@ChadBerry I didn’t see the “conversely…” sentence as the conclusion. To me, it functions the same way as the first sentence; it’s another descriptive finding from the study. The argument is presenting two pieces of data, one about people with blue eyes and one about people without them.

Both pieces of data point toward the larger point the author is trying to establish, which is that blue eyes are largely determined by genetics. The second sentence only contrasts the first; it doesn’t make a broader claim on its own. That’s why I treated it as a premise rather than the conclusion.

Simply put...

The statement that most people with blue eyes have a blue eyed relative is actually complemented by the statement that individuals without blue eyes are far less likely to have a blue eyed relative. The first shows that people with the trait tend to have family members who also have it, and the second shows that people without the trait usually don’t. Both observations point to the same inheritance pattern, which supports the broader claim that eye color, specifically blue eyes, is largely determined by genetics.

I was tripped up by Question 2 as I thought premises and a conclusion would be in full sentences. Even though the conclusion of "having blue eyes is largely determined by genetics" popped to me as a conclusion, I decided to label it as a non-argument. Fortunately, I corrected myself of that mistake by getting Question 7 correct!

Hi everyone I'm Abdullah! I'm currently on a 1 year finance-based Co-op in the automotive industry, and a junior at McMaster University. I'm planning to take the LSAT in June 2026 and would be pleased to be in a study group. Feel free to reach out!