PrepTest 157

[lcid:3725] Prep Test 157 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Child psychologist: Psychologists have 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

Flawed

Strategy Overview

Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument Anticipate why the premises are not enough to show that the conclusion is true

Answer Anticipation

On Strengthen with a Sufficient Premise questions, we need to find the answer choice that makes the conclusion valid if added as another premise. Before we can figure that out, we'll need to identify the premises and conclusion. Fortunately, they're not trying to hide this conclusion. The word "Hence" indicates that the last sentence is a conclusion. The preceding two sentences are premises.
After completing many of these questions, observant LSATers start to see a pattern. For most Strengthen with a Sufficient Premise questions, the author will introduce a "new," important idea in the argument's conclusion. The premises will not discuss this "new," important idea. In introducing this new idea, the author creates a gap between the premises and the conclusion. The correct answer will address the gap between the premises and the new idea, often simply linking the two concepts with a strong "if-then" statement.
In this conclusion, "should not have pets" is the new idea. To make this argument valid, we need a premise that establishes when children should not have pets. The correct answer will probably connect the new idea to the premise that children under six don't understand that animals are independent creatures with feelings and needs. The correct answer will likely link these ideas together: "If a child doesn't understand that animals are independent creatures with feelings and needs, then that child should not have pets." Let's look for that in the answer choices.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Most children who are Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    This doesn't match our anticipation. Moreover, it doesn't bring up the new idea from the conclusion — that children "should not have pets." Instead, it discusses who takes care of pets for children. This answer choice doesn't definitively establish that certain children should not have pets, so it doesn't make the conclusion valid.

  2. B
    Children who are old Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    This doesn't match our anticipation. It doesn't connect the psychologist's premise to their conclusion ("If a child doesn't understand that animals are independent creatures with feelings and needs, then that child should not have pets"). Instead, if we take the flipside of this answer choice, we'll see that it connects the psychologist's conclusion to their premise ("If a child should not be allowed to have pets, then the child is not old enough to understand that animals are independent creatures with their own feelings and needs"). The correct answer to a Strengthen with a Sufficient Premise question should resemble "Premise → Conclusion." It can't go the other way — it shouldn't resemble "Conclusion → Premise." For this reason, (B) is incorrect.

  3. C
    Most children who are Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    This doesn't match our anticipation. Like (A), it doesn't even bring up the new idea from the conclusion — that children "should not have pets." Instead, it discusses whether children do have pets. Whether children have pets is irrelevant to this psychologist's prescriptive conclusion that suggests that certain children are not old enough to have pets. Because this answer choice doesn't definitively establish that certain children should not have pets, it doesn't make the conclusion valid.

  4. D
    Most children are egocentric Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    This doesn't match our anticipation. Moreover, it doesn't bring up the new idea in the conclusion — that children "should not have pets." Instead of connecting the premises to the conclusion, this answer choice just connects the two premises. Therefore, this answer choice doesn't definitively establish that certain children should not have pets, and it doesn't make the conclusion valid.

  5. E
    The only children who Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    This answer choice matches our anticipation! As we anticipated, it connects the psychologist's premise to their conclusion. We may need to diagram this answer choice and take its flipside to see that it bridges this gap. To do so, we can recall that the phrase "the only" comes before "if" conditions. That gives us this diagram:

    Child should have a pet → Child understands that pets are independent creatures with their own feelings and needs

    Once we take the flipside of this, we'll get:

    Child does NOT understand that pets are independent creatures with their own feelings and needs → Child should NOT have a pet

    This is more or less what we anticipated. If we add this premise to the psychologist's argument, it becomes valid. Suppose that (E) is true. In that case, we know that most children under six don't understand that pets are independent creatures with their own feelings and needs. Therefore, most children should not have pets until they're at least six years old. So, this answer choice makes the psychologist's argument valid. We can select it and advance to the following question.

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion