Logical Reasoning

PT105 · S4 · Q11 On the basis of research

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

On the basis of research with young children, a developmental psychologist hypothesized that the skills involved in copying curves must be developed before the skills involved in copying angles can be developed.

Hypothesis

The skills involved in copying curves must be developed before the skills involved in copying angles can be developed.

Evaluate

There's really nothing for us to do at this stage, because we don't have any supporting evidence. We might just ask ourselves,

Goal

Look for something that increases the idea that you need to be able to copy curves in order to be able to copy angles.

We might get data points showing that

Or we might get an answer that sort of describes the Causal Mechanism, like .

11.

Which one of the following, if true, supports the developmental psychologist's hypothesis?

All of the children who
Unrelated to Goal: straight lines
This has nothing to do with curves-before-angles. A straight line has no angles.
11% picked this
Correct
All of the children who
Why this is right
On its face, this doesn't seem to speak of any chronological sequence. How could it help us determine our chicken before the egg riddle? Conditionally, this answer looks like this: child can copy angle ? child can copy curve When we have a conditional like A ? B, we can read that as "If A, then B" or as "A requires B". If we read this conditional as "can copy angle" requires "can copy curve", then it definitely sounds like good support for this hypothesis. In fact, that literally is what the hypothesis says: Copying angles requires first learning to copy curves. This hypothesis makes a prediction that "anyone who can copy angles can copy curves", and this answer choice matches that prediction. If we have a hypothesis that makes a prediction, and the observed data matches that prediction, then say that data adds plausibility to the prediction. If I said, "you must ace Games before you can reliably score in the 170s", then I am committed to the prediction that "anyone reliably scoring in the 170s is acing Games". If you show me someone reliably scoring in the 170s who isn't acing Games, then you've shown my hypothesis is wrong. But if we say, as this answer choice did, that "all of the students who are scoring reliably in the 170s are acing games", then we're supporting my hypothesis.
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
74% picked this
The ability to discriminate angles
No Impact
This answer could have lent some plausibility to the hypothesis if it said, "the ability to discriminate curves must be developed before one can discriminate angles". But learning the causal order of discriminating angles vs. copying angles is not helping us judge the causal order of copying curves vs. copying angles.
11% picked this
Some of the children who
Weakens
This essentially refutes the hypothesis. A kid who can copy angles but not curves refutes the notion that you must develop the skills to copy curves before you can copy angles.
1% picked this
Young children have the cognitive
No Impact
This tells us nothing about the causal sequence of curves-before-angles vs. angles-before-curves, since this answer doesn't even bring up curves.
2% 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