LSAT 156 – Section 2 – Question 25
LSAT 156 - Section 2 - Question 25
July 2020You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.
Target time: 1:12
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 Q25 |
+LR
| Sufficient assumption +SA | A
10%
152
B
60%
161
C
5%
152
D
10%
151
E
15%
153
|
145 155 165 |
+Harder | 145.275 +SubsectionEasier |
Summary
The author concludes that, according to Newtonian theory, we don’t need a theory of the structure/constitution of the Sun/planets in order to calculate their orbits. Why?
Because according to Newtonian theory, gravitational force between two bodies depends exclusively on mass/distance, and does not depend on what the bodies are made of.
Because according to Newtonian theory, gravitational force between two bodies depends exclusively on mass/distance, and does not depend on what the bodies are made of.
Missing Connection
The conclusion brings up a new concept — what’s required to “calculate orbits.” The premises don’t say anything about what’s required or not required to calculate orbits. So, at a minimum, we know the correct answer must include something about what’s required or not required to calculate orbits.
To go further, we can try to anticipate a more specific connection between the premise and the conclusion. The premise establishes that to calculate gravitational force, we don’t need to consider “what the bodies are made of.” That part supports the idea that, in order to calculate graviational force, we don’t need to consider the structure/constitution of a body (because structure/constitution concerns what bodies are made of).
But what if calculating the orbits of bodies involves more than just calculating gravitational force between them? That opens the possibility that structure/constitution could be important for other factors that are relevant to calculating orbits. We want to eliminate this possibility. We want to establish that in order to calculate orbits, we don’t need anything else besides calculating gravitational force.
To go further, we can try to anticipate a more specific connection between the premise and the conclusion. The premise establishes that to calculate gravitational force, we don’t need to consider “what the bodies are made of.” That part supports the idea that, in order to calculate graviational force, we don’t need to consider the structure/constitution of a body (because structure/constitution concerns what bodies are made of).
But what if calculating the orbits of bodies involves more than just calculating gravitational force between them? That opens the possibility that structure/constitution could be important for other factors that are relevant to calculating orbits. We want to eliminate this possibility. We want to establish that in order to calculate orbits, we don’t need anything else besides calculating gravitational force.
A
Mass is dependent on gravitational force.
(A) doesn’t establish anything about calculating orbits. Since neither this answer nor the premise says anything about calculating orbits, it can’t make the argument valid.
B
According to the Newtonian theory, the calculation of planetary orbits requires considering only their gravitational forces.
If calculating orbits requires considering only gravitational forces, and if we know from a premise that gravitational forces don’t involve the structure/constitution of bodies, then calculating orbits doesn’t require considering the structure/constitution of bodies.
C
The Newtonian theory of gravity is mistaken about the data needed to calculate gravitational force.
(C) doesn’t establish anything about calculating orbits. Since neither this answer nor the premise says anything about calculating orbits, it can’t make the argument valid.
D
Knowing what an object is made of is sufficient for determining its mass.
(D) doesn’t establish anything about calculating orbits. Since neither this answer nor the premise says anything about calculating orbits, it can’t make the argument valid.
E
The gravitational force between the Sun and a planet is a factor in determining the distance between them.
(E) doesn’t establish anything about calculating orbits. Since neither this answer nor the premise says anything about calculating orbits, it can’t make the argument valid.
Take PrepTest
Review Results
LSAT PrepTest 156 Explanations
Section 1 - Reading Comprehension
- Passage 1 – Passage
- Passage 1 – Questions
- Passage 2 – Passage
- Passage 2 – Questions
- Passage 3 – Passage
- Passage 3 – Questions
- Passage 4 – Passage
- Passage 4 – Questions
Section 2 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
Section 3 - Reading Comprehension
- Passage 1 – Passage
- Passage 1 – Questions
- Passage 2 – Passage
- Passage 2 – Questions
- Passage 3 – Passage
- Passage 3 – Questions
- Passage 4 – Passage
- Passage 4 – Questions
Section 4 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
- Question 26
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here.