Logical reasoning PrepTest 139 · Section 1 · Question 23

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Phenomenon - All cultures make eating certain animals taboo
Explanation 1 - These taboos arose for practical reasons (e.g., not eating animals that provide labor)
Explanation 2 - These taboos arose for ritualistic/symbolic reasons, which led to the animals being used for labor
Conclusion - The possibility of Explanation 2 makes it unwarranted to conclude Explanation 1

Answer Anticipation:
This argument falls into a common pattern we see on the LSAT—a phenomenon is noted, and then explanations are explored for that phenomenon.

In this case, two explanations are presented. The first one is attributed to "[s]ome researchers," and the second is used to rebut this. The Anthropologist, in raising the second explanation, states that the phenomenon "might instead" be the result of a separate cause, which then led to the effect noted in the first explanation.

In stating that this second explanation "might" be true, and concluding that the first explanation is "unwarranted," the Anthropologist isn't committing to the second explanation is correct! Instead, she's bringing it up to highlight that one explanation isn't definitively true ("unwarranted") because there's an equally valid alternative. Let's find an answer highlighting this method of rebuttal.

Answer Explanation:
The Anthropologist calls the first explanation of a phenomenon into question (practical reasons) by pointing out that observations cited as evidence supporting it (these taboos apply to domesticated animals that provide labor) are also compatible with an alternative explanation (the taboos arose for ritualistic reasons and then people figured out how to use the animals for labor). This answer describes the method of reasoning perfectly, so it's our answer.

Key Takeaway:
When the answers to a Methods of Reasoning question use language as abstract as we see here, take the time to "fill in" the relevant language from the stimulus. It's a lot easier to see an answer is correct when you read it with that specific language from the stimulus, and it's easier to see an answer is wrong when you can't match the answer choice language to any concept from the stimulus.

Incorrect. The conclusion is that an explanation is "unwarranted"—unjustified based on the established premises—not that it's false. This distinction between a conclusion being unproven and being wrong is an important one that's frequently tested on the exam.

Incorrect. The Anthropologist never states that her alternative explanation is more likely, just that it's plausible.

Incorrect. First, the conclusion/argument doesn't side with one explanation over another—it brings up an alternative explanation to highlight that one explanation isn't certain. Second, the argument doesn't cite evidence—bringing up that something is possible doesn't count as evidence. Third, the point of the Anthropologist's alternative is that the evidence is equally compatible with both theories, not that evidence contradicts the explanation she's arguing against.

Incorrect. The Anthropologist's alternative explanation does highlight the sequence of events involved in a phenomenon (first came the ritual, then came the practical use), but the original explanation doesn't delve into the sequence of events.