LSAT 120 – Section 4 – Question 22

LSAT 120 - Section 4 - Question 22

October 2005

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:27

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
PT120 S4 Q22
+LR
+Exp
Necessary assumption +NA
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
52%
165
B
7%
157
C
3%
154
D
8%
159
E
30%
158
154
161
168
 +Hardest 146.628 +SubsectionMedium

Repressors—people who unconsciously inhibit their display of emotion—exhibit significant increases in heart rate when they encounter emotion-provoking situations. Nonrepressors have similar physiological responses when they encounter such situations and consciously inhibit their display of emotion. Thus the very act of inhibiting displays of emotion, whether done consciously or unconsciously, causes a sharp rise in heart rate.

Summary
The author concludes that both consciously and unconsciously inhibiting of displays of emotion causes a sharp rise in heart rate.
What makes the author think this?
Repressors (those who unconsciously inhibit displays of emotion) show sharp increases in heart rate in emotion-provoking situations.
Nonrepressors who consciously inhibit their display of emotion also experience sharp increases in heart rate in emotion-provoking situations.

Notable Assumptions
We have correlations between inhibiting emotions and a sharp increase in heart rate among the repressors and nonrepressors. The author assumes the reason for these correlations is that inhibiting emotions causes the heart rate increase.
But are there other explanations? Couldn’t the true cause of the heart rate increase by the emotion-provoking situation itself? The author is assuming that the emotion-provoking situation is not the true cause of the sharp increase in heart rate among both the repressors and nonrepressors.

A
Encountering an emotion-provoking situation is not sufficient to cause nonrepressors’ heart rates to rise sharply.
Necessary, because if it were not true — if an emotion-provoking situation IS enough to cause nonrepressors’ heart rates to rise sharply — then the premise concerning nonrepressors no longer provides support to the conclusion. There would be an alternate explanation available for the nonrepressors situation, weakening the argument. So the author must assume (A).
B
Nonrepressors can inhibit facial and bodily displays of emotion as well as repressors do.
Whether each group repressed equally as well or one was better at inhibiting than the other is irrelevant, because we know that both repressors and nonrepressors inhibited emotion. Also, the argument doesn’t specify “facial and bodily” displays of emotion; there’s no reason to think the author must assume anything about specific displays.
C
Despite their outward calm, repressors normally feel even more excited than do nonrepressors in an emotion-provoking situation.
Not necessary, because even if both groups are equally excited, that doesn’t undermine the author’s reasoning, which is based on the correlation observed between inhibiting emotions and a sharp heart rate increase.
D
People who are ordinarily very emotional can refrain from feeling strong emotions when experimenters ask them to do so.
We don’t know whether any of the nonrepressors were “ordinarily very emotional,” so there’s no reason to think the author must assume that very emotional people can refrain from feeling strong emotions. Also, the nonrepressors were asked to inhibit their display of emotion; that’s different from not feeling emotion.
E
In situations that do not tend to provoke emotions, the average heart rate of repressors is the same as that of nonrepressors.
Not necessary, because even if each group started with different average heart rate, we still know that each group experienced a sharp increase in heart rate. The argument isn’t based on a comparison of the repressors’ heart rate vs. the nonrepressors’ heart rate. It’s based on a comparison, within each group, of their heart rate before inhibiting and their heart rate after inhibiting.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 120 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply