Logical Reasoning

PT104 · S1 · Q3 The statements above, if true

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

In Yasukawa's month-long study of blackbirds, the percentage of smaller birds that survived the duration of the study exceeded the percentage of larger birds that survived.

Statements

math-y comparison

A higher % of smaller birds than larger birds survived the month-long study.

pivot (however)

It's probably wrong to conclude that size is causally affecting chance of survival over a month-long period, because smaller blackbirds are generally younger than larger ones.

Evaluate

This has the feel of an Explain Curious Fact argument, even though we're reading it in the context of an Inference question.

It also Ends with a Pivot (however), and the pivot is serving the role of rebutting someone, so we'd expect the correct answer to feel like a safely worded rebuttal.

Curious Fact ... why did a bigger share of smaller birds than larger birds survive over the course of a month?

Yasukawa's Explanation ... the size of the bird affects its chances of survival (being smaller helps you live longer)

The author takes issue with this and suggests an alternative explanation:

Author's Alternate Explanation ... the smaller ones lived longer because they were younger. (being younger makes you more likely to live longer)

Goal

This paragraph is a weird mix of facts (the study results / the generalization that smaller birds are usually younger) and opinions (Y's explanation that "small size is helping them live longer" / the author's explanation that "younger age is helping them live longer").

But the question stem does tell us to treat them all the statements as true. There is a statement saying "Y's conclusion is probably mistaken". So we can treat it as true that Y is probably wrong to think that size determines a blackbird's chances of survival.

The statements above, if true, support which one of the following inferences?

Among the blackbirds that survived
Too Strong: no relation
It seems like the paragraph is closer to suggesting the opposite of this. The final fact is a general statement that smaller blackbirds are generally younger. This answer is talking about the surviving pool of smaller birds and larger birds. It's saying, among this population, it would no longer be the case that the smaller ones were generally younger. Why not? We'd assume that whether you're one of the unlucky ones who died or the lucky ones who survived, you're still subject to the generalization that smaller birds tend to be younger birds.
5% picked this
Larger blackbirds of a given
Opposite
According to the paragraph, the smaller/younger birds were more likely to survive this one month study. The author thinks it's because they're younger. Yasukawa thinks it's because they're smaller. This answer is saying that being larger is helping birds to survive longer. No one in the passage was saying that.
8% picked this
Among blackbirds of the same
Opposite
According to the paragraph, the smaller/younger birds were more likely to survive this one month study. Yasukawa thinks it's because they're smaller. The author thinks it's because they're younger. So the author would say, "size wasn't the causal difference-maker here, age was. If you took two birds of the same size, the younger one would have the higher chance of living longer."
7% picked this
Correct
Among blackbirds of the same
Why this is right
We're very attracted to the weak wording of "may not indicate". According to the paragraph, the smaller/younger birds were more likely to survive this one month study. Yasukawa thinks it's because they're smaller. The author thinks it's because they're younger. The paragraph says that Yasukawa's conclusion "is probably mistaken". The question stem told us to treat the statements as true, so it's true to say that "size is probably not a determinant of a blackbird's chances of survival". That supports this answer (phrased even more weakly), which says that "a difference in size may not indicate a difference in chance of survival".
Skill tested: Most Supported · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
76% picked this
With a larger sample of
Too Strong: the same
It's too extreme to predict an identical percentage occurring, in some counterfactual. Also, this answer is acting like we got skewed data because our sample size was small. We have no reason to think a larger sample size would have found an identical percentage of smaller/larger birds surviving.
3% 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