LSAT 131 – Section 1 – Question 24

LSAT 131 - Section 1 - Question 24

December 2009

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:09

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
PT131 S1 Q24
+LR
+Exp
Strengthen +Streng
A
7%
161
B
70%
167
C
6%
161
D
7%
160
E
10%
159
150
158
166
 +Harder 147.383 +SubsectionMedium

The supernova event of 1987 is interesting in that there is still no evidence of the neutron star that current theory says should have remained after a supernova of that size. This is in spite of the fact that many of the most sensitive instruments ever developed have searched for the tell-tale pulse of radiation that neutron stars emit. Thus, current theory is wrong in claiming that supernovas of a certain size always produce neutron stars.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that current theory is wrong about supernovas of certain sizes always producing neutron stars.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that because no radiation has been found yet, no radiation (and thus no neutron star) exists. The author also assumes that the supernova was correctly measured, despite the fact the supernova event happened in 1987. Perhaps instruments weren’t quite as sophisticated and reliable in 1987.

A
Most supernova remnants that astronomers have detected have a neutron star nearby.
We already know current theory holds that supernovas of a certain size produce neutron stars. If anything, this supports that argument.
B
Sensitive astronomical instruments have detected neutron stars much farther away than the location of the 1987 supernova.
The current instruments absolutely would be able to detect the neutron star in question if the neutron star existed. Thus, there’s probably no neutron star.
C
The supernova of 1987 was the first that scientists were able to observe in progress.
We don’t care that the scientists observed the supernova in progress. We care about the neutron star, or a lack thereof.
D
Several important features of the 1987 supernova are correctly predicted by the current theory.
Even if the current theory predicts several features, the author argues rather convincingly it’s failing to account for another very important feature: the lack of a neutron star.
E
Some neutron stars are known to have come into existence by a cause other than a supernova explosion.
As far as we know, there’s no neutron star. We don’t care how else neutron stars can come into existence.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 131 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply