PrepTest 135

[lcid:3636] Prep Test 135 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S1 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Last winter was mild Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

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

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Strengthen Questions

Answer Anticipation

Strengthen questions with causal conclusions frequently feature correlation/causation flaws. However, in this case, there are causal premises! That prevents a correlation/causation flaw… if the causal premises justify the causal connection in the conclusion.
Here, they fall short. While the stimulus does present two effects of a mild winter, only one is directly connected to the effect in the conclusion - the increased bird population. The mild winter did cause the birds to skip their normal migration, which is noted as preventing the attrition of the bird population - and preventing bird deaths during migration is directly related to causing a large bird population this year.
However, the other effect - birds foraging naturally instead of visiting feeders - isn’t directly connected to the effect in the conclusion. Since that premise isn’t connected to the conclusion, the correct answer will likely do just that - showing how birds eating at feeders would decrease their population, or birds foraging naturally increases it.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Increases in bird populations Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    This doesn’t get into why that’s the case, just that it is, so it doesn’t strengthen the argument. We essentially already knew this since it happened in this case.
  2. B
    When birds do not Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Without knowing how those mating habits affect the population, it’s hard to know what effect this would have on the argument. Do these different mating habits result in more or fewer babies?
  3. C
    Birds eating at feeders Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem
    If birds eating at feeders are more vulnerable to predators than those foraging naturally, then the shift caused by the mild winter towards the latter foraging is directly connected to the effect in the conclusion, thus strengthening the argument.
  4. D
    Birds that remain in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    If anything, this suggests that a mild winter could cause the birds to run out of food, which would decrease their population, not increase it. This is the opposite of what we’re looking for.
  5. E
    Birds sometimes visit feeders Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    A few birds still visiting the feeders now and again have no impact on the argument - it’s too weak when talking about the population as a whole.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion