Logical reasoning PrepTest 136 · Section 4 · Question 26

Incorrect. This is a premise supporting the view that we can't conclude chimpanzees have language because humans do.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
(Opposing point about chimpanzees and language). But, while reasonable, it's not a valid argument, because (biology/history lesson).

Answer Anticipation:
One important skill to develop on the LSAT is to know what's important and what isn't. In this Main Point question, what's relevant is the Main Point, and anything that can help us get there.

So the argument starts with what "[m]any people" believe, which is almost certainly going to be an opposing point, but we won't need to know the specifics of it, just the broad strokes in case the Anthropologist's conclusion calls back to it.

After the opposing point, there's a pivot ("but"), and that pivot is to the Anthropologist's opinion of the opposing point—it's reasonable but invalid (the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises). An author's opinion of an opposing point is almost always the main point of the argument, and that's backed up by this being followed by a few "because" statements, highlighting them as premises supporting this opinion. The last sentence builds off of them, serving as an additional premise.

So that pivot statement of opinion on the opposing point is the Main Point, but we should rephrase it to reflect the content in case the answer does—While thinking that chimpanzees have language because humans do is reasonable, it's ultimately not a valid argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the Anthropologist's opinion on the opposing point—namely, that the conclusion they try to draw about chimpanzees based on the human ability for language can't be drawn.

Key Takeaway:
For Main Point questions, don't get more wrapped up in the specifics than you need to. Your task is to identify the main point, so if you can do that without digging into the logic and details, all the better (and faster)!

Incorrect. This is (somewhat) the conclusion of the opposing point.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of intelligence, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The Anthropologist brings this up as a possibility to support her conclusion that the opposing point is wrong. It's wrong because it doesn't actually capture a statement from the argument, but even if it did, it would capture a premise.