Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S2 · Q1 The tidal range at a particular

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

The tidal range at a particular location is the difference in height between high tide and low tide.

Conclusion

The magnitudes of tidal ranges must be explained entirely by gravitational forces.

Evidence

The only forces involved in inducing the tides are the sun's and moon's gravity.

Evaluate

Given that ... only gravitational forces (from the sun and moon) are involved in inducing tidal ranges,

How could we argue that ... there are non-gravitational forces that affect the magnitude of tidal ranges?

To induce something means to trigger it, to start it. In maternity wards around the world, doctors and nurses will induce labor with a drug if it's not happening on its own.

The magnitude of something is its scale. In this case, it's the difference between high tide and low tide.

Is it possible that only X is involved in starting something, but other factors besides X affect the scale of how that thing plays out?

Sure. The catalyst of something doesn't have to be the only thing determining its shape / scale. Maybe without the sun and moon, there'd be no such thing as a tidal range. But maybe other things affect how big that tidal range is (such as weather / strong winds / local underwater topography ... i.e. does the beach slowly ramp down to the ocean floor or reach a cliff's edge where it suddenly drops a ton).

If Max went around town shoving people down to the ground, we could say that he's the only force involved in inducing people falling to the ground, but is the magnitude of people's fall entirely determined by Max?

No, it might matter how heavy they are. Whether they're standing near a stairwell. Whether they're standing on soft ground vs. concrete.

Goal

Look for an answer addressing the fact that even though one thing (gravity) is responsible for starting some action/event, other factors could still contribute to the size of that action/event.

1.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning above?

  1. It gives only one example

    Never a Flaw

    It is true that the argument provided only one example, but we'll never be arguing with an author that they "needed to provide X amount of examples", unless the author was specifically saying, "At least two people in my family can dunk a basketball" and only supplied one example of someone who could. The Bay of Fundy line isn't even part of the reasoning, in this argument. It's just a background fact.

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    It fails to consider that

    Why this is right

    When a Flaw answer choice begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether, if true, it would weaken. Could we hurt this argument by saying, "Yo, author -- the magnitude of a tidal range could be affected by the conditions in which gravitational forces act"? Sure, that could actually contradict the conclusion! The conclusion is saying the magnitude is 100% explained by gravitational forces, but according to this objection, it could be partially explained by environmental factors also (such as weather, topography, altitude, etc.)

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

    74% picked this

  3. It does not consider the

    Irrelevant Objection

    When a Flaw answer choice begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether, if true, it would weaken. Could we hurt this argument by saying, "Yo, author -- low tides are measured in a different way than high tides are"? It doesn't seem like that does anything. The author's conclusion doesn't care how they're measured. The evidence never suggested that low and high tide need to be measured the same way. Can we get from "low tide is measured differently from high tide" to "the magnitude of tidal ranges is explained at least partly by non-gravitational forces"? No, this answer is only talking about how we attain our measurement of magnitude. It isn't speaking at all to what causes varying magnitudes of tidal ranges.

    4% picked this

  4. It presumes, without providing warrant,

    Not Assumed Too Strong: most

    When a Flaw answer choice begins with presumes / takes for granted, we can ask ourselves whether the author really needed to assume that idea. Did the author need to assume that "most activity in the ocean is a result of gravitational forces?" No, the author is only talking about tidal range. He doesn't have to assume anything about any other activity in the ocean (other than he's assuming that no activities in the ocean affect the magnitude of tidal ranges) .

    17% picked this

  5. It does not differentiate between

    Irrelevant Objection

    That's true, the author did not differentiate between them. Does it matter? Could we hurt this argument by saying, "Yo, author -- the tidal effect of the sun's gravity is different from the tidal effect of the moon's gravity ... so maybe the magnitude of tidal range is explained at least partly by non-gravitational forces"? No, because the tidal effect of the sun and the moon are both gravitational forces.

    3% picked this

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