We start with the question stem: Which of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument? This is a Main Conclusion question.
The stimulus begins with Contextual Information, and says “Brain scanning technology provides information about processes occurring in the brain.” We can tell this is Contextual Information because the proceeding sentence has the Context Indicator “however.”
The next sentence contains the Referential Phrase “this information.” You know the drill at this point. WHAT information? The information from brain scanning. So the sentence translates into “However, for the brain scanning information to help researchers to understand how the brain enables us to think, researchers must be able to rely on the accuracy of verbal reports given by subjects while their brains are being scanned.” Essentially, in order for brain scanning information to be helpful (paraphrased), researchers need to rely on the accuracy of verbal reports of subjects during the scanning (paraphrased). So let’s use that brain of yours to paint a mental picture. A subject's brain is being scanned, and the researchers can see the scans but not the actual thoughts the subject is thinking. So the subject needs to verbally explain to the researchers that they are thinking of a “tree”. The author wants to say in order for this to be useful, the researchers need to be confident that the verbal reports are accurate. The Context Indicator paired with the Referential Phrase means that this is likely the Main Conclusion (many times the main conclusion of an argument will use both). If it is the Main Conclusion, the author will provide support with a Premise. Perhaps the author will provide support in the following sentence. “Otherwise - PAUSE.
What is “otherwise” referring to? It basically means “If the researchers can’t rely on the accuracy of the verbal reports.” Ok, let's try that again. “If they (the researchers) could not rely on the accuracy of the verbal reports, then brain scan data might not contain information about what the subject reports thinking about at that moment, but instead about some different set of thoughts.” Again, wordy, so let's paraphrase. Essentially, the author is saying “what if we couldn't rely on the verbal reports?” The subject might verbally say they are thinking of a tree, but they are actually thinking of a rock. Well, then, the brain scan that we thought was of tree-thoughts would, unbeknownst to the researchers, be a brain scan of rock-thoughts. Seems like a problem. Since this supports the previous sentence, our Main Conclusion is that researchers need to be able to rely on the accuracy of verbal reports in order for the brain scan information to be helpful. Now all we need to do is find an answer choice that expresses the same idea.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect. The author never says that the researchers cannot rely on the accuracy of verbal reports. She simply is saying that in order for the brain scan information to be helpful, the researchers need to be able to rely on the accuracy of the reports. If you are picking (A), you likely made the assumption that people’s verbal reports are unreliable. That will get you far in life but not on the LSAT.
Answer Choice (B) says that researchers can’t know for certain that subjects are accurately reporting their thoughts. (B) is definitely not the Main Conclusion. Clearly a wrong answer choice, but worth exploring that you can rely on something without knowing it for certain. I might not be absolutely, positively certain that a nuclear holocaust won’t occur tomorrow, but I can generally rely on the fact that a nuclear holocaust won’t occur tomorrow. Similarly, the researchers might not be certain the subject's verbal reports are accurate, but they can still rely on them.
Answer Choice (C) says because the verbal reports might not be reliable, then brain scan research should be regarded with “great skepticism.” Heuristically, the fact that we do not see the term “great skepticism” or any analogous phrase means we should regard (C) with great skepticism. The author never takes a position on how brain scan research should be regarded; she only claims that for it to be helpful, the verbal reports must be accurate. (C) is wrong because C isn’t expressing the same idea as our Main Conclusion.
Answer Choice (D) is not the Main Conclusion, so it is incorrect. The author's argument doesn't actually depend on if the subject's verbal reports are reliable or not. She only wishes to say that the reliability will influence the helpfulness of the brain scan information.
This brings us to the Correct Answer Choice (E). In (E), the “only if” indicates that it is necessary that “the verbal reports of those whose brains are scanned are accurate” for the “information from brain scans to help researchers understand how the brain enables us to think.” Since (E) expresses the same idea as our Main Conclusion, (E) is correct.
The question stem reads: The reasoning in the ornithologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument… This is a Flaw question.
The ornithologist begins by stating how a particular bird species (we will call this bird "X") diet is believed to consist primarily of vegetation (plants). However, the ornithologist concludes that belief is wrong. In other words, The ornithologist argues that "X" birds' diets are mostly not plants. As evidence, he describes how he camouflaged himself and watched hundreds of "X" birds every morning for a month. During his morning observations, he estimates that over half of what "X" birds ate were insects and animal food resources (not plants). This line of reasoning is flawed because the ornithologist only observed birds during the morning. Let's say I hypothesized that the belief humans frequently drink coffee is wrong. To prove my theory, I hid in people's closets for many months and watched their bedtime routines. During my observations, I noticed very few people drank coffee. Hypothesis proven, right? No! The problem is that I only observed people at night when they were unlikely to drink coffee. The other problem is that I shouldn't hide in people's closets. An ideal experiment has a representative sample.
Similarly, the ornithologist has only observed what "X" birds eat in the morning. However, what "X" birds eat in the morning might be unrepresentative of their diet on the whole. Now that we have identified our flaw let's move to the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) is wrong. The ornithologist says he camouflaged himself. You might argue that perhaps his camouflage was ineffective. However, our job LSAT flaw questions in the reasoning, not to question the truth of the premises. Even if he did camouflage himself well, his argument is still problematic (he was only watching "X" birds in the morning!).
Answer Choice (B) is wrong. The ornithologist does not need to describe exactly what kinds of food "X" birds ate. He needs to say that plants accounted for 50% or less of their diet. So if it was true that most of "X" birds' diets were insect and animal food sources, that would imply 50% or less of "X" birds' diet was plants.
Answer Choice (C) is wrong. The author does not adopt the widespread belief. The author rejects the widespread idea that "X" birds' diet is mostly plants.
Correct Answer Choice (D) is what we discussed. If it was confirmed that "X" birds have different feeding patterns throughout the day, the ornithologist made an error by taking an unrepresentative sample of the birds' diet.
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect. Mapping on the stimulus to (E), we would get: fails to consider the possibility that "X" birds diet has changed since the earlier belief that "X" birds mostly ate plants was formed. Even if it was true that the popular belief was formed when "X" birds used to mostly eat plants, what matters is what the birds eat now. If "X" birds mostly eat insects and animals, then the popular belief is wrong. Being right in the past doesn't make you any less wrong in the present.
The Question Stem reads: Which of the following most logically completes the Educator's argument? This is a Most Strongly Supported Question.
Our Job for an MSS 'fill' question is to complete the argument. The stimulus will give us a set of Premises that will support the Conclusion. Ideally, we will be able to pre-phase the question and have an idea of what we are looking for before we see the answer choices. The Educator begins by claiming only those who are genuinely curious about a topic can successfully learn about that topic. Only is a Necessary Condition Indicator, so we know that being genuinely curious is necessary to learn (if you successfully learned, then you were genuinely curious). The author then goes to explain that successful learners find genuine enjoyment in the learning process itself. Then we see the Context Indicator, "however," indicating a turn to the Educators argument. She claims that "no child enters the classroom with a sufficient amount of curiosity to successfully learn all the teachers must instill." That was a mouthful, but let's break that down.
The first part of this claim is that children are not sufficiently curious to learn. In this context, we mentioned that curiosity is required for learning, but there is a problem: children don't have enough curiosity, so if the children have to learn, they're not going to be able to because they don't have the curiosity they need to learn. Ok, do they need to learn? Yes! The second part of the Educator's claim is that teachers must instill a set of topics in these kids. So if a teacher has to teach a child math, but the child isn't curious enough about math to learn it. What do you think the teacher should do? If you said, "get that child curious," you're on the right track. The Educator concludes that a teacher's job, therefore, is __.
What should we fill in here? Well, earlier, we made the inference that a teacher has to get their kids curious to get the kids to learn. So let's look for an answer choice that gets at that idea.
Correct Answer Choice (A) matches our prephase, albeit in a more confusing way. (A) says “A teacher's job requires the fulfillment of its goals (the goal of getting kids to learn), the stimulation of curiosity (getting kids curious), as well as the satisfaction of curiosity (the kids satisfy curiosity by learning).”
Answer Choice (B) is incorrect. Not only does (B) fail to complete the argument, but (B) seems to contradict what the Context says about learning: that learners find satisfaction in the learning process itself. (B) is unsupported/anti-supported.
Answer Choice (C) says that teachers should focus primarily on topics that students aren't interested in. Why? If students are not interested or curious about the topic, to begin with, then the students won't be able to learn about those topics. If you picked (C), you likely assumed that by focusing on those topics, teachers would get students curious. But we do not know if that will be the case.
Answer Choice (D) is wrong because there is no mention of students taking responsibility for their learning in the argument. Sure, it might make the teacher's job easier, but the stimulus offers no Support for that claim.
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect. If anything, this claim is anti-supported. The stimulus claims that curiosity and satisfaction of curiosity are required to learn. How would a teacher's job become easier if students realized learning wasn't necessarily enjoyable?
The question stem reads: Each of the following arguments exhibits flawed reasoning similar to that in the argument above EXCEPT… This is a Parallel Flaw question.
The author states that each of the smallest particles in the universe has an “elegantly simple structure.” Since the universe is composed of these particles, the author concludes that the universe also has an “elegantly simple structure.” The argument makes a fallacy of composition (part to whole). Just because a part or all of the parts have a particular property, the property does not necessarily carry over to the whole. By a similar line of reasoning, we could conclude that because the parts of a car cannot move on their own, and a car is composed of those parts, the car itself must not be able to move.
Because this is an except question, the wrong answer choices will contain a fallacy of composition. The right answer choice could exhibit some other fallacy or be a valid argument.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect. (A) matches the stimulus by saying that because the parts of a car have the property of being perfectly engineered, then the car (the parts put together) must also have the property of being perfectly engineered. The car's parts may be well-engineered, but the car could be designed and assembled in a terrible fashion. Eliminate (A).
Correct Answer Choice (B) does make an argument from part to whole. However, (B) is not a fallacious argument. If every part of the desk is made of metal, then it must be true the desk is made of metal. While the properties of the parts do not necessarily carry over to the whole, sometimes they do. You must use your judgment to determine whether a “part to whole” argument works or is fallacious. Because (B) makes a good argument, (B) is our right answer.
Answer Choice (C) is incorrect. (C) matches the stimulus by saying because bricks have the property of being rectangular, the wall of bricks (the bricks put together) must have the property of being rectangular. What if the wall is built in a circle? Eliminate (C).
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect. (D) matches the stimulus by saying that because each piece of wood has the property of being sturdy, then the desk (the wood put together) must also have the property of being sturdy. Perhaps the stool was poorly put together. Eliminate (D).
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect. (E) matches our stimulus by saying that because each sentence of the novel has the property of being well constructed, the novel (all of the sentences put together) must also have the property of being well constructed. Eliminate (E).