PrepTest 107

[lcid:3526] Prep Test 107 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Astronomer: Astronomical observations in Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Methods of Reasoning Questions

Answer choices

  1. A
    appealing to a scientific Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. The Astronomer would be the authority here, so she's not appealing to one.
  2. B
    questioning the accuracy of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. The premise given by the opposing point doesn't really have evidence, just a claim that streetlights are required for safety. There's no evidence that that is true. And even if there were, the Astronomer doesn't question that—she simply argues that safety can be achieved through means that don't hurt observatories!
  3. C
    proposing an alternative scientific Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. There is a phenomenon—city light hurting the ability of observatories to see the stars. However, that's not a natural phenomenon, and there aren't multiple explanations provided!
  4. D
    making a distinction between Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. There's no term that's up for debate here, so this answer is incorrect.
  5. E
    offering a counter example Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    Correct. Argument or Facts:
    Argument

    Valid or Flawed:
    Valid

    Question Type:
    Methods of Reasoning

    Stimulus Summary:
    Problem - Observatories are becoming useless because of light from cities
    People - Safety requires streetlights, so there's no way around this problem
    Astronomer - Sandsville found a way to have streetlights that don't cause the problem, so it's possible to solve it

    Answer Anticipation:
    This stimulus falls into a common pattern—a Problem/Solution argument. Here, the problem is declared unresolvable by some, but the Astronomer comes in with a solution. Specifically, she shows that one town has addressed the issue with a specific solution, and so the problem is solvable.

    Let's find an answer stating that the Astronomer counters a viewpoint by bringing up an example showing that a solution to a problem is possible.

    Answer Explanation:
    Many people make a general claim about the inevitability of city lights affecting observatories. The Astronomer counters this claim with the example of Sandsville. This answer thus correctly describes her argument, so it's correct.

    Key Takeaway:
    Arguments on the LSAT tend to follow certain patterns and rely on certain repeated elements. Noting these patterns can be helpful throughout all question types. Here, there were three elements we noted—the Problem/Solution pattern; the opposing viewpoint; and the example used as a rebuttal. While only two of them factored into the correct answer, the third easily could have. Identifying all of these elements will help in anticipating any potential answer choice.

What this tests

Discussion