Logical reasoning PrepTest 143 · Section 1 · Question 4

Incorrect. The Scientist doesn't raise "just random sounds" as an opposing point that has an argument for it. Instead, it's one potential explanation that an experiment suggests is wrong. For this answer to be right, a group would need to be arguing for that alternative explanation, with evidence provided that the Scientist argues is wrong.

Incorrect. First, there's not really a principle raised here. Second, there's no indication which of the two explanations is generally accepted—if either!

Incorrect. The experimental test was carried out, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. The Scientist raises two explanations for some facts (we'll allow this answer to describe a phenomenon as some facts, but it is a bit of a stretch), so it doesn't describe one explanation for them. This answer also describes an argument where a point is raised, it's argued against, and then the author rebuts the rebuttal—definitely not what's going on here!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Phenomenon Ð Baby talk
Potential explanations Ð Babies talking, or babies just making noise
Experiment & Results Ð Babies talk from the right side of their mouths, and the opposite is true for people who are just making noise
Conclusion Ð Baby talk is talking, not just making noise

Answer Anticipation:
As with many arguments on the LSAT based around an experiment, this one is based on finding an explanation for an observed phenomenon. In this case, the phenomenon is baby talk, and the Scientist starts by bringing up two potential explanations—they're trying to communicate ("linguistic task") or just making noise.

She then digs into an experiment that provides evidence against one of those explanations (just random noise) and therefore for the other (linguistic task), and concludes that it is, in fact, the latter.

So the abstract version of this argument—the Scientist brings up a phenomenon and two potential explanations for it, and then supports one explanation over the other by looking at experimental results.

Answer Explanation:
The Scientist's argument starts with two explanations (talking, just making noise) for a phenomenon (baby talk). It then provides the results of a study supporting the linguistic explanation over the other. This answer matches the stimulus, so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
This type of Methods of Reasoning question is great practice for being able to generalize the individual elements of an argument so that you can start to see the recurring structures the LSAT uses. When the correct answers go piece-by-piece like this, they generally have incorrect answers that also describe common argument structures on the LSAT. By understanding the pieces brought up in each answer choice, you can start to generalize any argument on the LSAT by using these pieces, and then you can start to associate them with certain answer choices. We've seen how recognizing phenomenon/explanation, problem/solution, and goal/method passages can help us to quickly break down an argument and anticipate an answer—these questions help to define those structures in the terms that the LSAT writers use to think.