LSAT 134 – Section 3 – Question 06

LSAT 134 - Section 3 - Question 06

October 2011

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

Target time: 0:49

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
PT134 S3 Q06	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Causal Reasoning +CausR Sampling +Smpl	A 1% 149 B 0% 153 C 0% 156 D 98% 164 E 0% 152	122 130 138	+Easiest	146.872 +SubsectionMedium

Local resident: An overabundance of algae must be harmful to the smaller fish in this pond. During the fifteen or so years that I have lived here, the few times that I have seen large numbers of dead small fish wash ashore in late summer coincide exactly with the times that I have noticed abnormally large amounts of algae in the water.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The author hypothesizes that an overabundance of algae is harmful to smaller fish in this pond. This is based on the fact that over the past 15 years, the few times that the author has seen a lot of dead small fish has coincided with the times that he has noticed unusually large amounts of algae in the water.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author assumes that the correlation between lots of dead small fish and lots of algae is explained by algae causing harm to the small fish. This overlooks alternate explanations for the correlation. Perhaps there’s a third factor that causes both the algae and the dead fish. The author also assumes that his own observations of the timing of dead small fish and lots of algae is representative of the general pattern of dead small fish and lots of algae in the pond.

presumes, without providing justification, that smaller fish are somehow more susceptible to harm as a result of overabundant algae than are larger fish

The author never compares the effects of algae to the effects of larger fish.

fails to consider that the effects on smaller fish of overabundant algae may be less severe in larger bodies of water with more diverse ecosystems

The author’s conclusion doesn’t concern other bodies of water besides “this pond.”

ignores the possibility that the same cause might have different effects on fish of different sizes

The author’s conclusion only concerns the effects of algae on “smaller fish.” Fish of other sizes are not relevant to the argument.

ignores the possibility that the overabundance of algae and the deaths of smaller fish are independent effects of a common cause

This possibility presents an alternate explanation for the author’s evidence. Perhaps algae isn’t harmful to smaller fish, but rather the algae and deads of small fish are both results of some other cause.

ignores the possibility that below-normal amounts of algae are detrimental to the pond’s smaller fish

The author didn’t say that below-normal amounts of algae are not harmful to smaller fish. The conclusion is that overabundance of algae is harmful, but this doesn’t imply that the author thinks less than abundant algae isn’t harmful.

LSAT 134 – Section 3 – Question 06

LSAT 134 - Section 3 - Question 06

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 134 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel