PrepTest 135

[lcid:3639] Prep Test 135 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Philosopher: To explain the 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.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Valid

Question Type

Argument Structure Questions

Stimulus Summary

A generalization is made about the evidence needed to draw causal conclusions in sociology, and it’s then backed up with an example of how multiple societies would need to be examined in order to establish a causal relationship (between environmental/ecological factors and political structures).

Answer Anticipation

Since the statement in question is a generalization that the author backs up with an example, it’s the main point of the argument. Normally, we’d head into the answer choices with just that, but the example relates to proving causation, so it’s strongly related to a common type of logic. Specifically here, the argument points out that correlation between two things by itself doesn’t prove causation - you’d also need to show that the absence of the supposed cause is correlated with the absence of the supposed effect. The correct answer will likely reflect that discussion since causality is such a key issue on the LSAT.

Answer choices

  1. A
    It describes a problem Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Needing data to back up a conclusion isn’t really properly described as a “problem,” and this situation, in any case, isn’t attributed to a need for certainty, anyway. In fact, the Philosopher doesn’t discuss the beliefs of the social scientists at all, but rather talks about their study in the abstract.
  2. B
    It is a premise Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Since the rest of the argument after the statement in question is introduced as an “example” of that statement, it must be the conclusion of the argument and not a premise. Examples support conclusions, they don’t serve as conclusions themselves.
  3. C
    It is a general Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    The statement in question is a general hypothesis of a kind, but this answer mischaracterizes the example. The example doesn’t raise a situation where environmental factors caused a political structure to develop. Rather, it shows that such a relationship can’t be proven by examining a single society where such a link occurred, since, to prove that causality, you’d at least need to find a society where the cause and effect both weren’t present.
  4. D
    It is a dilemma Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    First, “dilemma” doesn’t quite describe the need to back up your conclusions with sufficient data - it’s more about needing to choose between difficult alternatives. Second, the causality from the stimulus is about whether ecological/climatic factors had an impact on a sociological phenomenon - it’s not wondering if maybe the sociological factors changed the ecology/climate.
  5. E
    It is a claim Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    “[C]laim” is broad enough to include a conclusion, and the answer choices going on to say that the Philosopher attempts to justify the claim shows us that this answer is correctly referring to the statement in question as a conclusion. And that justification does raise the issues with proving causality based on a correlation - you need to find more and more examples, not just of the cause and effect going together, but also of the cause being absent when the effect is. This answer correctly describes the argument and statement in question, so it’s correct.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion