Logical Reasoning

PT103 · S3 · Q2 From the tenth century

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

From the tenth century until around the year 1500, there were Norse settlers living in Greenland.

Conclusion

The temperature-drop explanation for the disappearance of the Norse settlements cannot be correct.

Evidence

Inuit settlers were living in Greenland during the same period as the Norse and continued to thrive long after 1500 — even though average yearly temperatures fell slightly worldwide.

Evaluate

The opposing view says the temperature drop made Greenland too cold for human habitation, which wiped out the Norse. The author offers a counterexample: the Inuit lived in the same place at the same time and didn't die out. If Greenland really had become too cold for humans, the Inuit should have suffered the same fate — but they didn't. That is a fact directly inconsistent with the opposing explanation.

Goal

The right answer should describe this move: producing evidence that contradicts the opposing claim.

2.

Which one of the following is a technique of reasoning used in the argument?

  1. denying the relevance of an

    Bad Description

    The author does not invoke or deny an analogy. The Inuit and Norse are presented as two real groups living in the same actual place at the same actual time — that is a direct counterexample, not an analogy. There is no analogy whose relevance is being denied.

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    producing evidence that is inconsistent

    Why this is right

    This is the move exactly. The opposed claim is that Greenland became too cold for human habitation. The author produces a fact that is inconsistent with that claim — the Inuit, also humans, lived in Greenland at the same time and continued to thrive. If Greenland had become uninhabitable, the Inuit should not have thrived. The Inuit's survival is the inconsistent evidence.

    Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    86% picked this

  3. presenting an alternative explanation that

    Bad Description

    The author does not present an alternative explanation for what happened to the Norse. She simply argues the temperature explanation cannot be right. No replacement theory — about disease, conflict, economic decline, or anything else — is offered. The argument's aim is purely negative: knock down the existing explanation.

    11% picked this

  4. citing a general rule that

    Bad Description

    The author does not cite any general rule. She offers a specific historical fact — the Inuit thrived in Greenland during the same period. That is a particular counterexample, not a generalization about how cold weather, human survival, or any other category works.

    1% picked this

  5. redefining a term in a

    Bad Description

    The author does not redefine any term. Words like "temperature drop," "Norse," "Greenland," and "thrive" carry their ordinary meanings throughout. The argument relies on factual evidence about the Inuit, not on shifting definitions.

    0% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free