LSAT 156 – Section 2 – Question 07

LSAT 156 - Section 2 - Question 07

July 2020

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

Target time: 1:02

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
PT156 S2 Q07	+LR	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method	A 89% 158 B 1% 139 C 3% 142 D 0% 146 E 6% 151	120 130 142	+Easiest	145.275 +SubsectionEasier

Mr. Xu: The arctic squirrel gets so cold while hibernating that its blood temperature falls well below the temperature at which water freezes. Although the squirrel’s blood is about 70 percent water, the blood never freezes while the squirrel is hibernating. The squirrel’s blood, therefore, must contain a substance that prevents the blood from freezing at the temperature at which water freezes.

Ms. Yerky: The blood contains no such substance. Laboratory experiments involving a number of animals, including the arctic squirrel, have shown that a vial of blood from any of the animals freezes at just the same temperature as does a vial of water.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Xu concludes that the arctic squirrel’s blood has a substance that prevents it from freezing at the freezing temperature of water. This is based on the claim that the squirrel’s blood temperature falls below the freezing temperature of water when the squirrel is hibernating, but the blood never freezes during hibernation.
Yerky concludes that the squirrel’s blood doesn’t have a substance that keeps it from freezing at water temperature. This is based on the claim that lab experiments show the squirrel’s blood freezes at the same temperature that water freezes.

Describe Method of Reasoning

Yerky presents evidence that suggests Xu’s conclusion is wrong.

presenting evidence that supports a conclusion inconsistent with Mr. Xu’s conclusion

Yerky presents evidence (the lab experiment results) that supports a conclusion that contradicts Xu’s conclusion. Yerky concludes squirrel blood doesn’t have a substance that keeps it from freezing at water temperature. This contradicts Xu’s conclusion.

showing that the evidence offered by Mr. Xu was collected by means of unreliable methods

Yerky doesn’t comment on the way in which Yerky’s evidence was gathered. We don’t know why Xu thinks that a squirrel’s blood doesn’t freeze during hibernation, or that a squirrel’s blood gets colder than the freezing temperature of water during hibernation.

offering an alternative explanation for why the squirrel’s blood fails to freeze at the temperature at which water freezes

Yerky probably doesn’t agree that a squirrel’s blood fails to freeze at the freezing temperature of water. The lab tests show that it does freeze at that temperature. So there’s no way that Yerky provides an explanation for a phenomenon that she doesn’t even think happens.

showing that a key term used by Mr. Xu is ambiguous

None of the terms in Xu’s argument is used ambiguously. “Hibernation” means the same thing throughout Xu’s argument. Same with “blood” and “freezing” and “temperature” and every other word.

showing that the evidence provided by Mr. Xu has no bearing on the point at issue

Yerky brings up lab results that suggest Yerk’s conclusion is wrong. But this doesn’t mean Xu’s evidence has no bearing (i.e. is irrelevant.) Evidence can be relevant, even if its ultimately not persuasive.

LSAT 156 – Section 2 – Question 07

LSAT 156 - Section 2 - Question 07

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 156 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel