LSAT 124 – Section 2 – Question 12

LSAT 124 - Section 2 - Question 12

December 2007

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:08

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
PT124 S2 Q12
+LR
+Exp
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
A
5%
156
B
74%
164
C
6%
160
D
9%
160
E
6%
154
133
147
162
 +Medium 145.571 +SubsectionMedium

Yang: Yeast has long been known to be a leaven, that is, a substance used in baking to make breads rise. Since biblical evidence ties the use of leavens to events dating back to 1200 B.C., we can infer that yeast was already known to be a leaven at that time.

Campisi: I find your inference unconvincing; several leavens other than yeast could have been known in 1200 B.C.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Campisi concludes that Yang is not justified in inferring that yeast was known as a leaven in 1200 B.C. just because leavens were known at that time. Why? Because, according to Campisi, other leavens than yeast could have been known in 1200 B.C.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Campisi undermines Yang’s conclusion by introducing an alternative explanation to account for Yang’s evidence. The evidence only shows that some unspecified leaven was used in 1200 B.C., so by pointing out the possibility that other leavens than yeast could have been known at that time, Campisi offers an alternative explanation.

A
suggesting that an alternative set of evidence better supports Yang’s conclusion
Campisi isn’t trying to support Yang’s conclusion, but rather to undermine it. Also, Campisi never proposes alternative evidence.
B
questioning the truth of a presumption underlying Yang’s argument
Yang presumes that there are no alternative leavens other than yeast that could have been known in 1200 B.C. By introducing other leavens as an alternative explanation for Yang’s evidence, Campisi questions that presumption.
C
denying the truth of Yang’s conclusion without considering the reason given for that conclusion
Campisi does consider the evidence behind Yang’s conclusion, and rejects its support for Yang’s conclusion on the grounds that there are alternative explanations available. Also, Campisi never denies the truth of Yang’s conclusion—unsupported doesn’t mean false.
D
pointing out that the premises of Yang’s argument more strongly support a contrary conclusion
Campisi does not argue that another specific conclusion is supported by Yang’s premises, only that Yang’s conclusion is not convincing based on its premises.
E
calling into question the truth of the evidence presented in Yang’s argument
Campisi does not question the evidence that a leaven was known in 1200 B.C., only offers alternative possible explanations for that evidence in order to question Yang’s conclusion.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 124 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply