LSAT 119 – Section 4 – Question 04
LSAT 119 - Section 4 - Question 04
June 2005You 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 |
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.
A
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.”
B
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.
C
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.
D
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.
E
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.
Take PrepTest
Review Results
LSAT PrepTest 119 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 - 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.