Logical Reasoning

PT116 · S3 · Q10 Recently, photons and neutrinos emitted

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

Start practicing free

Recently, photons and neutrinos emitted by a distant supernova, an explosion of a star, reached Earth at virtually the same time.

Conclusion (this finding supports)

Gravity is a property of space; a body exerts gravitational pull by curving the space around it.

Evidence

Photons and neutrinos emitted by a distant supernova reached Earth at virtually the same time.

Simultaneous arrival suggests that they traveled through curved space.

Evaluate

Why does the simultaneous arrival of photons and neutrinos from a distantly exploding star provide support for the idea they traveled through curved space?

Curved space means they'd arrive at the same time, but flat space means they'd arrive at different times?

There's no common sense to engage with here. LSAT wouldn't expect us to know or comment on how different topographic shapes to the universe would impact the travel time of photons vs. neutrinos.

So what are we supposed to do with this argument? Maybe there are alternate ways to interpret the simultaneous arrival and the correct answer will rule out an alternate way (so that we're more confident that space was curved).

Maybe it's a gap between,

So maybe we're gonna rule out an alternate explanation for why space would be curved?

Goal

Hard to know what to predict, but we'll remind ourselves of the reasoning flow here and try to make any part of it seem more plausible.

Photon/neutrino → space is → bodies exert grav pull arrive same time curved by curving space

10.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the reasoning above?

  1. Einstein predicted that photons and

    No Impact

    The fact that Einstein predicted simultaneous arrival doesn't mean that simultaneous arrival supports one of his other predictions (bodies exert gravitational pull by curving space). In a diffuse way, Einstein seems like a more credible authority when we hear that one of his predictions was correct, but this answer doesn't directly connect the simultaneous arrival to the prediction we're actually evaluating (whether bodies exert grav pull by curving space).

    12% picked this

  2. Correct

    If gravity is not a

    Why this is right

    Since this is regurgitating concepts from the stimulus, we want to evaluate it as a linking answer. Is it properly moving from Evidence to Conclusion/Assumption? When we contrapose this answer, it says "If photons and neutrinos emitted at the same time by a distant event reach Earth at the same time, then gravity is a property of space itself." Well, the recent finding was that P's / N's from a distant supernova reached Earth at the same time. So according to this rule, gravity is a property of space itself, as Einstein claimed. So we've basically proven the conclusion! That's rare for a Strengthen question, but that's definitely the ultimate form of strengthening.

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

    79% picked this

  3. Photons and neutrinos emitted by

    Opposite

    This contraposes to say, "If P's and N's emitted by distant events are detectable on Earth, then Einstein's claim is incorrect.' The P's and N's emitted by the distant supernova were detectable on Earth, so according to this rule, Einstein is wrong. This basically refutes the conclusion.

    2% picked this

  4. Photons and neutrinos were the

    No Impact

    Whether photons and neutrinos were the only kinds of particles detected from the supernova doesn't bear on whether their simultaneous arrival supports Einstein. Other particles being detected (or not) doesn't change the argument's reasoning about these two.

    2% picked this

  5. Prior to the simultaneous arrival

    No Impact

    Whether earlier evidence existed for Einstein's claim doesn't affect whether this observation supports it. The argument is only about whether the simultaneous arrival strengthens Einstein's claim. The existence of non-existence of other evidence for Einstein's claim has no bearing on that debate.

    5% 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