LSAT 121 – Section 4 – Question 05

LSAT 121 - Section 4 - Question 05

December 2005

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:04

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
PT121 S4 Q05
+LR
Argument part +AP
A
1%
153
B
77%
164
C
15%
160
D
1%
156
E
6%
159
133
146
160
 +Medium 146.544 +SubsectionMedium

The best explanation for Mozart’s death involves the recently detected fracture in his skull. The crack, most likely the result of an accident, could have easily torn veins in his brain, allowing blood to leak into his brain. When such bleeding occurs in the brain and the blood dries, many of the brain’s faculties become damaged, commonly, though not immediately, leading to death. This explanation of Mozart’s death is bolstered by the fact that the fracture shows signs of partial healing.

Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
The author is attempting to provide an explanation for Mozart’s death. He hypothesizes that it involved the recently detected fracture in his skill. Why should we believe this explanation? The crack could easily tear veins in the brain, causing blood to leak and dry in the brain, damaging brain function. This process commonly leads to death, but not immediately. Therefore, the partial healing of the fracture supports this explanation.

Identify Argument Part
This is evidence that supports the author’s explanation of Mozart’s death. The stimulus tells us that the skull fracture would lead to death on a delay. Therefore, the partial healing shows there was time between when the fracture occurred and Mozart’s later death. This makes the author’s explanation more plausible by giving us information about when the fracture occurred.

A
It shows that Mozart’s death could have been avoided.
This is not the point of the argument - the argument is trying to provide an explanation for Mozart’s death. No claims are made about whether it could have been avoided.
B
It shows that the fracture did not occur after Mozart’s death.
We know this supports the argument by providing information about when the fracture occurred: sometime prior to Mozart’s death. Therefore, it does let us know that it did not occur after his death, which would have been a problem, since then it could not be the cause.
C
It shows that the dried blood impaired Mozart’s brain’s faculties.
The fact that the fracture was healing does not give us information about Mozart’s faculties. It only gives us information about when the fracture occurred.
D
It shows that Mozart’s death occurred suddenly.
The opposite is true - the author tells us that death caused by this fracture is delayed. By placing the fracture sometime before his death, it makes the delayed cause of mortality more likely.
E
It suggests that Mozart’s death was accidental.
There is no support for the author’s claim that the crack was likely due to an accident - that is just context about where a crack would come from. The healing supports the fracture hypothesis, not whether it was accidental.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 121 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply