Logical Reasoning

PT119 · S4 · Q4 Anne: Halley’s Comet, now in

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

Anne: Halley’s Comet, now in a part of its orbit relatively far from the Sun, recently flared brightly enough to be seen by telescope.

Anne's Conclusion (so)

The recent super-bright flare of Halley's Comet so far from the sun must be very unusual.

Anne's Evidence

No comet has ever been observed by telescope so far from the Sun before.

Sue's Conclusion

Nonsense. The super-bright flare isn't necessarily unusual.

Sue's Evidence

Usually we wouldn't be looking in that direction (so we have no idea how rare or common such flares are that distance from the Sun). We just happened to be watching Halley's Comet on its whole trip in and out of our Solar System, so we saw it flare it up.

Evaluate

In the vernacular of Method questions, we usually think about whether the argument ever did one of these things: - analogy - bad implications - (counter)example to general - calls out dubious assumption - raises overlooked consideration - makes a definition / distinction - suggests alternate explanation - rules out other options

This one felt like a "raises overlooked consideration / alternate explanation" one. Sue is saying,

Goal

Look for something that matches.

4.

Sue challenges Anne's reasoning by

  1. pointing out that Anne’s use

    Out of Scope: vague term

    Sue doesn't say anything about "observed" being a vague term. They're both using the term observed.

    2% picked this

  2. drawing attention to an inconsistency

    Out of Scope: vague term

    Sue doesn't say anything about "observed" being a vague term. They're both using the term observed in the same way.

    2% picked this

  3. presenting evidence that directly contradicts

    Too Strong: contradicts

    When we describe the method of response, there's almost always an answer choice (99.9% wrong) that says the 2nd person "denied / refuted / contradicted the 1st person's evidence". We know it's not LSAT's style to contradict evidence. Sue accepts Anne's evidence but offers a different causal interpretation of it. "I agree that we've never seen such a visible flare so far from the Sun before, but maybe it's because we're never looking in that area, not because it's rare for it to happen".

    8% picked this

  4. Correct

    offering an alternative explanation for

    Why this is right

    Sue is saying, "I agree that we've never seen such a visible flare so far from the Sun before, but maybe it's because we're never looking in that area, not because it's rare for such flares to happen".

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

    84% picked this

  5. undermining some of Anne’s evidence

    Contradicted: agree with conclusion

    Sue's "Nonsense" shows that she does not agree with the conclusion. There's only one piece of evidence for Anne (no one had ever observed a flare so visible that was so far from the Sun). Sue accepts that fact; she doesn't try to undermine it. She undermines the inference that Anne draws from that evidence.

    4% 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