Logical reasoning PrepTest 151 · Section 2 · Question 14

Incorrect. If anything, this weakens the argument by citing a counterexample—a primate that doesn't play into this pattern. It suggests that this isn't a result of primate biology.

Incorrect. By drawing a distinction between humans and chimpanzees, this answer draws a distinction between two primates, calling into question the foundation of this ability in primate biology.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Chimps and humans are both primates. Humans can tell certain personality traits of humans and chimps by looking at pictures of them. Therefore, this ability probably has at least a partial basis in biology.

Answer Anticipation:
The LSAT loves going back to nature vs. nurture! Here, the author concludes that a certain ability has at least a partial basis in nature because it persists between related species that don't share a culture (nurture).

Since the conclusion is that the nature here might be only part of the story, the correct answer will not rule out nurture (though it might suggest that nurture can't account for all the details). It's more likely that the correct answer will believe there's a genetic explanation for the noted ability (nature).

Answer Explanation:
This answer deals in biology (genes), so it must be considered. If the noted traits both have a basis in biology, and that basis is related, then there's reason to believe the ability to notice these traits has a basis in biology. This answer establishes a foundation of similarity and biology.

Key Takeaway:
In a Strengthen question where the argument relies on two things being similar, the correct answer frequently will cite another similarity between the elements in the stimulus. Also, when a question deals with nature vs. nurture, focusing on answers that mention those elements are frequently correct.

Incorrect. Evolution works slowly. Unless you're an evolutionary biologist (in which case, why law school?), it'd be impossible to know if 7 million years is long enough to lose any biologically-derived similarity, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Since there's no way to know if this is common, ideal, or bad, there's no way to determine if this affects the argument, let alone if it helps it.