Logical reasoning PrepTest 151 · Section 3 · Question 9

Incorrect. While the interest in the subject is relevant to analyzing the logic, this argument doesn't jump from interest to understanding, but rather interest to recognition. It's possible to recognize something you don't understand.

Incorrect. For this correlation vs. causation answer to be correct, the argument would need to conclude that the interest in P is what caused the animals to start reproducing using it.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
As interest in P has increased, the number of species found to do it has also increased. Therefore, the number of species who can use P must be increasing.

Answer Anticipation:
Believed? Interest in the topic has increased? Found to? All of these phrases in the stimulus suggest that the argument is dealing in subjective knowledge of the subject, not facts. When an argument is mentioning what scientists believe or know, there's always a chance that their knowledge is only a subset of the total. Here, it's just as likely (maybe even more likely) that there were always many species that could reproduce using P, but scientists just weren't aware of them because there wasn't yet interest in the subject.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the jump between known examples and newly discovered examples. The stimulus treats this as indicating an increase in examples, whereas in reality it could have been simply a recognition of more previously extant examples.

Key Takeaway:
Pay attention for language in passages about scientific discoveries that talk about what is known. Frequently, the LSAT will treat unknown examples as not existing, which is an error in reasoning.

Incorrect. All mentioned examples are similar in the key way—the animal reproduces using P.

Incorrect. For this answer to be correct, there would need to be contradictory conclusions in two pieces of research, and the author would need to side with the newer one simply because it's new. Here, the old and new research is compatible, and the author never discounts the old research, instead building off of it with new examples.