LSAT 135 – Section 1 – Question 09

LSAT 135 - Section 1 - Question 09

December 2011

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:47

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
PT135 S1 Q09
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
A
5%
157
B
2%
155
C
91%
165
D
2%
157
E
0%
146
130
140
150
 +Easier 146.098 +SubsectionMedium

Some paleontologists have suggested that Apatosaurus, a huge dinosaur, was able to gallop. This, however, is unlikely, because galloping would probably have broken Apatosaurus’s legs. Experiments with modern bones show how much strain they can withstand before breaking. By taking into account the diameter and density of Apatosaurus leg bones, it is possible to calculate that those bones could not have withstood the strains of galloping.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Paleontologists who believe that Apatosaurus could gallop are probably wrong. Experiments with modern bones show that Apatosaurus’s leg bones could not have withstood the strains of galloping. These experiments show that galloping would probably have broken Apatosaurus’s legs. Therefore, it is unlikely that Apatosaurus galloped.

Identify Conclusion

The conclusion is the author’s opinion that some paleontologists are likely wrong in their belief that Apatosaurus could gallop.

A
Galloping would probably have broken the legs of Apatosaurus.

This is a sub-conclusion of the argument, not the main conclusion. The claim that galloping would likely have broken Apatosaurus’s legs supports the main conclusion that the paleontologists are probably incorrect in hypothesizing that Apatosaurus could gallop.

B
It is possible to calculate that Apatosaurus leg bones could not have withstood the strain of galloping.

This is an unstated premise—an assumption—that supports the argument’s sub-conclusion. Modern bone experiments only support the claim that Apatosaurus’s legs would have broken from galloping if it’s possible to calculate whether Apatosaurus’s leg bones could withstand the strain.

C
The claim of paleontologists that Apatosaurus was able to gallop is likely to be incorrect.

This correctly captures the stimulus’s main conclusion. The stimulus concludes that the claim made by some paleontologists that Apatosaurus could gallop is “unlikely,” or as (C) states, “likely to be incorrect.”

D
If galloping would have broken the legs of Apatosaurus, then Apatosaurus was probably unable to gallop.

This is an unstated premise supporting the main conclusion. The author concludes that Apatosaurus probably couldn’t gallop because galloping would likely have broken its legs. This conclusion assumes that Apatosaurus wouldn’t have galloped if doing so would have broken its legs.

E
Modern bones are quite similar in structure and physical properties to the bones of Apatosaurus.

This is an unstated premise, which supports the stimulus’s sub-conclusion that galloping would likely have broken Apatosaurus’s legs. The experiments with modern bones support this sub-conclusion because the stimulus assumes that modern bones are similar to those of Apatosaurus.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 135 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply