LSAT 144 – Section 2 – Question 04

LSAT 144 - Section 2 - Question 04

October 2015

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:47

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
PT144 S2 Q04
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
2%
155
B
0%
143
C
92%
165
D
0%
152
E
6%
156
129
139
149
 +Easier 148.975 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Biologist: A careful study of the behavior of six individual chameleons concluded that lizards such as chameleons bask in the sun not only for warmth but also to regulate their production of vitamin D. Critics of the study—although correct in observing that its sample size was very small—are wrong to doubt its results. After all, the study’s author is well regarded professionally and has been doing excellent work for years.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that critics of a study involving chameleons are wrong to doubt the study’s conclusion. This is based on the fact that the study’s author is well-regarded professionally and has been doing excellent work for years.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The professional reputation and background of the study’s author doesn’t constitute a reason to trust the study’s conclusion. What matters is how the study was conducted and whether the study’s conclusion is reasonable.

A
takes the behavior of chameleons to be generalizable to lizards as a whole
The author’s reasoning isn’t based on generalizing from chamelons to lizards as a whole. The reasoning is based on the study author’s background and whether that shows the results are reliable.
B
fails to explain how chameleons regulate their vitamin D production by basking in the sun
The author didn’t need to explain how chameleons regulate their vitamin D. This issue doesn’t affect whether the study author’s background constitutes a reason to find the conclusion reliable.
C
focuses its attention on the study’s author rather than on the study itself
The author focuses on the study author’s professional reputation and background rather than on the study itself. This is a flaw, because the author’s reputation and background do not reveal anything about the reliability of the study and its conclusion.
D
fails to demonstrate that the study’s critics have relevant expertise
The argument doesn’t rely on the study’s critics for support, so their expertise is irrelevant.
E
holds the study’s author to a higher standard than it holds the study’s critics
The argument doesn’t concern different standards for different people. The author simply believes that the reputation/background of the study’s author constitutes a reason to trust the study’s conclusion.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 144 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply