LSAT 136 – Section 2 – Question 11

LSAT 136 - Section 2 - Question 11

June 2012

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:49

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
PT136 S2 Q11
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Fact v. Belief v. Knowledge +FvBvK
A
8%
161
B
3%
157
C
2%
154
D
12%
156
E
75%
166
145
153
162
 +Harder 146.855 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

In the last year, biologists have learned that there are many more species of amphibians in existence than had previously been known. This definitely undermines environmentalists’ claim that pollution is eliminating many of these species every year.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that pollution is not eliminating many amphibian species every year. This is based on the fact that last year, biologists have learned that there are many more species of amphibians in existence than had previously been known.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The fact that we have discovered additional amphibian species doesn’t relate to whether pollution is killing amphibian species. Discovery of amphibian species doesn’t mean that there’s been an actual increase in the species that exist. So pollution can be killing amphibian species even as we are discover new species that we didn’t know about.

A
kinds of things and the things that are of those kinds
“Kinds of things” refers to different kinds of amphibians. “Things that are of those kinds” refers to examples of the kinds of amphibians. The author doesn’t confuse these two. The confusion relates to learning about new species vs. an actual increase in the number of species.
B
a condition necessary for a phenomenon and one that is sufficient for it
The author’s argument doesn’t rely on conditional reasoning, so there’s no confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions.
C
a cause and an effect
The author doesn’t conclude that one thing causes another, so the flaw doesn’t concern a reversal of cause and effect.
D
a correlation between two phenomena and a causal relationship between them
The author doesn’t conclude that one thing causes another, so the flaw doesn’t concern going from correlation to cause.
E
changes in our knowledge of objects and changes in the objects themselves
The author confuses changes in our knowledge of the number of amphibian species with changes in the number of amphibian species. The author mistakenly thinks our discovery of new species indicates that pollution isn’t killing species.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 136 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply