Logical reasoning PrepTest 107 · Section 3 · Question 11

Incorrect. The Astronomer would be the authority here, so she's not appealing to one.

Incorrect. The premise given by the opposing point doesn't really have evidence, just a claim that streetlights are required for safety. There's no evidence that that is true. And even if there were, the Astronomer doesn't question that—she simply argues that safety can be achieved through means that don't hurt observatories!

Incorrect. There is a phenomenon—city light hurting the ability of observatories to see the stars. However, that's not a natural phenomenon, and there aren't multiple explanations provided!

Incorrect. There's no term that's up for debate here, so this answer is incorrect.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Problem - Observatories are becoming useless because of light from cities
People - Safety requires streetlights, so there's no way around this problem
Astronomer - Sandsville found a way to have streetlights that don't cause the problem, so it's possible to solve it

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus falls into a common pattern—a Problem/Solution argument. Here, the problem is declared unresolvable by some, but the Astronomer comes in with a solution. Specifically, she shows that one town has addressed the issue with a specific solution, and so the problem is solvable.

Let's find an answer stating that the Astronomer counters a viewpoint by bringing up an example showing that a solution to a problem is possible.

Answer Explanation:
Many people make a general claim about the inevitability of city lights affecting observatories. The Astronomer counters this claim with the example of Sandsville. This answer thus correctly describes her argument, so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments on the LSAT tend to follow certain patterns and rely on certain repeated elements. Noting these patterns can be helpful throughout all question types. Here, there were three elements we noted—the Problem/Solution pattern; the opposing viewpoint; and the example used as a rebuttal. While only two of them factored into the correct answer, the third easily could have. Identifying all of these elements will help in anticipating any potential answer choice.