The most reliable way to

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact6% picked this

   There are other ways of detecting the presence of life on

   Cool, but are these other ways more reliable than the methane-detection method? Unless the answer is suggesting that, it isn't really doing anything. We already know there's more than one way to detect the presence of life because the author is referring to methane-detection as "the most reliable way". The use of a superlative like "most" implies that there are at least three ways. So this answer is actually adding nothing we didn't already know.

   6%
2. B

   Correct72% picked this

   Not all living beings have the ability to biologically

   Why this is right

   The author's statements establish that "IF we see methane, we know there's life there" (because it needs to be constantly replenished by living beings). But what if we don't see methane? Does that mean there isn't life on a planet? We're not sure. According to this answer, we wouldn't be able to tell whether there's life on a planet that doesn't have methane, because it's possible to have life without methane. A lot of LSAT arguments that deal with using a certain type of test / measurement / metric / method are ultimately testing the ideas of False Positives and False Negatives. To judge the soundness / accuracy of a method of measurement, you want to consider its rate of false positives and its rate of false negatives. With the methane method, it sounds like we'd almost never have a false positive (where there WAS methane but WASN'T life). But, according to this answer, the methane method might lead to a lot of false negatives (where there ISN'T methane but there IS life). The methane method has no way to detect the presence of non-methane-producing life, so it doesn't sound like "the most reliable" way to detect the presence of life. In the vocabulary of the initial explanation, this is targeting the assumption that "the methane-method is a viable way to test for the detection of life". It wouldn't be a viable way of testing for life that doesn't emit methane.

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

   72%
3. C

   Out of Scope: capable of detection15% picked this

   We are incapable at present of analyzing a planet's atmosphere for the

   The author's conclusion is about "most reliable" method, not the most currently usable or currently practical method. If you were working for a "get out the vote" campaign, you might say, "The most reliable way to get someone to vote would be to knock on everyone's door, come into their living room, and chat about the issues for a few minutes." Someone else can say, "Our organization is presently incapable of knocking on every voters door and coming inside to chat with them", but that doesn't undermine the idea that knocking on every door would be the most reliable way.

   15%
4. D

   Too Weak2% picked this

   Some living beings biologically produce only very small amounts

   Answer with "some / sometimes / can / not all" are almost always wrong on Strengthen, Weaken, and Paradox. (not always wrong, though, as this correct answer shows) It has no effect to say, "There's at least one living being that only produces a li'l methane." Cool. That doesn't change the reality that "if we see methane, we'll know that there are biological being constantly replenishing it".

   2%
5. E

   No Impact6% picked this

   Earth is the only planet whose atmosphere is known to

   This is just about which planets are known to contain methane. There may be billions of planets that do contain methane but they're too far away for us to take a remote chemical reading on the atmosphere. Our author's argument can be true in a hypothetical way. She isn't saying that we're going to start using this method, or that we have used it, or that we should use it. She's only concluding that, "in theory, this is the most reliable way".

   6%