Logical Reasoning

PT116 · S2 · Q2 Essayist: Earth is a living

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

Essayist: Earth is a living organism, composed of other organisms much as animals are composed of cells, not merely a thing upon which creatures live.

Conclusion

Earth is a living organism, not merely a thing upon which creatures live.

Evidence (this is supported by the fact that)

Earth, like all organisms, can be said to have a metabolism and to regulate its temperature, humidity, and other characteristics, divorced from the influences of its surroundings.

Naturally, Earth does not literally breathe, but neither do insects (which have no lungs), and they still respire successfully.

Evaluate

Whenever we do Role and Main Conclusion, we remind ourselves that the conclusion will be the First Sentence or a Rebuttal about 90% of the time.

Here, the conclusion is the first sentence, signified by the transition into the 2nd sentence which cues us that what follows.

We're being asked about the claim that "insects do not literally breathe". That doesn't seem like a Premise supporting the idea that "Earth is a living organism", but it's not an Opposing idea either. Superficially, it seems irrelevant. Why was it talked about?

In the final sentence the author makes a concession, signified by concession wording: . Concessions are when the author acknowledges a potential objection someone might make to their reasoning.

Someone who doesn't think that Earth is a living organism might say,

The author would respond by saying,

Goal

Look for something in the realm of .

The assertion that insects do not literally breathe plays which one of the following roles in the essayist's argument?

Correct
a reason for not rejecting
Why this is right
This gets at the "Shooting down an Anticipated Objection" vibe we were looking for. An opponent of the author might say, "Earth does not deserve the status of being considered a living organism. After all, it doesn't breathe." The author can say, "Just because something doesn't breathe doesn't prove that it isn't a living organism. After all, insects don't breathe (and they are clearly living organisms)."
Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
88% picked this
a reason for rejecting as
Opposite
The author's conclusion is that "Earth is a living organism". If we rejected as false the belief that "Earth is a living organism", we would be rejecting the author's conclusion as false. And this answer is saying that "the claim that insects can't breathe was meant to help reject the author's conclusion". We can tell that wasn't the role, since the author is the one volunteering the idea that insects can't breathe. Why would she volunteer a reason to reject her conclusion as false? We can also just evaluate the internal logic of this answer. If someone is rejecting as false the belief that Earth is a living organism, that person is arguing: Earth is not a living organism. Why should we believe them? Could they say, "One reason you should believe that Earth is not a living organism is that insects do not breathe." No, that sounds nonsensical.
3% picked this
an illustration of the general
Unrelated to Metabolism
The final sentence about breathing has nothing to do with illustrating the claim that all organisms have metabolisms. It has to do with an incorrect assumption some people might have that "all organisms can breathe".
3% picked this
an example of a type
Opposite
The author is bringing up insects as an example of an organism whose status is clear. We all know that insects are living organisms, so the fact that insects can't breathe shows us that you don't need to be able to breathe to qualify as a living organism.
3% picked this
an illustration of a type
Wrong Role
When the author says "insects can't breathe", she is involved in shooting down the objection that "Earth can't be considered a living organism, since Earth can't breathe." She is not trying to illustrate the types of organisms that comprise Earth.
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