Role in Argument

26 soru

Soru 1Soru →

Neuroscientist: It is widely believed that memory consolidation occurs solely during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. However, this consensus overlooks crucial neural dynamics. Recent neuroimaging reveals that slow-wave sleep generates high-frequency hippocampal ripples that transfer encoded information to the neocortex. Because the neocortex is the brain's long-term storage repository, this synaptic dialogue during slow-wave sleep is essential for stabilizing declarative memories. Hence, REM sleep cannot be the exclusive period during which memories are consolidated.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the neuroscientist's argument by the claim that the synaptic dialogue during slow-wave sleep is essential for stabilizing declarative memories?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is an intermediate conclusion supported by evidence about hippocampal ripples and used to support the claim that memory consolidation is not limited to REM sleep.

Cevap

It is an intermediate conclusion supported by evidence about hippocampal ripples and used to support the claim that memory consolidation is not limited to REM sleep.
The statement that synaptic dialogue during slow-wave sleep is essential for memory stabilization is inferred from the factual premises regarding hippocampal ripples and neocortical storage. In turn, this finding provides the direct evidentiary support needed to conclude that REM sleep is not the exclusive window for memory consolidation. Therefore, it functions precisely as an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion and structural components of the stimulus.
The main conclusion is the final sentence: 'REM sleep cannot be the exclusive period during which memories are consolidated.' The opposing viewpoint is that memory consolidation occurs solely during REM sleep.
Determining the primary claim the author seeks to establish is necessary to evaluate the functional roles of supporting claims.
2
Analyze the immediate support relationships surrounding the targeted statement.
The targeted statement ('this synaptic dialogue during slow-wave sleep is essential for stabilizing declarative memories') is derived from two premises: (1) hippocampal ripples transfer information to the neocortex, and (2) the neocortex is the long-term storage repository.
A claim that receives support from premises is itself a conclusion.
3
Determine how the targeted statement relates to the main conclusion.
Because stabilizing declarative memories during slow-wave sleep means consolidation happens outside REM sleep, this intermediate conclusion directly supports the main conclusion.
A statement that is supported by premises and in turn supports the main conclusion functions as an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinguishing intermediate conclusions from main conclusions and basic premises
Tahmini Süre:1m 15s
Soru 2Soru →

Economist: Traditional economic models assume that imposing monetary fines will reliably reduce unwanted behavior. However, empirical studies in childcare centers show that instituting late-pickup fees actually doubled tardiness, as parents began viewing late arrivals as a purchasable service rather than a breach of social obligation. Thus, introducing financial penalties into social-trust settings undermines intrinsic moral norms. Consequently, policymakers should avoid using monetary fines to regulate behavior in civic domains governed predominantly by community standards.

Based on the argument, in what sequence do the following claims function in the chain of logical support, ordered from foundational empirical evidence, through the intermediate conclusion, to the argument's main conclusion?

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical sequence begins with the empirical evidence regarding childcare center fees, proceeds to the intermediate conclusion that financial penalties erode moral norms, and ends with the main conclusion advising policymakers against utilizing fines in community domains.
The structural flow of the argument moves systematically from concrete evidence to a conceptual generalization and finally to a normative prescription: the empirical daycare observation provides the primary factual support for the intermediate conclusion regarding the erosion of moral norms, which in turn serves as the necessary justification for the overall conclusion directing policymaker actions.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the foundational empirical premise
The observation that childcare fees reframed tardiness and doubled late arrivals serves as direct factual evidence.
Foundational premises provide unproved starting evidence upon which broader claims depend.
2
Identify the subsidiary or intermediate conclusion
The claim that financial penalties undermine intrinsic moral norms is derived from the daycare evidence.
This claim generalizes the specific study to explain a broader psychological mechanism and bridges the evidence to the policy recommendation.
3
Identify the overarching main conclusion
The normative recommendation that policymakers should avoid fines in civic settings represents the final claim.
The entire argument is structured to justify this final policy recommendation, which receives support from the intermediate conclusion without supporting any subsequent claim.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying hierarchical structural dependency in multi-tiered arguments
Tahmini Süre:1m 15s
Soru 3Soru →

City council member: Building a new municipal light rail line will significantly reduce downtown traffic congestion. Past transportation studies demonstrate that dedicated rail corridors attract commuters away from single-occupancy vehicles. Therefore, the city council should approve funding for the light rail project.

Which of the following best describes the role played in the argument by the claim that building a new municipal light rail line will significantly reduce downtown traffic congestion?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is an intermediate conclusion drawn to support the argument's ultimate recommendation.

Cevap

The statement functions as an intermediate conclusion supported by evidence about commuter behavior and used to justify the final policy recommendation.
The correct description identifies the statement as an intermediate conclusion. The council member supports the statement using data from past transportation studies, and then uses that statement as the primary justification for the final recommendation that the council should approve project funding.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion and the overall purpose of the argument.
The final sentence contains the conclusion indicator 'Therefore' and states the main recommendation: 'the city council should approve funding for the light rail project.'
Determining the main conclusion provides the reference point for assessing how other statements relate structurally to the final claim.
2
Examine the relationship between the target claim and the supporting evidence.
The claim that the rail line will reduce congestion is directly supported by the premise that dedicated rail corridors attract commuters away from single-occupancy vehicles.
Because the targeted statement receives logical support from evidence within the stimulus, it functions as a conclusion.
3
Determine whether the target claim also provides support to another claim.
The reduction in traffic congestion serves as the primary rationale for why the council ought to approve funding.
A claim that is both supported by premises and used to support the final conclusion is, by definition, an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinguishing intermediate (subsidiary) conclusions from main conclusions and basic premises in multi-step arguments.
Soru 4Soru →

Ecologist: Many botanists assume that the volatile chemical compounds emitted by acacia trees upon being grazed by herbivores serve strictly as distress signals to warn neighboring trees. However, these airborne compounds diffuse rapidly and unpredictably over distances beyond two meters. Thus, neighboring trees rarely receive high enough concentrations to trigger preventive defense responses. The emissions cannot have evolved primarily as communicative alarms for conspecifics; rather, their primary evolutionary function must be the direct localized repulsion of the feeding herbivores themselves.

Which of the following best describes the role played in the ecologist's argument by the statement that neighboring trees rarely receive high enough concentrations to trigger preventive defense responses?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is a subsidiary conclusion supported by evidence regarding compound dispersion and used to support the argument's final conclusion.

Cevap

The statement functions as a subsidiary conclusion supported by evidence regarding compound dispersion and used to support the argument's final conclusion.
The ecologist establishes that volatile compounds diffuse rapidly beyond two meters, and from this premise derives the claim that neighboring trees rarely receive high enough concentrations to trigger defense responses (introduced by 'Thus'). This derived claim is then utilized as evidence to reject the alarm hypothesis and support the ultimate conclusion that the compounds function primarily to repel herbivores directly. Therefore, the statement operates as an intermediate or subsidiary conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structural breakdown of the stimulus
Identified opposing view (emissions serve as warnings), premise (compounds diffuse rapidly beyond two meters), targeted statement (neighboring trees rarely receive sufficient concentrations), intermediate deduction (emissions did not evolve as alarms), and main conclusion (primary function is localized herbivore repulsion).
Deconstructing the argument into premises, sub-conclusions, and the ultimate conclusion is essential to determining the functional relationship between components.
2
Evaluate the structural relationship of the targeted statement to preceding and succeeding claims
The targeted statement is derived from the observation of rapid compound diffusion ('Thus...') and acts as a premise supporting the rejection of the communicative alarm hypothesis, which in turn leads to the main conclusion.
A claim that receives inferential support while simultaneously lending support to subsequent claims functions as an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.
3
Match the identified structural function to the abstract descriptions in the options
The choice describing the statement as a subsidiary conclusion supported by evidence regarding compound dispersion and used to support the final conclusion accurately captures this two-way logical role.
Role in argument questions require abstracting concrete assertions into their precise logical roles.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Intermediate (Subsidiary) Conclusions
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 5Soru →

Museum conservator: Recent chemical analysis reveals that the varnish applied to seventeenth-century oil paintings gradually darkens over time, obscuring the artist's original color palette. Some critics advocate removing this aged varnish entirely from all displayed works. However, completely stripping the varnish risks permanently damaging the fragile pigment layers beneath. Therefore, conservators should clean only the outermost dirt from the varnish surface rather than removing the varnish entirely.

Which of the following best describes the role played in the museum conservator's argument by the claim that completely stripping the varnish risks permanently damaging the fragile pigment layers beneath?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is a premise offered to support the argument's main recommendation.

Cevap

It is a premise offered to support the argument's main recommendation.
The claim that stripping the varnish risks permanently damaging the fragile pigment layers serves as factual evidence explaining why conservators ought to refrain from complete removal and instead perform surface cleaning. It directly supports the final prescriptive conclusion without receiving support from any prior statement, making it a basic premise.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion and the structural components of the stimulus.
The main conclusion is the recommendation: 'Therefore, conservators should clean only the outermost dirt from the varnish surface rather than removing the varnish entirely.'
Locating the final claim and its indicator words clarifies the overall direction of the argument.
2
Analyze how the targeted statement relates logically to the main conclusion.
The statement about the risk of permanent pigment damage explains why the critics' approach should be rejected in favor of the conservator's proposed action.
Evaluating whether the statement is supported by other claims or serves as support for another claim determines its functional role.
3
Match the identified relationship to the accurate functional description.
Because the statement is an unsupported factual assertion providing direct rational support for the recommendation, it acts as a premise.
Distinguishing basic premises from intermediate and final conclusions ensures accurate role identification.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying the functional role of a premise supporting a prescriptive conclusion
Tahmini Süre:45s
Soru 6Soru →

Economist: Some regulators propose banning dynamic pricing algorithms in the airline industry, arguing that these systems implicitly facilitate collusion. This proposed ban is misguided. It is true that these algorithms sometimes independently converge on supra-competitive prices. However, a ban would also eliminate their capacity to instantaneously adjust to fluctuating fuel costs, a feature that significantly lowers fares for off-peak travelers. Ultimately, eliminating this efficiency would cause average ticket prices to rise, thereby harming the very consumers the regulators wish to protect.

Which of the following most accurately describes the role played in the economist's argument by the statement that these algorithms sometimes independently converge on supra-competitive prices?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is a concession of a fact that lends support to the regulatory policy the argument as a whole is designed to refute.

Cevap

The statement acts as a concession of a fact that lends support to the regulatory policy the argument as a whole is designed to refute.
The correct answer accurately captures that the target statement is an acknowledgment of a negative consequence of algorithmic pricing (converging on high prices). Because it is a negative consequence, it serves as a point in favor of the regulators' proposal to ban the algorithms. The economist's entire argument is structured to refute that specific regulatory proposal.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is that the regulators' proposed ban on dynamic pricing algorithms is misguided.
This is the central point the economist is trying to prove using the subsequent evidence about fuel costs and consumer harm.
2
Analyze the context immediately surrounding the target statement.
The target statement ('It is true that these algorithms sometimes independently converge on supra-competitive prices') immediately follows the main conclusion and is introduced with 'It is true that...'
Understanding structural indicators like 'It is true that...' helps identify concessions or acknowledgments of opposing views.
3
Determine the logical relationship between the target statement and the main conclusion.
The target statement points out a flaw in algorithms (high prices). This flaw supports the regulators' ban. Since the economist is arguing *against* the ban, this statement goes against the economist's own conclusion.
Mapping the argumentative direction (pro-ban vs. anti-ban) reveals the structural role of the claim.
4
Synthesize the findings into an abstract description of the statement's role.
The statement is a conceded fact that supports the opponent's view (the regulatory policy), which the overall argument attempts to defeat.
Matching the concrete relationship to the abstract language used in LSAT answer choices is required to find the correct option.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying concessions and tracking argumentative direction in multi-perspective stimuli.
Soru 7Soru →

Consider the following argument regarding agricultural soil conservation:

Some agronomists argue that cover cropping is too labor-intensive to justify its adoption on family farms. However, this view fails to account for long-term soil regeneration. Recent agricultural trials demonstrate that cover crops significantly reduce topsoil erosion during winter rains. Reduced erosion preserves vital soil nutrients year after year. Therefore, implementing cover crops ultimately increases long-term farm profitability.

Match each excerpt from the argument to the exact functional role it plays in the reasoning.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

"Cover cropping is too labor-intensive to justify its adoption on family farms."
"Cover crops significantly reduce topsoil erosion during winter rains."
"Reduced erosion preserves vital soil nutrients year after year."
"Implementing cover crops ultimately increases long-term farm profitability."

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The statement about cover cropping being labor-intensive matches the counterargument to be undermined; the statement about reducing erosion matches the empirical premise; the statement about preserving vital nutrients matches the intermediate conclusion; and the statement about increasing profitability matches the main conclusion.
Each excerpt fulfills a distinct structural function in the multi-tiered argument: the first is an opposing view introduced to be refuted; the second is trial data acting as a foundational premise; the third is an intermediate conclusion drawn from that data; and the fourth is the overall conclusion supported by the entire chain.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the author's primary conclusion and opposing viewpoint in the stimulus.
The final sentence asserting that cover crops increase profitability is the primary conclusion, while the initial view of some agronomists serves as the opposing position being challenged.
Establishing the boundary between what the author believes and what opponents believe clarifies the argument's overarching purpose.
2
Trace the structural relationship between intermediate premises and conclusions.
Trial evidence about erosion reduction directly supports the claim that nutrients are preserved, which in turn supports the main conclusion regarding profitability.
Differentiating between basic factual premises and intermediate claims depends on identifying which statements receive and provide support.
3
Align each excerpt with its corresponding argumentative role.
All four statements pair accurately with their distinct roles: counterargument, empirical premise, intermediate conclusion, and main conclusion.
Each structural category has a distinct functional relationship to the overall thesis.

Anahtar Kavram

Role in Argument: Identifying Structural Components and Sub-conclusions
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Soru 8Soru →

Consider the following argument:

Astrobiologist: Planetary scientists often assume that detecting atmospheric methane on an Earth-sized exoplanet provides definitive evidence of biological activity. However, serpentinization reactions involving ultramafic mantle rock can generate abiotic methane plumes of comparable magnitude. Furthermore, planetary composition models confirm that the target exoplanet is exceptionally rich in olivine-bearing rock, ensuring high rates of abiotic methane generation under hydrothermal conditions. Therefore, the detection of methane in this exoplanet's atmosphere would fail to establish the presence of biological organisms.

Match each excerpted statement from the passage with the precise argumentative function it performs.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Detecting atmospheric methane on an Earth-sized exoplanet provides definitive evidence of biological activity.
Serpentinization reactions involving ultramafic mantle rock can generate abiotic methane plumes of comparable magnitude.
The target exoplanet is exceptionally rich in olivine-bearing rock, ensuring high rates of abiotic methane generation under hydrothermal conditions.
The detection of methane in this exoplanet's atmosphere would fail to establish the presence of biological organisms.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The statement identifying methane as definitive proof of life matches the background assumption challenged by the argument; the statement about serpentinization generating abiotic methane matches the general empirical principle showing alternative causal mechanisms; the statement about the target exoplanet's olivine-rich mantle matches the supporting factual premise applying the principle to the case at hand; and the statement that methane detection would not establish life on the target planet matches the overarching conclusion of the argument.
The argument proceeds by identifying a prevailing assumption, offering an empirical principle that provides an alternative explanation, supplying specific factual evidence that the alternative mechanism is operative in the case under consideration, and inferring that the prevailing assumption does not hold for that case.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Isolate the overall conclusion and opposing viewpoint in the stimulus.
Identified the final sentence as the main conclusion and the opening sentence as the target opposing assumption.
The author explicitly rejects the common assumption by showing why methane on this specific planet does not prove life.
2
Distinguish between the general scientific rule and its specific factual application.
Categorized the serpentinization statement as a universal geochemical principle and the olivine-bearing composition statement as a case-specific factual premise.
The argument requires both a general causal mechanism (serpentinization) and evidence that the required conditions exist on the target planet (olivine richness) to support its conclusion.
3
Correlate each statement directly with its functional description.
Formed unambiguous structural pairings based on functional dependencies.
Each statement serves a distinct, non-overlapping role within the multi-tiered argumentative structure.

Anahtar Kavram

Argumentative Role Identification in Multi-Layered Reasoning
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 9Soru →

Marine Biologist: Proponents of 'rigs-to-reefs' initiatives argue that converting decommissioned offshore oil platforms into artificial reefs enhances regional marine biodiversity. However, systematic ecological surveys reveal that these towering steel jackets merely aggregate existing adult fish populations from nearby natural rocky reefs rather than increasing net reproductive output. Consequently, repurposing these structures inadvertently leaves adjacent natural ecosystems depleted and more vulnerable to environmental disruptions. Coastal regulatory commissions should therefore prohibit petroleum companies from abandoning obsolete platforms in marine sanctuaries.

Which of the following most accurately describes the role played in the marine biologist's argument by the claim that repurposing obsolete platforms inadvertently leaves adjacent natural ecosystems depleted and more vulnerable to environmental disruptions?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is a subsidiary conclusion that is inferred from survey evidence and serves to justify the argument's main policy recommendation.

Cevap

It is a subsidiary conclusion that is inferred from survey evidence and serves to justify the argument's main policy recommendation.
The claim that repurposing platforms leaves adjacent ecosystems depleted is derived directly from the empirical premise regarding fish aggregation (marked by the inference indicator 'Consequently') and in turn serves as the primary justification for the concluding policy recommendation (marked by 'therefore'). Thus, it functions as a classic intermediate or subsidiary conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the overall argument structure and identify the main conclusion.
The main conclusion is the normative recommendation in the final sentence: 'Coastal regulatory commissions should therefore prohibit petroleum companies from abandoning obsolete platforms in marine sanctuaries.'
The conclusion indicator 'therefore' and the prescriptive recommendation mark this as the ultimate takeaway of the passage.
2
Determine the relationship between the target claim and the surrounding statements.
The target statement is introduced by 'Consequently,' showing that it is derived from the survey evidence (that platforms merely aggregate existing fish). It then provides the causal mechanism that justifies the main recommendation.
Because the statement is both supported by earlier premises and provides direct support for the main conclusion, it functions as an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.
3
Match the functional diagnosis with the corresponding answer choice.
The option stating that it is a subsidiary conclusion inferred from survey evidence and used to justify the main recommendation correctly describes this dual role.
This precisely matches the two-way structural dependency of an intermediate conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Role of intermediate (subsidiary) conclusions in multi-layered arguments
Tahmini Süre:1m 35s
Soru 10Soru →

Maritime Historian: Commercial salvage firms argue that private deep-sea exploration should be granted unrestricted property rights over discovered historic shipwrecks to incentivize private investment in underwater recovery. However, private salvagers prioritize retrieving commercially valuable artifacts while disregarding fragile organic remains and spatial context. Consequently, allowing commercial salvagers unmonitored ownership inevitably destroys critical archaeological data. For this reason, international maritime authorities must prohibit granting private ownership titles to commercial salvagers who locate historic shipwrecks.

The claim that allowing commercial salvagers unmonitored ownership inevitably destroys critical archaeological data plays which one of the following roles in the maritime historian's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is a subsidiary conclusion supported by evidence about salvagers' priorities and used to support the author's final policy recommendation.

Cevap

The statement serves as a subsidiary conclusion supported by evidence regarding commercial practices and used to justify the main policy conclusion.
The correct answer accurately identifies the statement as an intermediate conclusion. The author uses evidence about private salvagers prioritizing commercially valuable artifacts to conclude that unmonitored ownership inevitably destroys critical archaeological data ('Consequently...'). The author then uses this intermediate finding to justify the primary conclusion that international authorities must prohibit private ownership titles ('For this reason...').

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the stimulus.
The final sentence ('international maritime authorities must prohibit granting private ownership titles...') is the main conclusion, introduced by the conclusion indicator 'For this reason'.
Establishing the overarching goal of the argument determines the hierarchy of the claims.
2
Analyze the relationship between the cited statement and the surrounding statements.
The phrase 'Consequently' indicates that the cited claim is derived from the prior premise about salvage priorities, while 'For this reason' indicates that the cited claim directly supports the final recommendation.
A claim that receives logical support from premises and in turn provides support for the ultimate conclusion functions as an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.
3
Match the functional role to the corresponding description.
The statement is an intermediate conclusion supporting the main policy stance.
This accurately captures the two-way structural dependency of the statement.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying intermediate (subsidiary) conclusions in multi-tiered arguments
Soru 11Soru →

Architectural Conservator: Several municipal heritage boards require owners of historic limestone buildings to apply synthetic water-repellent sealants, reasoning that preventing moisture penetration protects the facades. However, this requirement is counterproductive. Although synthetic sealants prevent liquid rainwater from entering from the outside, they inevitably seal in ambient moisture migrating from the building's interior. Consequently, during sub-zero temperatures, the trapped moisture freezes and expands beneath the masonry surface, causing irreversible spalling and surface fracturing. For this reason, municipal heritage boards should rescind the mandatory sealant requirement.

Which of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that during sub-zero temperatures, trapped moisture freezes and expands beneath the masonry surface, causing irreversible spalling and surface fracturing?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is a subsidiary conclusion supported by an earlier premise and used to support the author's final recommendation.

Cevap

The statement functions as a subsidiary conclusion supported by a preceding premise and used in turn to establish the author's ultimate policy recommendation.
The correct answer accurately captures the dual structural role of the targeted sentence. It is derived as a logical consequence ('Consequently') of the premise that sealants trap interior moisture, and it functions as the direct evidence ('For this reason') supporting the author's ultimate prescriptive conclusion that heritage boards should rescind the mandate.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion and the overall argument structure
The final sentence ('municipal heritage boards should rescind the mandatory sealant requirement') is the main conclusion, supported by the intermediate claim that the mandate is counterproductive.
Determining the main conclusion provides the reference point against which all other statements' structural dependencies are evaluated.
2
Analyze the structural relationships immediately surrounding the targeted claim
The indicator 'Consequently' signals that the targeted claim (freeze-thaw expansion and spalling) is inferred from the prior premise (sealants trap interior moisture). The subsequent indicator 'For this reason' signals that this claim directly supports the final recommendation.
Tracking premise and conclusion indicator words establishes whether a statement receives support, gives support, or both.
3
Classify the functional role of the targeted claim
Because the statement both receives logical support from a basic premise and provides support for the primary conclusion, it is an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.
An intermediate conclusion acts simultaneously as a conclusion for an earlier sub-argument and as a premise for the main conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Intermediate (Subsidiary) Conclusion vs. Main Conclusion and Basic Premise
Tahmini Süre:1m 15s
Soru 12Soru →

Urban Planner: Many historical preservationists argue that converting decommissioned industrial waterfronts into commercial retail zones destroys their cultural value. However, this view fails to recognize that preserving the physical structures of these warehouses requires substantial recurring maintenance funds. Since private retail developers are required to finance structural restoration and maintain historical facades as a condition of their leases, allowing commercial redevelopment actually safeguards the physical heritage of the waterfront. Thus, permitting retail adaptation is often the most effective means of historical preservation.

Which of the following most accurately describes the role played in the urban planner's argument by the claim that allowing commercial redevelopment actually safeguards the physical heritage of the waterfront?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is an intermediate conclusion that is supported by evidence about lease requirements and that in turn supports the main conclusion.

Cevap

The statement acts as an intermediate conclusion supported by evidence regarding developer lease conditions and used to justify the main conclusion.
The targeted statement receives logical justification from the preceding premise regarding lease conditions ('Since private retail developers are required...') and simultaneously serves as the premise that justifies the ultimate conclusion introduced by 'Thus'. Therefore, it functions precisely as an intermediate or subsidiary conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structural components of the stimulus
Identified the opposing viewpoint (redevelopment destroys cultural value), basic premises (preservation requires funding; developers are obligated to fund restoration/facades), an intermediate claim (redevelopment safeguards physical heritage), and the final conclusion (permitting retail adaptation is often the most effective preservation method).
Deconstructing the argument into premises, subsidiary conclusions, and the main conclusion is necessary to establish the exact functional role of the targeted sentence.
2
Determine what supports the targeted claim and what the targeted claim supports
The clause introduced by 'Since' provides evidence directly supporting the targeted claim, and the targeted claim in turn leads directly to the final conclusion signaled by 'Thus'.
A claim that receives logical support from explicit evidence and provides logical support to the final conclusion functions as an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.
3
Match the functional role to the answer choices
The correct description states that the claim is an intermediate conclusion supported by evidence about lease requirements and used to support the main conclusion.
This precisely matches the two-way relationship of an intermediate conclusion in multi-step reasoning.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying intermediate (subsidiary) conclusions in multi-layered logical arguments
Tahmini Süre:1m 15s
Soru 13Soru →

Consider the following argument:

Paleontologist: Many researchers assume that the evolution of feathers in theropod dinosaurs was primarily driven by thermal insulation. However, this assumption is problematic. Early proto-feathers lacked the branched structure necessary to trap air efficiently for heat retention. Furthermore, fossil evidence demonstrates that these early plumage structures were richly pigmented with distinct melanin patterns across their dorsal surfaces. Therefore, visual display and species recognition, rather than thermoregulation, were almost certainly the initial evolutionary drivers of plumage.

Match each excerpted claim from the passage with the precise argumentative role it plays in the paleontologist's reasoning.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The claim that the evolution of feathers was primarily driven by thermal insulation
The claim that early proto-feathers lacked the branched structure necessary to trap air efficiently
The finding that early plumage structures were richly pigmented with distinct melanin patterns
The claim that visual display and species recognition were the initial evolutionary drivers of plumage

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The thermal insulation assumption matches the widespread opposing position; the lack of branched structure matches the premise introduced to challenge that competing hypothesis; the melanin pigmentation finding matches empirical evidence supporting the author's positive thesis; and visual display being the evolutionary driver matches the main conclusion.
Each statement aligns precisely with its functional role: the thermal insulation claim is an opposing viewpoint; the lack of branched feathers is a premise countering that opposing claim; the pigmentation patterns serve as empirical evidence supporting the author's view; and the display hypothesis is the ultimate conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the stimulus.
The final sentence ('visual display and species recognition... were almost certainly the initial evolutionary drivers') is the primary thesis signaled by the conclusion indicator 'Therefore'.
Determining the overarching claim provides the anchor for evaluating the structural function of all preceding statements.
2
Classify the context and opposing viewpoints in the opening lines.
The first sentence presents a belief held by 'many researchers' that the author characterizes as 'problematic'.
This establishes the statement as an opposing viewpoint targeted for rebuttal rather than a premise used to support the author's view.
3
Distinguish between the two supporting premises.
The statement about unbranched structure attacks the insulation hypothesis (negative evidence), whereas the statement regarding pigmentation directly corroborates the display hypothesis (positive evidence).
Carefully differentiating negative counter-evidence from positive supporting evidence is essential for mapping structural dependencies accurately.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying structural roles, distinguishing main conclusions from supporting premises, and categorizing counter-hypotheses versus positive evidence.
Tahmini Süre:1m 15s
Soru 14Soru →

Historian: Some archival scholars maintain that seventeenth-century maritime logbooks were recorded with strict factual fidelity because captains faced severe criminal penalties for falsifying cargo manifests. However, this view ignores the primary purpose of navigation logs during naval conflicts. To conceal tactical maneuvers from privateers, navigators routinely encoded routes and fabricated arrival dates. Thus, these navigational documents cannot be treated as unvarnished accounts of voyage timelines. Consequently, modern reconstructions of transatlantic trade routes that rely exclusively on such logbooks are fundamentally flawed.

Which of the following most accurately describes the role played in the historian's argument by the claim that seventeenth-century maritime logbooks cannot be treated as unvarnished accounts of voyage timelines?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is a subsidiary conclusion supported by evidence about wartime navigational practices and offered in support of the argument's main conclusion.

Cevap

It is a subsidiary conclusion supported by evidence about wartime navigational practices and offered in support of the argument's main conclusion.
The correct answer accurately captures that the claim is an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion. The historian supports this claim with empirical evidence (navigators encoded routes and fabricated arrival dates during wartime) and uses it to justify the final conclusion (that modern reconstructions relying solely on these logbooks are fundamentally flawed).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structural components of the stimulus
Identified opposing view (logbooks have strict factual fidelity), premises (navigators encoded routes and fabricated dates during conflicts), intermediate claim (logbooks cannot be treated as unvarnished accounts), and final conclusion (modern reconstructions relying on them are flawed).
Deconstructing the argument into premises, sub-conclusions, and main conclusions is essential for identifying functional roles.
2
Evaluate the relationship between the target claim and adjacent statements
The target claim is introduced by the indicator 'Thus' and follows from the premise regarding route encoding. It is then linked by 'Consequently' to the final sentence.
Structural indicator words ('Thus', 'Consequently') signal deductive dependencies between premises and conclusions.
3
Determine the functional role of the target claim
The target claim functions as an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion that receives support from prior premises and provides direct support for the main conclusion.
An intermediate conclusion is both supported by preceding statements and used to justify a subsequent claim.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying intermediate (subsidiary) conclusions versus main conclusions and basic premises in multi-step deductive arguments.
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 15Soru →

Consider the following argument:

Archaeologist: Several researchers contend that the recovery of fourteenth-century BCE tin-bronze ingots at the coastal site of Tel Dor proves the existence of direct maritime trade links between Levantine settlements and Atlantic mining communities. However, this position is unfounded. Although Atlantic tin ores indeed exhibit a distinctive isotopic signature, recent metallurgical assays of contemporary Levantine artifacts establish that their tin was sourced exclusively from Central Asian deposits. Therefore, the Tel Dor ingots were almost certainly acquired through intermediate overland trade networks rather than direct Atlantic maritime voyages.

Match each statement excerpted from the argument with the precise argumentative role it performs.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

The recovery of fourteenth-century BCE tin-bronze ingots at Tel Dor proves the existence of direct maritime trade links between Levantine settlements and Atlantic mining communities.
Atlantic tin ores indeed exhibit a distinctive isotopic signature.
Recent metallurgical assays of contemporary Levantine artifacts establish that their tin was sourced exclusively from Central Asian deposits.
The Tel Dor ingots were almost certainly acquired through intermediate overland trade networks rather than direct Atlantic maritime voyages.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The statement attributing direct maritime links to the ingots matches the opposing claim the argument refutes; the isotopic distinctiveness of Atlantic ores matches the acknowledged concession; the metallurgical assays showing Central Asian origins match the empirical supporting premise; and the assertion that the ingots were acquired via intermediate overland networks matches the overall conclusion.
Each statement serves a distinct structural purpose: the researchers' contention is an opposing claim targeted for refutation; the statement introduced with 'Although' is a concession acknowledging a neutral physical fact; the metallurgical assay result provides the empirical premise showing an alternative source; and the statement preceded by 'Therefore' expresses the author's ultimate conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the rhetorical structure and identify indicator words in the stimulus.
Identified the target opposing claim ('Several researchers contend...'), the author's rejection ('However, this position is unfounded'), a concession ('Although...'), an empirical premise ('assays... establish'), and the final conclusion ('Therefore...').
Tracking structural transition signals separates premises from intermediate claims, counterarguments, concessions, and main conclusions.
2
Differentiate between the author's voice and opposing viewpoints.
The claim regarding direct maritime trade links belongs to 'several researchers' and is actively disputed by the author.
Distinguishing between the author's perspective and rival hypotheses prevents conflating an opposing viewpoint with the author's own conclusion.
3
Distinguish between supporting evidence, concessions, and the primary conclusion.
The distinct isotopic signature is a conceded background truth that does not validate the opposing claim, the Central Asian sourcing is positive factual evidence, and the claim of overland networks is the final deduced conclusion.
Accurate functional categorization requires isolating the logical role each proposition plays relative to the ultimate claim being proven.

Anahtar Kavram

Structural decomposition and functional role identification in multi-perspective logical arguments
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 16Soru →

Consider the following argument by an epistemologist:

Epistemologist: Many theorists maintain that peer disagreement over a proposition necessarily obligates both parties to suspend judgment. However, this principle is untenable in multifaceted fields. In complex disciplines like macroeconomics, divergent interpretations typically arise not from flawed reasoning, but from distinct, equally coherent weightings assigned to competing theoretical virtues. Because such divergences do not indicate inferential failure, peer disagreement in these domains does not automatically undermine the rationality of maintaining one's initial view. It follows that expert consensus is not an indispensable condition for justified belief in complex fields.

Match each statement from the argument with the specific argumentative role it performs in the epistemologist's reasoning.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Peer disagreement over a proposition necessarily obligates both parties to suspend judgment.
Divergent interpretations typically arise not from flawed reasoning, but from distinct, equally coherent weightings assigned to competing theoretical virtues.
Peer disagreement in these domains does not automatically undermine the rationality of maintaining one's initial view.
Expert consensus is not an indispensable condition for justified belief in complex fields.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The statement regarding the requirement to suspend judgment matches the competing viewpoint introduced to be challenged; the claim about how divergent interpretations arise matches the foundational premise; the claim that peer disagreement does not automatically undermine rationality matches the intermediate conclusion; and the claim that consensus is not indispensable matches the overall main conclusion.
Each statement is matched based on its inferential relationship in the passage: the first is an opposing view targeted for refutation, the second is a foundational premise providing direct evidence, the third is a subsidiary conclusion derived from that evidence, and the fourth is the overall main conclusion deduced from the subsidiary step.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Isolate the dialectical framework and opposing view
Identified the opening claim about suspending judgment as the opposing consensus being targeted by the author's rejection.
The argument opens with 'Many theorists maintain...' followed by 'However, this principle is untenable', which establishes the targeted counter-position.
2
Trace the supporting evidence and intermediate inferences
Identified the premise concerning distinct weightings assigned to theoretical virtues and the subsidiary conclusion that rationality is not undermined.
The premise provides factual support introduced by 'Because such divergences...', leading directly to the sub-conclusion regarding rationality.
3
Identify the primary conclusion of the passage
Identified the final statement introduced by 'It follows that' as the ultimate claim supported by the entirety of the preceding logic.
The entire chain of reasoning culminates in establishing that expert consensus is not an indispensable condition for justified belief.

Anahtar Kavram

Structural dependency and functional differentiation of intermediate conclusions versus main conclusions and opposing views.
Tahmini Süre:2m 30s
Soru 17Soru →

Biologist: Some public health officials advocate eradicating invasive kudzu patches in suburban greenbelts, claiming that eliminating the dense foliage will destroy the preferred habitat of blacklegged ticks. However, kudzu thickets isolate dense populations of white-footed mice, which serve as the primary host for the pathogen ticks transmit. Eliminating these patches forces the mice to scatter into surrounding residential yards, which will inevitably increase the likelihood of humans contracting tick-borne infections. Therefore, municipal authorities should not pursue broad kudzu eradication in suburban areas.

Which of the following best describes the role played in the biologist's argument by the claim that eliminating kudzu patches will inevitably increase the likelihood of humans contracting tick-borne infections?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is an intermediate conclusion drawn to provide support for the argument's overall recommendation.

Cevap

The statement functions as an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion that is supported by earlier evidence and in turn supports the main conclusion.
The correct answer accurately identifies that the cited claim is an intermediate conclusion. It is logically derived from the observation that kudzu removal scatters infected reservoir hosts into residential yards, and it functions as the pivotal support for the author's final conclusion that municipal authorities should refrain from clearing kudzu in suburban zones.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Isolate the argument's components into premises, intermediate claims, opposing views, and main conclusion.
Opposing view: Eradicate kudzu to eliminate tick habitat. Premises: Kudzu contains host mice; removing kudzu disperses mice into yards. Target claim: Eradication will increase human disease exposure. Main conclusion: Authorities should not pursue kudzu eradication.
Understanding the structural flow of the reasoning is necessary to evaluate the exact function of the cited sentence.
2
Determine the relationship between the target claim and adjacent statements.
The target claim is supported by the causal premise that displaced mice will invade residential yards, and it provides direct justification for the final recommendation introduced by 'Therefore'.
A statement that both receives support and gives support functions as an intermediate (or subsidiary) conclusion.
3
Select the option that matches this structural function.
The option stating that the claim is an intermediate conclusion offered in support of the argument's overall recommendation correctly captures this role.
It accurately characterizes both the derived nature of the statement and its downstream role.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinguishing intermediate (subsidiary) conclusions from main conclusions and basic premises in multi-step arguments.
Tahmini Süre:1m 15s
Soru 18Soru →

Administrative Law Theorist: Many scholars advocate replacing discretionary parole boards with automated risk-assessment algorithms, assuming that statistical models eliminate human bias. However, these algorithms are trained exclusively on historical arrest records, which systematically over-represent minority communities due to historical over-policing. Consequently, algorithmic risk scores necessarily perpetuate the statistical biases embedded in past policing practices. Therefore, the predictive scores generated by such tools cannot serve as an objective measure of individual recidivism risk. It follows that adopting automated risk-assessment algorithms will fail to create a more equitable parole determination system.

Based on the argument above, arrange the following statements in order of structural logical dependency, starting from the foundational empirical premise, proceeding through the intermediate conclusions, and ending with the overall main conclusion.

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct logical order from foundational premise to overall main conclusion begins with the statement regarding the biased historical training data, leads to the intermediate conclusion that the risk scores perpetuate historical biases, advances to the further intermediate conclusion that these scores cannot serve as objective measures of recidivism risk, and concludes with the overall main claim that adopting these algorithms will fail to create a more equitable parole system.
The correct sequence mirrors the hierarchical dependency of the argument: the unargued premise regarding training data over-representing minority communities supports the intermediate conclusion that the scores perpetuate historical bias, which in turn supports the intermediate conclusion that the scores are not objective measures of recidivism, which ultimately supports the overall conclusion that the policy will not produce a more equitable parole system.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the unargued factual premise serving as the foundational support.
The statement that algorithms are trained on historical arrest records reflecting over-policed minority communities is introduced as an established fact without supporting evidence.
Foundational premises provide the evidential basis for subsequent inferences in an argument structure.
2
Trace the immediate deduction drawn directly from the foundational premise.
The claim that algorithmic scores perpetuate historical bias is signaled by 'Consequently' and directly follows from the nature of the training data.
This establishes the first intermediate conclusion, linking empirical training data to the properties of the resulting scores.
3
Identify the second subsidiary conclusion derived from the first intermediate conclusion.
The claim that predictive scores cannot serve as objective measures of recidivism risk is signaled by 'Therefore' and is supported by the fact that the scores perpetuate past biases.
This acts as a bridge conclusion, applying the property of biased scores to the concept of objective measurement.
4
Identify the ultimate claim that receives support from the full chain of reasoning.
The statement that adopting automated algorithms will fail to create a more equitable parole system is introduced with 'It follows that' and represents the primary thesis of the theorist.
The overall main conclusion is the final destination of the argument's inferential flow and lends no support to any further statement.

Anahtar Kavram

Structural Logical Dependency and Cascading Conclusions in Argument Analysis
Soru 19Soru →

Consider the following argument:

Policy Analyst: Standardized screening algorithms flag discrepancies across tax filings far more consistently than individual investigators do. Because these screening tools operate solely on predefined variance thresholds, they eliminate human partiality from the initial case-selection phase. By removing human partiality while sustaining high consistency, implementing automated screening will substantially enhance both the equity and procedural efficiency of revenue enforcement. The revenue commission should therefore mandate automated screening for all corporate tax filings.

Arrange the following components of the argument in order of their logical dependency, starting from the foundational unargued premise and ending with the overall conclusion:

Öğeleri doğru sıraya koymak için sürükleyin

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The foundational premise about operating on predefined variance thresholds leads to the intermediate conclusion regarding the elimination of human partiality, which supports the broader subsidiary claim of enhanced equity and efficiency, ultimately establishing the overall recommendation to mandate automated screening.
The argument proceeds in a strict linear dependency hierarchy: the factual premise that the tools operate on predefined thresholds supports the claim that partiality is eliminated; that result, combined with consistency, supports the broader claim that equity and efficiency will be enhanced; this overall benefit justifies the prescriptive conclusion recommending a policy mandate.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Locate the main conclusion of the argument.
Identified the normative recommendation that the revenue commission should mandate automated screening for all corporate filings as the final conclusion.
The word 'therefore' and the prescriptive force indicate that the entire argument is aimed at justifying this specific policy action.
2
Identify intermediate conclusions and their supporting grounds.
The claim that the tool enhances equity and efficiency relies on the claim that human partiality is eliminated, which in turn relies on the mechanical nature of predefined thresholds.
Recognizing the multi-tier inferential structure prevents conflating intermediate claims with foundational premises.
3
Determine the unargued foundational premise.
The statement that screening tools operate solely on predefined variance thresholds is asserted without support.
Foundational premises provide the baseline evidentiary support for the chain of reasoning.
4
Assemble the dependency sequence.
Ordered sequence from basic premise to first intermediate conclusion, to second intermediate conclusion, to overarching conclusion.
Each step in the sequence directly justifies the immediately following proposition.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying hierarchical structural dependency among premises, intermediate conclusions, and main conclusions.
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 20Soru →

Sociologist: Proponents of grid-connected municipal microgrids contend that decentralizing power generation will inevitably insulate residential neighborhoods from cascading blackout events. However, this assertion overlooks the fact that localized battery storage systems rely on centralized dispatch protocols to balance transient frequency surges. Because these synchronization protocols are themselves managed through the overarching regional communications infrastructure, localized grid islands cannot sustain autonomous frequency stability during wide-area network outages. Thus, the claim that municipal microgrids guarantee uninterrupted domestic power during regional catastrophic failures is mistaken.

The statement that localized grid islands cannot sustain autonomous frequency stability during wide-area network outages plays which one of the following roles in the sociologist's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is a subsidiary conclusion used to provide direct support for the author's primary conclusion.

Cevap

The statement is a subsidiary conclusion used to provide direct support for the author's primary conclusion.
The correct answer accurately captures the dual structural role of the targeted sentence. The sentence is derived from the factual evidence regarding how dispatch synchronization depends on regional communications infrastructure, making it a conclusion. At the same time, it provides the evidentiary basis for the argument's final sentence, which refutes the proponents' assertion, making it a subsidiary (intermediate) conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Isolate the overall conclusion and determine the author's main objective.
The main conclusion is the final sentence: 'Thus, the claim that municipal microgrids guarantee uninterrupted domestic power during regional catastrophic failures is mistaken.'
Identifying the author's final takeaway establishes the ultimate destination of the argument.
2
Analyze the relationship between the target claim and the sentences immediately preceding it.
The target claim ('localized grid islands cannot sustain autonomous frequency stability...') is directly preceded by the causal premise marker 'Because these synchronization protocols are themselves managed through the overarching regional communications infrastructure...'
Because the target claim receives logical support from another stated fact, it functions as a conclusion rather than a basic, unargued premise.
3
Analyze how the target claim interacts with the main conclusion.
The inability to sustain autonomous frequency stability is the exact reason why the claim of guaranteed uninterrupted domestic power is mistaken.
Since the claim is both supported by prior premises and used to support the final conclusion, its functional role is that of an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinguishing Intermediate (Subsidiary) Conclusions from Basic Premises and Main Conclusions
Tahmini Süre:1m 20s
Sayfa 1 / 2Sonraki
Role in Argument Alıştırma Soruları — LSAT | Examkin