PrepTest 111

Incorrect. The conclusion is the Researcher's opinion on one of the explanations, not the phenomenon that the argument discusses the explanations for.

Incorrect. The Researcher believes that one explanation for the phenomenon isn't necessarily true because another explanation is just as reasonable, but in discussing explanations for the phenomenon as both being equally reasonable, the Researcher is tacitly accepting the phenomenon as true—and thus in need of explanation.

Incorrect. There's no real direct claim that divorce is harmful to children of divorce. And, if anything says that there is harm to children of divorce, it's the statement that they have a higher rate of psychological problems, which is the statement in question. As such, it's not evidence for that claim, if that claim is even present.

Incorrect. Those behaviors play into the alternative explanation for the phenomenon—the existence of the phenomenon doesn't support that those behaviors can lead to divorce.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Phenomenon — Children of divorce have a higher rate of psychological problems
Explanation 1 — The problems are a result of adjusting to divorce
Explanation 2 — The causes of the divorce also cause the psychological problems
Conclusion — Explanation 1 isn't definitely true, since Explanation 2 is equally possible

Answer Anticipation:
When you spot a common argument pattern in an Argument Structure question, you should frame your anticipation within that pattern, as the LSAT tends to use language reflecting them!

Here, the argument follows a Phenomenon/Explanation pattern. It opens with a phenomenon—the higher rate of psychological problems for kids of divorce—and then presents two potential explanations. The Researcher concludes that both of the explanations are "just as reasonable" as each other so it'd be a mistake to conclude a certain one.

The statement in question is the phenomenon so we should look for an answer stating that it's a phenomenon that one potential explanation isn't necessarily true for because there's an equally reasonable explanation out there.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the phenomenon ("established finding")/explanation structure of the passage. The Researcher puts forward an explanation (to call into question the certainty of another explanation) so this answer is correct.

Key Takeaway:
Many arguments on the LSAT fall into common patterns—pros/cons; recommendations; principle/judgment; problem/solution; phenomenon;explanation. Knowing these patterns—how to recognize them which elements are generally the main point how they intersect with different question types—is a great way to tackle questions more efficiently.