LSAT 117 – Section 2 – Question 20

LSAT 117 - Section 2 - Question 20

October 2004

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:47

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT117 S2 Q20
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
21%
160
B
40%
165
C
9%
159
D
17%
161
E
13%
158
155
167
180
 +Hardest 146.765 +SubsectionMedium

Scientist: My research indicates that children who engage in impulsive behavior similar to adult thrill-seeking behavior are twice as likely as other children to have a gene variant that increases sensitivity to dopamine. From this, I conclude that there is a causal relationship between this gene variant and an inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that a certain gene variant causes an inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior. This is based on the fact that the author’s research indicates that children who engage in impulsive behavior similar to adult thrill-seeking behavior are twice as likely as other children to have that gene variant.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that a correlation between the gene variant and impulsive behavior proves a causal relationship. The author also assumes that the cause of impulsive behavior in children also causes adult thrill-seeking behavior.

A
Many impulsive adults are not unusually sensitive to dopamine.
The author never suggested every adult has the gene variant. So, the fact many impulsive adults aren’t unusually sensitive (and therefore might not have the gene variant) doesn’t undermine the author’s reasoning.
B
It is not possible to reliably distinguish impulsive behavior from other behavior.
This shows that the alleged correlation shown by the author’s research doesn’t reliably tell us about impulsive behavior. If we can’t be sure that the author’s research identified impulsive behavior, that reduces the support provided by the research for a causal relationship.
C
Children are often described by adults as engaging in thrill-seeking behavior simply because they act impulsively.
The argument is about alleged impulsive behavior in children and adult thrill-seeking behavior. Whether children’s behavior is called thrill-seeking doesn’t affect the potential cause of impulsive behavior or adult thrill-seeking behavior.
D
Many people exhibit behavioral tendencies as adults that they did not exhibit as children.
The author never suggested that every child with impulsive behavior grows up to exhibit adult thrill-seeking behavior. So, even if many adults end up not impulsive and not thrill-seeking, that doesn’t undermine the underlying correlation the author observed.
E
The gene variant studied by the scientist is correlated with other types of behavior in addition to thrill-seeking behavior.
This suggests the gene variant might cause other types of behavior in addition to thrill-seeking behavior. But it doesn’t suggest the gene variant might not cause thrill-seeking behavior. (E) could have weakened if the thrill-seeking was correlated with a different gene.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 117 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply