the figures) is a conclusion supported by the preceding evidence of brushwork and workshop practices.
Indicator words signal logical relationships, but must be evaluated in the context of the whole passage to determine if they point to an intermediate or main conclusion.
3
Determine the relationship between the conclusion indicated by 'Thus' and the author's initial claim.
The statement about da Vinci painting the figures is an intermediate conclusion. The author concedes this fact, but introduces another premise ('Nevertheless, Renaissance definitions...') to prove that the initial claim (reclassification is misguided) remains true.
A main conclusion must be supported by the other statements and must not logically support any other statement in the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the main conclusion in arguments containing intermediate conclusions and opposing viewpoints.
Soru 104Soru →

Sociologist: Some urban analysts maintain that the recent widespread adoption of remote work will cause the permanent economic decline of city centers, citing the dramatic reduction in daily foot traffic in downtown business districts. However, this forecast is overly pessimistic. Just as the widespread adoption of the telephone did not eliminate the need for in-person business meetings but merely changed their primary purpose, the rise of remote work will likely transform city centers into specialized hubs for collaborative work and leisure rather than empty them out entirely.

Statement: The sociologist counters the analysts' forecast by drawing an analogy to a past technological advancement to demonstrate that the empirical evidence relied upon by the analysts is factually incorrect.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The statement is false because it mischaracterizes how the sociologist attacks the analysts' argument. While it is true that the sociologist draws an analogy to a past technological advancement (the telephone), the purpose of this analogy is to show that a similar situation led to a different outcome (transformation). The sociologist does not argue that the analysts' empirical evidence—the dramatic reduction in daily foot traffic—is factually incorrect.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structure of the sociologist's argument.
The sociologist presents the analysts' argument (premise: reduced foot traffic; conclusion: permanent economic decline) and counters it using an analogy to the telephone.
Identifying the core components of the argument is essential for determining the method of reasoning.
2
Determine how the sociologist treats the analysts' evidence versus their conclusion.
The sociologist rejects the analysts' conclusion ('overly pessimistic') but does not deny their premise (the reduction in foot traffic is implicitly accepted).
Method of reasoning questions often hinge on distinguishing between challenging a premise and challenging a conclusion.
3
Evaluate the provided statement against the argument's actual method.
The statement correctly identifies the use of an analogy but incorrectly claims the sociologist uses it to prove the analysts' empirical evidence is factually incorrect.
A descriptive statement must accurately characterize the entire method of reasoning to be evaluated as true.

Anahtar Kavram

General Method of Reasoning
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 105Soru →

Ethicist: Some argue that corporations have a moral obligation to maximize the happiness of their employees, reasoning that corporations function like small governments, which have a duty to their citizens. However, if corporations were truly obligated to maximize employee happiness, they would be ethically required to distribute all profits as bonuses rather than reinvesting in the business. Since a corporation that cannot reinvest will inevitably go bankrupt—thereby eliminating jobs and causing widespread unhappiness—this view is clearly flawed.

Which of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning used in the ethicist's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Undermining a normative claim by demonstrating that its logical implications would thwart the very goal it seeks to achieve.

Cevap

The argument undermines a normative claim by demonstrating that its logical implications would thwart the very goal it seeks to achieve.
The correct answer accurately captures the argumentative strategy: it takes the proposed rule ('maximize happiness') and shows that strictly following it leads to bankruptcy, which results in the exact opposite of the intended goal ('widespread unhappiness'). This is a classic form of demonstrating that an argument's implications are self-defeating.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the ethicist's argument.
The conclusion is that the view requiring corporations to maximize employee happiness is 'clearly flawed'.
Locating the main conclusion is the first step in understanding how the author structures the argument to support it.
2
Analyze the premises used to support this conclusion.
The ethicist states that maximizing happiness requires distributing all profits, which causes bankruptcy, which ultimately causes 'widespread unhappiness'.
The method of reasoning is found in the logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion.
3
Abstract the specific argument into a general logical method.
The author takes a proposed obligation, traces its logical consequence, and shows that this result (unhappiness) directly contradicts the obligation's original intent (maximizing happiness).
LSAT method of reasoning questions require translating specific subject matter into abstract structural descriptions.

Anahtar Kavram

General Method of Reasoning
Soru 106Soru →

Below are four excerpts from a panel discussion regarding a proposal to implement a universal basic income (UBI). Match each excerpt to the abstract description of the method of reasoning it primarily employs.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Implementing UBI to solve systemic inequality is akin to giving painkillers to a patient with a fractured limb; it masks the immediate discomfort but entirely fails to address the underlying structural damage.
The assertion that guaranteed baseline wealth inherently degrades a population's work ethic is decisively undermined by the Dauphin municipal pilot, wherein employment rates held steady while public health metrics surged.
If we embrace the premise that the state is unconditionally obligated to fulfill every material need, we must logically concede that the state possesses the authority to dictate the specific labor individuals must perform to fund those very needs.
Advocates point to last year's unprecedented economic expansion as definitive proof that the pilot program succeeded; however, they conveniently ignore the simultaneous surge in global demand for our chief export.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Excerpt 1 uses an analogy comparing policy to medicine; Excerpt 2 offers a specific counterexample to a general rule; Excerpt 3 draws out an absurd or unacceptable consequence of a premise; Excerpt 4 provides an alternative causal explanation for an observed effect.
Each excerpt perfectly illustrates a classic argumentative technique tested on the LSAT: analogical reasoning (comparing policy to medicine), counterexample (using Dauphin to refute a rule), reductio ad absurdum (extending a premise to forced labor), and alternative causal explanation (export demand driving the economy).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first excerpt to abstract its argumentative structure.
The author compares an economic policy to treating a fracture with painkillers, which maps to the method of analogy.
Recognizing comparisons utilizing 'is akin to' or 'is like' helps identify analogical reasoning.
2
Analyze the second excerpt to abstract its argumentative structure.
The author uses the 'Dauphin municipal pilot' to disprove a rule about work ethic, mapping to the use of a counterexample.
Spotting specific real-world instances deployed to disprove broad, categorical assertions reveals the counterexample method.
3
Analyze the third excerpt to abstract its argumentative structure.
The author shows how accepting a premise forces one to accept a tyrannical conclusion, mapping to reductio ad absurdum.
The 'If we embrace X... we must logically concede Y' structure indicates demonstrating an unacceptable consequence.
4
Analyze the fourth excerpt to abstract its argumentative structure.
The author introduces 'global demand for our chief export' as the real reason for the boom, mapping to an alternative causal explanation.
Highlighting a simultaneous event that could cause the outcome points directly to an alternative explanation flaw/strategy.

Anahtar Kavram

General Method of Reasoning
Soru 107Soru →

Anthropologist: Many researchers contend that the unusual wear patterns on the teeth of the extinct hominid *Paranthropus boisei* indicate a diet consisting exclusively of hard foods, such as nuts and seeds. However, extant primates like the sootey mangabey exhibit nearly identical dental wear patterns, yet their diet consists primarily of soft fruits, with hard foods eaten only during periods of scarcity. Thus, the wear patterns on *P. boisei* teeth do not definitively prove a diet restricted to hard foods.

Which of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning used in the anthropologist's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: using an analogous case to establish that a particular piece of evidence is insufficient to guarantee the truth of a specific hypothesis

Cevap

The argument operates by using an analogous case to establish that a particular piece of evidence is insufficient to guarantee the truth of a specific hypothesis.
The correct answer accurately maps the abstract components to the concrete details of the stimulus. The 'analogous case' refers to the sootey mangabey. The 'particular piece of evidence' is the dental wear patterns. The 'specific hypothesis' is the claim that P. boisei had a diet consisting exclusively of hard foods. By showing that the mangabey has identical wear patterns but a different diet, the anthropologist establishes that the wear patterns are 'insufficient to guarantee the truth' of the hard-food hypothesis.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the opposing view and the evidence it relies upon.
The researchers hypothesize that P. boisei ate only hard foods, basing this on the evidence of unusual dental wear patterns.
Understanding the specific claim being challenged is necessary to evaluate how the author structures their attack.
2
Analyze the new evidence introduced by the author.
The author introduces the sootey mangabey, an extant primate with similar wear patterns but a diet consisting mostly of soft fruits.
This step determines the structural role of the new information: it serves as an analogy to a related phenomenon.
3
Determine how the author's evidence impacts the opposing view.
The mangabey example demonstrates that these specific wear patterns can exist without an exclusively hard-food diet, meaning the researchers' evidence does not definitively prove their hypothesis.
This captures the logical mechanism and ultimate goal of the argument.
4
Abstract the logical structure and match it to the options.
The author uses an analogous case (the mangabey) to show that evidence (wear patterns) is insufficient to guarantee a hypothesis (exclusive hard-food diet).
Method of reasoning questions require translating the concrete elements of the argument into abstract, structural descriptions.

Anahtar Kavram

General Method of Reasoning
Soru 108Soru →

Read the following argument from an anthropologist. Then, match each excerpt from the argument to the statement that best describes its structural role.

Anthropologist: The prevailing hypothesis regarding the collapse of the Classic Maya civilization points to a period of prolonged drought as the primary cause. But this drought hypothesis is ultimately unconvincing. While paleoclimatological records do confirm a severe drought during that era, several major Maya cities located in the driest regions continued to thrive for centuries after the drought began. Therefore, factors other than climate change must have been the primary drivers of the societal collapse.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The prevailing hypothesis regarding the collapse of the Classic Maya civilization points to a period of prolonged drought as the primary cause.
this drought hypothesis is ultimately unconvincing
paleoclimatological records do confirm a severe drought during that era
several major Maya cities located in the driest regions continued to thrive for centuries after the drought began
factors other than climate change must have been the primary drivers of the societal collapse

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct matches identify the precise structural role of each statement, distinguishing the ultimate main conclusion ('factors other than climate change...') from a subsidiary conclusion, premises, and opposing viewpoints.
By breaking down the argument structurally, we can see that the author sets up an opposing claim, concedes a supporting fact for it, but introduces strong counter-evidence. This evidence leads to a subsidiary conclusion (the opposing claim is unconvincing), which leads to the final main conclusion (other factors must be responsible).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion.
The main conclusion is that factors other than climate change must have been the primary drivers of the collapse.
This is the ultimate claim the author is trying to prove, appearing at the end of the logical chain.
2
Identify the opposing viewpoint being argued against.
The opposing view is that the collapse was caused primarily by a period of prolonged drought.
The author introduces this as the 'prevailing hypothesis' before rejecting it.
3
Locate the subsidiary conclusion.
The subsidiary conclusion is that the drought hypothesis is ultimately unconvincing.
This statement is supported by the evidence of thriving cities and, in turn, supports the main conclusion.
4
Distinguish between the concession and the counter-evidence.
The concession is the confirmation of severe drought. The counter-evidence is the fact that cities in driest regions thrived.
The concession acknowledges a point in favor of the opposition, while the counter-evidence directly undermines the opposition.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Main Conclusions and Argument Structure
Soru 109Soru →

The contemporary legal framework surrounding corporate personhood ought to be stripped of its provisions protecting corporate political speech. It is true that some form of corporate personhood is practically necessary; without it, companies could not enter into enforceable contracts or face civil liability. However, the legal capacity to participate in commerce does not logically necessitate the granting of political rights, which were historically intended solely to secure the democratic participation of natural persons. Furthermore, since a business entity cannot vote, face incarceration, or hold public office, attributing civic expression rights to corporations fundamentally conflates economic utility with civic identity.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion drawn in the argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The legal doctrine of corporate personhood should no longer include protections for political speech.

Cevap

The main conclusion is that the legal framework of corporate personhood should no longer protect corporate political speech.
The argument is structured to prove one primary, overarching claim: that the legal framework for corporate personhood ought to be stripped of its provisions protecting corporate political speech. Every other statement in the passage—including the concession about the necessity of corporate personhood for commerce, the historical intent of political rights, and the judgment that attributing political rights conflates economic and civic identity—serves directly or indirectly to support this opening recommendation. Therefore, the first sentence is the main conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structure of the argument to separate premises, subsidiary conclusions, and the main conclusion.
The argument begins with a normative claim about what the legal framework ought to be. The rest of the passage consists of a concession followed by reasons why the initial claim is true.
Identifying the structural role of each sentence is necessary to locate the ultimate point of the passage.
2
Evaluate the relationship between the first sentence and the final sentence.
The final sentence concludes that granting political rights conflates economic and civic identity. This judgment serves as a reason WHY the political speech provisions ought to be stripped.
In arguments with multiple conclusions, the main conclusion is the one that is supported by the other conclusion(s) and supports nothing else.
3
Match the identified main conclusion to the answer choices.
The correct option paraphrases the first sentence, stating that the legal doctrine of corporate personhood should no longer include protections for political speech.
The correct answer to a Main Conclusion question must accurately capture the meaning of the argument's ultimate conclusion without adding outside information.

Anahtar Kavram

In complex arguments, the main conclusion may appear at the very beginning of the stimulus, with the final sentence serving only as an intermediate conclusion that supports the opening claim.
Soru 110Soru →

A strictly empirical approach to neuroscience is inherently insufficient to fully resolve the philosophical problem of human consciousness. Many neuroscientists operate under the assumption that mapping the precise neural correlates of cognitive states will eventually yield a complete explanation of subjective experience. However, even if researchers generate a comprehensive map of the brain activity corresponding to a specific emotion, the objective measurement of this neurological state cannot convey what it actually feels like to undergo that emotion. The qualitative character of subjective experience remains fundamentally distinct from its physical mechanisms. Therefore, discovering the neural correlates of an experience provides merely a functional description of its physical genesis, rather than a comprehensive account of its reality.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: An exclusively empirical methodology in neuroscience cannot provide a definitive resolution to the philosophical puzzle of human consciousness.

Cevap

The statement asserting that an exclusively empirical methodology in neuroscience cannot provide a definitive resolution to the philosophical puzzle of human consciousness.
The correct answer perfectly paraphrases the opening sentence of the stimulus. In this argument, the author's ultimate point is that a strictly empirical approach to neuroscience is insufficient to resolve the philosophical problem of consciousness. All other claims in the passage, including the final sentence about neural correlates providing merely a functional description, serve as building blocks to support this primary assertion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the primary claim the author is attempting to prove.
The author's primary claim is that a strictly empirical approach is insufficient to resolve the philosophical problem of consciousness, stated at the beginning of the passage.
This sets the overarching direction for the argument and represents the broadest claim made in the stimulus.
2
Analyze the structural role of the final sentence, which begins with the indicator 'Therefore'.
The final sentence concludes that neural correlates provide merely a functional description, not a comprehensive account.
Because of the indicator word, it is tempting to view this as the main conclusion. However, it must be evaluated in relation to the first sentence to determine its true structural role.
3
Determine the logical relationship between the first and final sentences.
The final sentence (that neural correlates provide only a functional description) serves as a reason WHY the first sentence (empirical approach is insufficient) is true.
The specific limitation of empirical measurement serves as logical support for the broader claim about the methodology's overall insufficiency.
4
Synthesize the findings to isolate the ultimate main conclusion.
The first sentence is the main conclusion, while the final sentence is an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.
A main conclusion is supported by other statements but does not itself provide logical support for any other statement in the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Main Conclusions vs. Intermediate Conclusions
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 111Soru →

Review the following argumentative passages and pair each excerpt with the abstract description that most accurately characterizes its primary method of reasoning.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Some argue that autonomous vehicles should be banned from city centers until they achieve a zero-accident rate. But this standard is unreasonable. We allow human drivers on the road even though they cause thousands of accidents daily. We do not demand perfection from humans; we only expect them to meet a certain threshold of competence. We should apply a similar threshold to autonomous systems.
A new proposal suggests that to eliminate wealth inequality, the government should simply print enough money to give every citizen a million dollars. However, if everyone suddenly possessed a million dollars, the purchasing power of the currency would collapse immediately. A loaf of bread would cost thousands of dollars, and real wealth disparities would remain unchanged or even worsen.
The sudden abandonment of the ancient settlement could only have resulted from three causes: a devastating disease, a natural disaster, or assimilation into local populations. Archaeological digs have uncovered no mass graves or signs of epidemic. Furthermore, geological records show no evidence of extreme weather events or earthquakes during that decade. We must conclude, therefore, that the inhabitants integrated with neighboring communities.
Many biologists formerly maintained that all complex cooperative behavior in animals is strictly a result of kin selection, where individuals help only those with whom they share genetics. Yet, vampire bats routinely regurgitate blood to feed starving roost-mates to whom they are entirely unrelated, purely on the basis of past reciprocal sharing.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The autonomous vehicles passage matches with criticizing a standard via inconsistency with a similar context (Analogy). The wealth inequality passage matches with undermining a policy by showing it defeats its own purpose (Reductio ad absurdum). The ancient settlement passage matches with establishing a conclusion by ruling out other explanations (Elimination). The vampire bat passage matches with refuting a generalization by providing a specific instance (Counterexample).
Each passage employs a distinct, formal logical strategy. The first uses an analogy (comparing AI to humans). The second traces destructive consequences that thwart a goal. The third systematically eliminates alternative historical hypotheses. The fourth offers a direct counterexample to a scientific rule.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the autonomous vehicle passage to identify its logical structure.
Identified that it defends autonomous vehicles by comparing them to the accepted imperfections of human drivers.
To recognize the argument proceeds by analogy, pointing out an inconsistency in standards.
2
Analyze the wealth inequality passage to determine how it attacks the proposal.
Identified that it traces the logical consequences of printing money (inflation) to prove it would not actually solve inequality.
To recognize the method of showing a proposal is self-defeating or leads to consequences that undermine its intent.
3
Examine the ancient settlement passage's premise-conclusion relationship.
Identified a list of three possibilities, followed by the explicit rejection of the first two based on a lack of evidence.
To match the structure with the formal method of eliminating alternatives.
4
Evaluate the vampire bat passage's relationship to the biologists' claim.
Identified that the bats represent a factual exception to the rule that all complex cooperation requires shared genetics.
To categorize the argument as the use of a counterexample against a universal generalization.

Anahtar Kavram

General Method of Reasoning
Soru 112Soru →

Read the following argument carefully. Match each excerpt from the argument (on the left) with the statement that most accurately describes its structural role in the argument (on the right).

"Proponents of 'rewilding' argue that reintroducing apex predators to disturbed ecosystems will naturally restore ecological balance. They base this on the assumption that these ecosystems still possess the underlying carrying capacity to support such predators. This assumption, however, is demonstrably false. Decades of intensive agriculture have fundamentally altered soil microbiomes, drastically reducing the primary productivity that forms the base of the food web. Because of this reduction, herbivore populations cannot recover to historical levels. It follows that reintroduced apex predators would quickly exhaust their prey base and face starvation. Consequently, rewilding efforts that focus on apex predators without first restoring soil health are destined to fail. The true path to ecological restoration must therefore begin at the microscopic level."

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

reintroducing apex predators to disturbed ecosystems will naturally restore ecological balance
these ecosystems still possess the underlying carrying capacity to support such predators
herbivore populations cannot recover to historical levels
rewilding efforts that focus on apex predators without first restoring soil health are destined to fail
The true path to ecological restoration must therefore begin at the microscopic level

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The excerpts accurately map to their structural roles by tracing the argument from the opposing view, through the author's premises and subsidiary conclusions, to the final prescriptive main conclusion.
The argument follows a classic structure: it introduces an opposing view, attacks the assumption underlying that view with factual evidence, builds a chain of intermediate conclusions to show why the opposing view's policy will fail, and concludes with a prescriptive claim about what should be done instead. Each excerpt fits perfectly into this structural analysis.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the opposing view and its basis.
The argument starts by outlining the proponents' conclusion ('reintroducing apex predators... will naturally restore') and the assumption they base it on ('ecosystems still possess... carrying capacity').
Understanding the context of the author's critique requires first identifying what specific claims the author is responding to.
2
Trace the author's counter-argument chain from the initial premise.
The author introduces a factual premise about altered microbiomes, which directly leads to the intermediate conclusion about herbivore populations ('herbivore populations cannot recover...').
This establishes the causal chain of evidence that refutes the proponents' assumption about carrying capacity.
3
Identify the major subsidiary conclusion regarding the proposed policy.
The chain of evidence leads to the conclusion that the proponents' specific policy of focusing on apex predators will fail ('rewilding efforts... are destined to fail').
This evaluates the outcome of the opposed policy based on the author's evidence, setting up the final takeaway.
4
Locate the final, overarching point the author is trying to prove.
The argument culminates in a prescriptive claim about how restoration should actually be handled ('The true path... must therefore begin at the microscopic level').
The main conclusion must be the statement that is supported by the rest of the argument but does not support any further claim.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Main Conclusions and Diagramming Argument Structure
Soru 113Soru →

Mayor: The proposed highway expansion is necessary to reduce traffic congestion, as it will divert commercial trucks away from city streets.
City Planner: While diverting commercial trucks is important, the highway expansion will actually increase overall traffic congestion by encouraging more commuters to drive instead of using public transit.

Statement: The Mayor and the City Planner disagree over whether the proposed highway expansion will reduce traffic congestion.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The text demonstrates a direct logical conflict: the Mayor asserts the expansion will reduce congestion, and the City Planner asserts it will increase congestion. This makes the statement an accurate description of their disagreement.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first speaker's argument.
The Mayor concludes that the highway expansion will reduce traffic congestion.
Identifying the main conclusion of the first speaker establishes their primary stance.
2
Analyze the second speaker's response.
The City Planner states that the highway expansion will increase overall traffic congestion.
Identifying the second speaker's stance allows for comparison against the first speaker's conclusion.
3
Determine the point of overlap and conflict.
One asserts a reduction in congestion; the other asserts an increase. Therefore, they disagree on whether the expansion will reduce traffic congestion.
A valid point at issue requires one speaker to affirm a proposition while the other rejects it.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the precise point of disagreement in a two-speaker dialogue.
Soru 114Soru →

Read the following argument carefully. Then, match each excerpt from the stimulus to the statement that most accurately describes its structural role in the argument.

"Many agricultural historians argue that the adoption of the heavy plow in medieval Europe directly caused a rapid increase in population by drastically improving crop yields. Detailed manorial records, however, indicate that population growth in several key regions actually preceded the widespread introduction of the heavy plow by nearly a century. Consequently, the heavy plow was a result, rather than the primary cause, of medieval demographic shifts. After all, expanding populations require increased food production to sustain larger workforces. This mounting pressure to produce more food clearly forced medieval communities to innovate and adopt more efficient agricultural technologies."

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

"...the adoption of the heavy plow in medieval Europe directly caused a rapid increase in population..."
"...population growth in several key regions actually preceded the widespread introduction of the heavy plow..."
"...the heavy plow was a result, rather than the primary cause, of medieval demographic shifts."
"...This mounting pressure to produce more food clearly forced medieval communities to innovate and adopt more efficient agricultural technologies."

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The excerpt about historians arguing the plow caused population increase matches the viewpoint being rejected. The excerpt regarding manorial records matches the premise providing empirical evidence. The excerpt stating the plow was a result rather than a cause matches the main conclusion. The excerpt regarding mounting pressure forcing communities to innovate matches the intermediate conclusion.
Each excerpt perfectly maps to a specific structural role. The argument is built by introducing an opposing view, providing a factual premise to contradict it, stating the main conclusion, and then providing a subsidiary argument (a general premise leading to an intermediate conclusion) to explain why the main conclusion makes sense.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first sentence of the stimulus.
Identifies the claim that the plow caused a population increase as the opposing viewpoint.
The phrase 'Many agricultural historians argue...' introduces a position that the author immediately counters with 'however, this causal narrative is fundamentally flawed,' establishing it as the rejected view.
2
Examine the second sentence containing the 'Detailed manorial records'.
Identifies this sentence as a premise providing historical evidence.
It presents factual, timeline-based data used to support the author's impending conclusion.
3
Evaluate the third sentence beginning with 'Consequently'.
Identifies this sentence as the main conclusion.
The word 'Consequently' signals a conclusion, and this statement (that the plow was a result, not a cause) represents the author's primary argument against the historians' narrative.
4
Analyze the final two sentences together.
Identifies the final sentence as an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.
The final sentence is supported by the preceding premise ('expanding populations require increased food'). In turn, it provides the causal mechanism (incentive to innovate) that explains the timeline, thereby supporting the main conclusion in the third sentence.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Main Conclusions vs. Subsidiary Conclusions
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 115Soru →

City Council Member: Some residents argue that our town should ban all commercial development in the historic district on the grounds that such development inherently alters the character of the neighborhood. But if we accept the premise that any alteration of character is sufficient justification for a prohibition, we would also be forced to ban the restoration of dilapidated residential properties, since those renovations also drastically alter the neighborhood's current character. Thus, the residents' rationale is unsound.

Which of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning used by the city council member?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: attempting to undermine a position by demonstrating that the principle underlying it would lead to an unacceptable consequence

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument attempts to undermine a position by demonstrating that the principle underlying it would lead to an unacceptable consequence.
The correct answer accurately captures the argumentative technique known as reductio ad absurdum. The council member abstracts the general rule from the residents' argument ('any alteration of character is sufficient justification for a prohibition') and applies it to a universally accepted good ('restoration of dilapidated residential properties') to prove that the rule cannot be sound.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structure of the council member's argument.
The council member summarizes the residents' position and their supporting premise (commercial development alters character).
To accurately understand the target of the council member's critique.
2
Identify the core logical move made by the council member.
The member extracts the implicit principle behind the residents' argument (altering character justifies a ban) and applies it to a different scenario (restoring dilapidated homes).
To isolate the specific method of reasoning being employed.
3
Determine the purpose of applying the principle to a new scenario.
The council member shows that applying the principle strictly would result in banning positive renovations, which is an absurd or unacceptable outcome, thereby invalidating the principle.
To abstract the rhetorical strategy into formal terms.
4
Evaluate the answer choices against this abstract description.
The correct option must describe the strategy of taking an opponent's principle and showing it yields an unacceptable consequence elsewhere.
To select the option that perfectly matches the structural analysis of the stimulus.

Anahtar Kavram

General Method of Reasoning
Soru 116Soru →

Linguist: The theory that the proto-language of the Altaic family originated in nomadic pastoralist communities is challenged by the fact that the oldest reconstructed Altaic vocabulary lacks specialized terms for horse breeding. Defenders of the pastoralist theory attempt to explain away this absence by arguing that early Altaic speakers simply adopted the horse-breeding terminology of neighboring groups, which subsequently replaced their native terms in the linguistic record. However, this defense is inadequate. Recent computational phylogenetic studies, which bypass borrowed vocabulary by isolating deep ancestral root morphemes, confirm the complete absence of any pastoralist concepts in the foundational structure of the language.

Determine whether the following statement accurately describes the method of reasoning used in the argument:

The linguist counters the defenders' argument by demonstrating that the alternative explanation proposed by the defenders is logically incompatible with the original evidence cited against the pastoralist theory.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

False
The abstract description of the reasoning is false because the linguist refutes the defenders by introducing new empirical data (computational phylogenetic studies of root morphemes) rather than pointing out a logical inconsistency between the defenders' theory and the original data (the lack of specialized terms in reconstructed vocabulary).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the linguist's original evidence against the hypothesis.
The oldest reconstructed vocabulary lacks specialized terms for horse breeding.
To establish the foundation of the initial argument against the pastoralist theory.
2
Analyze the defenders' counterargument.
The defenders propose an alternative causal explanation: native terms were replaced by adopted terminology from neighboring groups.
To determine what specific claim the linguist is responding to in the final rebuttal.
3
Identify the linguist's method of refuting the defenders.
The linguist cites novel computational phylogenetic studies isolating root morphemes to show no pastoralist concepts existed.
To accurately characterize the precise argumentative strategy used in the final sentence.
4
Evaluate the provided statement against the identified method of reasoning.
The statement claims the linguist showed logical incompatibility with the 'original evidence', but the linguist actually introduced completely 'new evidence' to invalidate the defenders' claim.
To determine the truth value of the abstract structural description.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinguishing between refuting an argument via internal logical contradiction and refuting it through the introduction of novel, independent empirical evidence.
Soru 117Soru →

Policy Analyst: The city's initiative to reduce household water consumption by subsidizing high-efficiency showerheads is unlikely to succeed. When people install high-efficiency fixtures, they often take longer showers because they feel less guilty about wasting water. This behavioral shift typically offsets any water savings gained from the improved technology.

Statement: The policy analyst's argument proceeds by arguing that a proposed measure will fail because it will induce a behavioral change that counteracts its intended effect.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True
The statement is correct because it flawlessly translates the specific contents of the analyst's argument into abstract methodological terms. The author critiques a plan by predicting an unintended consequence (longer showers) that directly negates the plan's underlying purpose (saving water).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the specific claims made in the policy analyst's argument.
The argument identifies a policy goal (reduce water consumption), a proposed solution (subsidize efficient showerheads), and a mechanism for failure (people taking longer showers due to reduced guilt).
Understanding the concrete structural components of the stimulus is necessary before evaluating an abstract description of its reasoning.
2
Evaluate the abstract description provided in the statement against the argument's concrete structure.
The abstract concepts in the statement ('proposed measure', 'induce a behavioral change', 'counteracts its intended effect') perfectly map onto the stimulus ('subsidizing showerheads', 'take longer showers', 'offsets any water savings').
Method of reasoning questions require recognizing how abstract logical language accurately characterizes a specific, applied argument.

Anahtar Kavram

General Method of Reasoning
Soru 118Soru →

An argument concerning the impact of new trade legislation can be constructed from the statements below. Arrange the statements to reflect their logical progression in the reasoning chain, starting with the foundational premise, moving chronologically through the intermediate conclusions, and ending with the ultimate main conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical order begins with the foundational premise about the new tariffs, followed by the manufacturers' reaction to shift contracts, the resulting capacity overwhelm, and finally the ultimate conclusion that this will cause production delays.
The logical structure of the argument forms a direct causal chain. It begins with an unsupported factual premise (the new tariffs). This premise supports a first intermediate conclusion (manufacturers will shift contracts to avoid tariffs). That shift supports a second intermediate conclusion (the domestic foundries will be overwhelmed by the sudden shift). Finally, this lack of capacity supports the ultimate main conclusion (the entire industry will experience short-term production delays).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the foundational premise that requires no support from other statements.
The statement detailing the provisions of the Trade Regulatory Act ('The recently enacted...') is the starting factual basis.
Foundational premises provide the grounding facts for the argument without relying on other claims.
2
Determine the immediate logical consequence of the foundational premise.
The statement regarding manufacturers transitioning their procurement contracts to domestic foundries.
The text explicitly states this shift is done 'In order to circumvent these exorbitant tariffs', directly linking it as an effect of the new law.
3
Identify the subsequent effect of the first intermediate conclusion.
The statement explaining that this massive reallocation of contracts will overwhelm domestic capacity.
The phrase 'This immediate and massive reallocation' refers back to the manufacturers' transition, placing it next in the causal chain.
4
Isolate the ultimate claim that the entire chain is built to support.
The statement predicting that the Trade Regulatory Act will cause short-term production delays.
This statement represents the final deduction drawn from the sequence of events; it is the ultimate point the author is trying to prove.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the structural hierarchy and causal chain of a logical argument.
Soru 119Soru →

Paleontologists have long debated the function of the hyper-enlarged auditory bullae found in the extinct mammalian predator *Megistotherium*. Because these structures superficially resemble those of modern desert foxes, which utilize them to dissipate excess body heat, many have hypothesized a primarily thermoregulatory function. However, the *Megistotherium* bullae exhibit exceptionally thick bony walls that would have completely insulated any circulating blood. Thus, the hypothesis that the bullae functioned as a heat dissipation mechanism is untenable. Given that the only other known evolutionary advantage of such massively enlarged structures is the enhanced detection of low-frequency vibrations generated by distant prey, we can confidently infer that *Megistotherium* developed these structures specifically as hunting adaptations.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that the hypothesis that the bullae functioned as a heat dissipation mechanism is untenable?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is an intermediate conclusion that is deduced from anatomical characteristics and functions to eliminate a competing explanation, thereby supporting the argument's primary conclusion.

Cevap

The correct option states that it is an intermediate conclusion deduced from anatomical characteristics that eliminates a competing explanation to support the primary conclusion.
The target statement is supported by the anatomical premise that the auditory bullae exhibit thick bony walls, which makes it a conclusion. However, it is not the final point of the argument. Instead, it is used to structurally rule out the thermoregulation hypothesis, allowing the author to conclude that the structures must be hunting adaptations. Therefore, it functions perfectly as an intermediate (or subsidiary) conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is the final sentence: '*Megistotherium* developed these structures specifically as hunting adaptations.'
Locating the main conclusion provides the necessary reference point for determining the structural hierarchy of all other statements in the passage.
2
Analyze the logical relationships surrounding the target statement.
The target statement (that the heat dissipation hypothesis is untenable) is explicitly supported by the preceding sentence regarding thick bony walls ('However... Thus...').
A statement that receives logical support from another claim must be categorized structurally as a conclusion.
3
Determine the target statement's relationship to the main conclusion.
The target statement works in tandem with the premise about the 'only other known evolutionary advantage' to prove the main conclusion.
A conclusion that is subsequently used to support a further conclusion is defined as an intermediate, or subsidiary, conclusion.
4
Evaluate the answer choices based on the established structural role.
The correct description accurately identifies the statement as an intermediate conclusion that eliminates a competing explanation to support the primary conclusion.
Only one option correctly captures both the derived nature of the statement and its specific functional role in advancing the author's ultimate argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Soru 120Soru →

Rotating different types of pesticides is ultimately the most economically sound approach for long-term farm management. True, farmers prioritizing short-term savings often apply a single, highly effective pesticide year after year. However, this single-pesticide strategy inevitably leads to escalating chemical costs over time. Pests that survive an initial application pass on their resistant traits to their offspring, meaning that significantly higher and more expensive concentrations of the chemical are required in subsequent planting seasons.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: For long-term farm management, using a variety of pesticide types makes the most financial sense.

Cevap

For long-term farm management, using a variety of pesticide types makes the most financial sense.
The correct answer perfectly captures the meaning of the argument's opening sentence. In this stimulus, the author leads with their main conclusion: that rotating pesticides is the most economically sound long-term approach. The rest of the passage is dedicated to proving this claim by explaining why the alternative (using a single pesticide) is financially detrimental in the long run. Since the first sentence is the ultimate point the author is trying to prove, it represents the main conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the stimulus to break down the argument into its component parts: premises, intermediate conclusions, background information, and the main conclusion.
Identified the first sentence as a broad claim, the second as background/concession, the third as a resulting problem (escalating costs), and the fourth as the mechanism causing the problem (resistance).
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to understand the logical relationships between the statements.
2
Determine the hierarchical relationship between the claims by asking which statements support others and which statement receives all the support but supports nothing else.
The final sentence supports the third sentence. The third sentence supports the first sentence. The first sentence supports nothing else.
The main conclusion of an argument is the ultimate point being made; it is the structural endpoint of the reasoning chain.
3
Formulate a paraphrase of the identified main conclusion and match it to the answer choices.
The main conclusion is 'Rotating different types of pesticides is ultimately the most economically sound approach for long-term farm management', which directly matches the option stating that using a variety of pesticide types makes the most financial sense.
Correct answers in main conclusion questions are often synonymous paraphrases of the exact statement found in the stimulus.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Main Conclusions
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
ÖncekiSayfa 6 / 10Sonraki
Argument Structure and Method Alıştırma Soruları — LSAT — Sayfa 6 | Examkin