Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT107 S3 Q22 Explanation

Biologist: Some speculate that

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

TopicsMost Supported

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Biologist: Some speculate that the unusually high frequency of small goats found in island populations is a response to evolutionary pressure to increase the number of goats so as to ensure a diverse gene pool. However, only the reproductive success of a trait influences its frequency in a population. So, the only is that resulting from small goats achieving greater reproductive than their larger cousins.

What this question is testing

Most Supported

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
22.

The biologist’s view, if true, provides the most support for which one

Answer choices

  1. Opposite31% picked this

    The evolutionary pressure to ensure a diverse gene pool could have the effect of increasing the frequency of

    This answer is making it seem like the stuff the biologist said actually was agreeing with the stuff that some were speculating. But the "however" is pretty clearly telegraphing the fact that the biologists two ideas (the 2nd and 3rd sentence) are meant to push back against the 1st sentence.

  2. Opposite4% picked this

    The unusual frequency of small goats in island populations is not a result of the greater reproductive success small goats

    If anything, our biologist would speculate that if there's a high frequency of small goats, then it is the result of the greater reproductive success small goats have in this island environment. She thinks that the trait of smallness would only result if smallness conferred a reproductive advantage over largeness.

  3. Opposite1% picked this

    Contrary to what some believe, large goats achieve greater reproductive success than small goats even

    We have no support for the idea that large goats achieve greater reproductive success. In fact, the two sentences the biologist told us are contradicting this notion. Given that the trait of smallness occurs in higher frequency than the trait of largeness, she would assume that small goats achieve greater reproductive success.

  4. Correct58% picked this

    The evolutionary pressure to ensure a diverse gene pool does not have the effect of increasing the frequency of

    Why this is right

    Yup, this answer just did the ol' Reconcile the Pivot. Since this pivot was a rebuttal, reconciling what came before / after is going to usually sound like, "So that idea you heard before the pivot is wrong." A diverse gene pool is a reality that would help the entire goat species on the island, whereas the biologist is pointing out that the only evolutionary pressures there are that influence the prevalence of a trait (such as smallness) have to derive from greater reproductive success for those who have smallness.

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

  5. Not Biologist's View5% picked this

    A diverse gene pool cannot be achieved in a goat population unless the average size of

    This is too strongly worded even for the Some people in the first sentence, but what should immediately stick out to us is that this idea advances the view of the people in the first sentence. Our biologist is disagreeing with that view, and the question stem is saying "if the biologist's view is true, then which answer should we believe". If her view is true, then we should believe that the view in the first sentence was wrong.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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