LSAT 156 – Section 2 – Question 22

LSAT 156 - Section 2 - Question 22

July 2020

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

Target time: 1:03

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 Q22	+LR	Weaken +Weak	A 26% 156 B 10% 154 C 58% 159 D 2% 143 E 4% 150	133 153 172	+Harder	145.275 +SubsectionEasier

Researcher: Experiences that are accompanied by increased secretions of adrenaline—a hormone produced in situations involving fear—tend to be remembered more clearly than experiences not so accompanied. Thus, the details of frightening experiences tend to be remembered more clearly than do the details of nonfrightening experiences.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

A Researcher hypothesizes that the details of frightening experiences tend to be better remembered than those of nonfrightening experiences. This is because the Researcher observed that increased adrenaline secretion (which occurs during frightening experiences) enhances the clarity of one’s memory in those moments.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that adrenaline secretion is one of (if not the primary) factors explaining why frightening experiences are more clearly remembered. The author also assumes that nonfighting experiences typically do not involve increased adrenaline levels.

Some experiences are so intense that an individual’s normal tendency to retain the details of them is reversed.

While this suggests that some intense (frightening) experiences may not be remembered clearly, it does not cast doubt on any of the reasoning between adrenaline and frightening experiences. That is what you need to weaken.

An individual will tend to remember most clearly those details of a situation that are relevant to the satisfaction of desires.

This is focused on *what* is remembered most clearly, not *why* it is remembered. That is the focus of this argument.

Highly pleasurable experiences are, like frightening experiences, accompanied by increased levels of adrenaline.

This weakens the argument because it showcases that experiences other than frightening ones are also accompanied by increased levels of adrenaline. This directly weakens the relationship between the premise and conclusion.

Frightening experiences make up only a small fraction of experiences in general.

This does not touch the reasoning in the argument. The frequency of frightening experiences has nothing to do with *why* they are remembered more clearly.

If an individual perceives a dangerous situation as nonfrightening, then the experience of that situation will not be accompanied by increased adrenaline secretions.

This discusses exceptions to the described phenomenon but does not challenge the claim that frightening experiences, when accompanied by adrenaline, are better remembered.

LSAT 156 – Section 2 – Question 22

LSAT 156 - Section 2 - Question 22

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