LSAT 113 – Section 4 – Question 10

LSAT 113 - Section 4 - Question 10

June 2002

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

Ask a tutor

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
PT113 S4 Q10
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Eliminating Options +ElimOpt
A
4%
155
B
3%
153
C
20%
155
D
2%
150
E
71%
161
139
150
160
 +Medium 145.144 +SubsectionEasier

Lydia: Red squirrels are known to make holes in the bark of sugar maple trees and to consume the trees’ sap. Since sugar maple sap is essentially water with a small concentration of sugar, the squirrels almost certainly are after either water or sugar. Water is easily available from other sources in places where maple trees grow, so the squirrels would not go to the trouble of chewing holes in trees just to get water. Therefore, they are probably after the sugar.

Galina: It must be something other than sugar, because the concentration of sugar in the maple sap is so low that a squirrel would need to drink an enormous amount of sap to get any significant amount of sugar.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
Lydia concludes that red squirrels are probably after the sugar in sugar maple tree sap. To support her claim, Lydia reasons that water is easily available from other sources, so the squirrels would not chew holes into trees just to get water.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Lydia concludes a hypothesis for a phenomenon she has observed. She does this by eliminating alternative hypotheses. Lydia reasons that if sugar tree sap is essentially water with sugar, and water is easily available from other nearby sources, then the squirrels are probably after the sugar content of the sap.

A
dismissing potentially disconfirming data
Lydia does not dismiss any data from consideration. Lydia dismisses an alternative hypothesis for the phenomenon of red squirrels consuming sugar maple tree sap.
B
citing a general rule of which the conclusion is a specific instance
Lydia does not apply her hypothesis to a specific instance. Her argument is stated generally and theoretically.
C
presenting an observed action as part of a larger pattern of behavior
Lydia does not address a larger pattern of behavior. We cannot assume that since the squirrels chew holes into certain trees that this action is part of a larger pattern.
D
drawing an analogy between well-understood phenomena and an unexplained phenomenon
Lydia does not draw an analogy to support her claims.
E
rejecting a possible alternative explanation for an observed phenomenon
The observed phenomena is the squirrels chewing holes to consume tree sap. The alternative explanation Lydia rejects is the explanation that the squirrels are after the water content of the sap.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 113 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply