Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT111 S1 Q16 Explanation

On the basis of the available

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

TopicsMain Conclusion

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

On the basis of the available evidence, Antarctica has generally been thought to have been covered by ice for at least the past 14 million years. Recently, however, three-million-year-old fossils of a kind previously found only in ocean-floor sediments were discovered under the ice sheet covering central Antarctica. About three million years could have melted the ice sheet, thus raising sea levels and submerging the continent.

What this question is testing

Main Conclusion

Conclusion

The author wants you to walk away believing this: the Antarctic ice sheet, which scientists thought had been there for 14 million years straight, must have temporarily melted around three million years ago.

Evidence

The author has two pieces of support: (1) fossils typically found in ocean-floor sediments turned up under the ice — meaning at some point that area was ocean, not ice; and (2) either volcanic activity or warming would have been physically capable of causing such a melt.

Evaluate

The trick on Main Conclusion questions: read for "therefore," "thus," and the phrase that follows "after all" (which signals support, not conclusion). Here, "therefore, the ice sheet must temporarily have melted" is what the author wants you to believe. Everything else is either background ("scientists used to think...") or support ().

That main conclusion can be restated as: the ice has not been continuously present for the past 14 million years — because it melted at the three-million-year mark.

Goal

The answer should match: the ice sheet has not been continuously present throughout the past 14 million years.

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

The question
16.

Which one of the following is the main conclusion of

Answer choices

  1. Bad Conclusion Match12% picked this

    Antarctica is no longer generally thought to have been covered by ice for the past

    This is about what is "generally thought" — a claim about people's current beliefs. The author's conclusion is about what actually happened to the ice sheet, not about how widespread some belief is. (And in fact, the stimulus opens with "has generally been thought" — there is no evidence the author is making a sociological claim about whether the belief is now generally held.) Off target.

  2. Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

    It is not the case that ancient fossils of the kind recently found in Antarctica are found

    This is a side claim about where these fossils can be found, not the author's main point. The author uses the fossils as evidence to argue something about the ice sheet — that it must have melted. The claim about fossil distribution is a stepping stone, not the destination.

  3. Correct75% picked this

    The ice sheet covering Antarctica has not been continuously present throughout the past

    Why this is right

    This is exactly the main conclusion. The author argues that the ice sheet must have temporarily melted three million years ago — which is just to say that the ice has not been continuously present for the last 14 million years. The author signals it with "therefore," and the rest of the stimulus (background about prior belief, plus "after all" supporting reasons) all serves this claim.

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

  4. Bad Conclusion Match5% picked this

    What caused Antarctica to be submerged under the sea was the melting of the ice sheet that had

    This claim — that ice melting caused the submersion — appears in the stimulus only as part of the supporting "after all" reasoning, not as the main point. The author is concluding that the ice melted, not making a separate point about what specifically caused the continent to submerge. (The submersion is part of the chain explaining how the fossils ended up where they did.)

  5. Bad Conclusion Match8% picked this

    The ice sheet covering Antarctica was melted either as a result of volcanic activity in Antarctica’s mountains or as a

    This identifies why the ice would have melted (volcanic activity or climatic warming) — but that's the author's supporting evidence, not the conclusion. The conclusion is that the ice melted. The "either ... or" sentence is offered after "after all," which is a premise indicator.

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