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

Target time: 1:01

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 ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView
Choices
Curve Question
Difficulty
Psg/Game/S
Difficulty
Explanation
PT16 S2 Q05
+LR
Weaken +Weak
A
0%
155
B
4%
158
C
89%
168
D
2%
159
E
4%
156
136
145
155
+Medium 146.82 +SubsectionMedium
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

This is a weakening question, as the stem asks us: Which one of the following, if true, argues most strongly against the explanation reported in the passage?

The first sentence of the stimulus should be ringing the phenomenon bell in your head; the songbird population of England has decreased within recent years. The following sentence gives us the explanation hinted at in the question stem, a hypothesis for why the decrease occurred. This explanation is that the songbird decrease is correlated with the increase in population of one of the songbird’s predators, magpies, who specifically target their young and eggs. This is a classic weakening question format of phenomenon-correlation-causal hypothesis, a correct answer will likely either present an alternate hypothesis or undermines the correlation. Let’s see what we end up with:

Answer Choice (A) The stimulus specifically states that the phenomenon has occurred in recent years, so this is irrelevant.

Answer Choice (B) This answer connects to the fact that magpies target songbird eggs, but you should recognize that it gives us very little information to work with.

Correct Answer Choice (C) This answer does one of the things we predicted, it undermines the correlation between songbird population decreases and magpie population increases which the explanation inferred as a causal relation. If most cases where songbird populations decreased involved no change in the magpie population, then magpie population growth isn’t an appealing explanation for the songbird decrease.

Answer Choice (D) This answer gives us an explanation of why the magpie population has increased, but we are interested in weakening the casual hypothesis that the magpie population increase caused the songbird population decrease.

Answer Choice (E) I’m glad the magpies are getting a well-rounded diet, but even if magpies eat other stuff, the argument can still infer that more magpies means more eaten songbird eggs and babies.