Logical reasoning PrepTest 146 · Section 3 · Question 17

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Photo Ð Ice on Europa buckled
Implication Ð There's warm water underneath the icy surface
General theory Ð A warm sea is a primary factor in life emerging
Theory applied Ð Europa may have life

Answer Anticipation:
This argument features a lot of science, but we only need to track the structure of the argument, not the exobiology of it. Let's focus on that!

The argument starts with a photograph, which has to be evidence/a premise. That evidence backs up the following claim—that there is a warm sea beneath Europa's surface. This is either the main point or an intermediate conclusion since it has support (the photograph); it's also the statement in question.

From there, the argument goes into a general belief that scientists have about such a sea featured in this conclusion, and it uses that belief to justify the following statement ("so"). Since the scientists's hypothesis builds with the statement in question to that final statement, the argument ends with its main point and the statement in question is an intermediate conclusion.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the statement in question's role in the argument. It is supported by the photograph, making it a conclusion, but it is paired with a theory on warm seas being a primary factor in life developing in order to reach the conclusion about the potential for life on Europa. Since it's a conclusion that supports the main point, it's an intermediate/subsidiary conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
The LSAT will never require you to know anything but low-level science, math, econ, or almost any other subject (outside of English and logic). Don't get bogged down in the content in the argument, even when it's complex and unfamiliar. Especially when it's complex and unfamiliar.

Incorrect. The last statement is the main point of the argument. It has a clear conclusion indicator word, and it's supported by the statement in question, so that statement can't be the main point.

Incorrect. There's no opposing point/disputed theory in the stimulus, so the statement in question can't be used to discredit one.

Incorrect. While it is a consideration presented to support the conclusion, it's not the only one—the first half of the last sentence is an additional premise.

Incorrect. It is a subsidiary conclusion, supported by the photograph. And it doesn't support the premise in the final sentence (to check that out, read those two back-to-back using the form, "Since [statement in question], [other premise.]" It doesn't make sense as an argument).