LSAT 119 – Section 4 – Question 04

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 04

June 2005

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

Target time: 1:00

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
PT119 S4 Q04	+LR +Exp	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method Lack of Support v. False Conclusion +LSvFC	A 1% 156 B 2% 157 C 6% 156 D 89% 162 E 2% 153	124 136 148	+Easier	145.1 +SubsectionEasier

Anne: Halley’s Comet, now in a part of its orbit relatively far from the Sun, recently flared brightly enough to be seen by telescope. No comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the Sun before, so such a flare must be highly unusual.

Sue: Nonsense. Usually no one bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun. This flare was observed only because an observatory was tracking Halley’s Comet very carefully.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Sue concludes that Anne’s position—that it must be unusual for a comet to flare visibly while far from the Sun—is “nonsense.” This is supported by Sue’s claim that such a flare was observed only once merely because comets far from the Sun are not usually observed. The exceptional event was thus closely tracking the specific comet which flared, not necessarily the flare itself.

Describe Method of Reasoning

Sue introduces a new consideration to undermine Anne’s claim that an event only rarely being seen means that the event itself must be rare. Instead, Sue suggests that the event is rarely seen simply because of a lack of observation.

pointing out that Anne’s use of the term “observed” is excessively vague

Sue doesn’t claim that Anne’s language choices are unsatisfactory at all; their arguments agree in their usage of the term “observed.”

drawing attention to an inconsistency between two of Anne’s claims

Sue doesn’t claim that Anne is making inconsistent claims, only that her claims do not support her conclusion given the new consideration that Sue introduces.

presenting evidence that directly contradicts Anne’s evidence

Sue does not contradict Anne’s evidence. Rather, she agrees with Anne that Halley’s comet was observed to flare, and just doesn’t comment on Anne’s claim that no other comet had ever been observed to flare so far from the sun.

offering an alternative explanation for the evidence Anne cites

Sue explains the evidence Anne cites about comet flares far from the Sun rarely being observed, by explaining that comets far from the Sun are rarely observed at all. This is an alternative explanation to Anne’s conclusion that these flares must be highly unusual.

undermining some of Anne’s evidence while agreeing with her conclusion

Sue doesn’t undermine any of Anne’s evidence. Sue appears to just take Anne’s evidence at face value, and simply finds an alternate explanation for it.

LSAT 119 – Section 4 – Question 04

LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 04

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 119 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel