Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT119 S3 Q18 Explanation

A seriously maladaptive trait is

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

TopicsRole

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

Start practicing free

Free to start

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

A seriously maladaptive trait is unlikely to persist in a given animal population for long, since there is enough genetic variation in populations that some members will lack the trait. Those lacking the trait will compete more successfully for the available resources. Hence these members higher rate, crowding out those with the maladaptive trait.

What this question is testing

Role

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
18.

The proposition that those lacking a maladaptive trait will compete more successfully for the available resources figures in the argument in which one

Answer choices

  1. Opposite: discredit1% picked this

    It expresses a view that the argument as a whole is

    We identified the 3rd claim as part of the Support. An author's argument isn't designed to discredit one of her premises.

  2. Wrong Role4% picked this

    It is the argument’s main

    The 1st claim, "Seriously maladaptive trait unlikely to persist for long", is the main conclusion. We know that the 3rd claim couldn't be the conclusion since no support is offered for this claim. "Why will those lacking the trait compete more successfully for the available resources?" It doesn't say, so it's not supported, so it's not any sort of conclusion.

  3. Correct75% picked this

    It is a premise of the

    Why this is right

    We identified it as one of the 3 premises (claims 2 through 4).

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

  4. Opposite: undermine1% picked this

    It presents evidence that the argument attempts

    We identified the 3rd claim as part of the Support. An author's argument isn't attempting to undermine one of her premises.

  5. Wrong Role19% picked this

    It is an intermediate conclusion of

    The intermediate conclusion is the final sentence, signified by the conclusion indicator Hence. We know that the 3rd claim couldn't be an intermediate conclusion because no support is offered for this claim. "Why will those lacking the trait compete more successfully for the available resources?" It doesn't say. Common sense tells us that those lacking the maladaptive trait are probably faster or stronger or can see better or smell better. That's why those lacking the trait will be able to get more resources than those with the trait. But since the argument didn't provide any support for this 3rd claim, we can't call it a conclusion.

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