LSAT 138 – Section 4 – Question 09

LSAT 138 - Section 4 - Question 09

December 2012

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:08

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
PT138 S4 Q09
+LR
+Exp
Resolve reconcile or explain +RRE
Rule-Application +RuleApp
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
14%
156
B
3%
158
C
3%
156
D
80%
165
E
1%
154
141
150
159
 +Medium 146.393 +SubsectionMedium

In one study of a particular plant species, 70 percent of the plants studied were reported as having patterned stems. In a second study, which covered approximately the same geographical area, only 40 percent of the plants of that species were reported as having patterned stems.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did the second study report a smaller percent of plants as having patterned stems than did the earlier study, even though the two studies covered approximately the same geographical area?

Objective
The correct answer should help differentiate the second study from the first in a way that could lead to a smaller proportion of the plants being reported to have patterned stems.

A
The first study was carried out at the time of year when plants of the species are at their most populous.
How populous the plant was during the study doesn’t impact the proportion of those plants with patterned stems. In the 1st study, 70% were reported to have patterned stems, and in the 2nd, that % went down. The number of plants in each study doesn’t impact % with patterned stems.
B
The first study, but not the second study, also collected information about patterned stems in other plant species.
We’re trying to explain the decrease in % reported to have patterned stems in a particular species of plants. What happened with other plant species has no impact.
C
The second study included approximately 15 percent more individual plants than the first study did.
The comparative number of plants in the studies doesn’t impact the proportion of those plants with patterned stems. In the 1st study, 70% were reported to have patterned stems. In the 2nd, that % went down. The number of plants in each study doesn’t impact % with patterned stems.
D
The first study used a broader definition of “patterned.”
A broader definition of “patterned” in the first study means that in the first study, any given plant was more likely to be considered “patterned” than in the second study. This could explain why the % reported to have patterned stems decreased in the second study.
E
The focus of the second study was patterned stems, while the first study collected information about patterned stems only as a secondary goal.
Whether counting patterned stems was a primary or secondary goal doesn’t explain why the % reported to have patterned stems decreased in the second study. We have no reason to think the focus of the study would change the likelihood a given plant would be counted as patterned.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 138 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply