Logical Reasoning

PT120 · S1 · Q6 Recent investigations of earthquakes have

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

Recent investigations of earthquakes have turned up a previously unknown type of seismic shock, known as a displacement pulse, which is believed to be present in all earthquakes.

Background

In all earthquakes there is a seismic shock known as a displacement pulse, and high-rise buildings are especially vulnerable to them (according to computer models).

Surprise

When we examine high-rise buildings in cities damaged by recent powerful earthquakes, there doesn't seem to be much significant damage to the buildings.

Evaluate / Goal

Given that .... high rise buildings are especially vulnerable to displacement pulses How come ... the high rise buildings in cities damaged by powerful earthquakes aren't showing much damage?

Since we already know a "negative distinction" when it comes to high-rise buildings (they're more likely to get rocked by a displacement pulse), if it turns out they're not getting damaged in earthquakes, then high-rise buildings must have some type of "positive distinction" that is protecting them.

6.

Which one of the following, if true, contributes to a resolution of the apparent paradox?

  1. Displacement pulses travel longer distances

    No Distinction

    This is distinguishing displacement pulses from other types of seismic shock, which we don't care about. We can't say "even though high-rise buildings are especially vulnerable to displacement pulses, displacement pulses aren't messing up these high-rise buildings, because displacement pulses travel longer distances than do other shocks." We need an answer to distinguish high-rise buildings from other buildings so that we can understand why these extra-vulnerable buildings are seeing little damage.

    8% picked this

  2. Correct

    Scientific predictions based on computer

    Why this is right

    Wow, what a weird answer. This resolves the paradox by saying our prediction that high-rise buildings are especially vulnerable was just an inaccurate prediction, from a flawed computer model. If we had reversed the order of the paradox, this answer would sound more appealing. Given that ... in cities hit by powerful earthquakes, the high-rise buildings suffer little damage, Why is it that ... our computer models say that these high-rise buildings should be especially vulnerable? Because ... predictions based on computer models are often wrong. Should we have known to rearrange the paradox into that order? Of course not. The vast majority of Paradox question end with the surprising claim that the correct answer helps to explain. However, it's good for us to remember that when we're just "resolving a paradox", there's a tension between two ideas, and there isn't any implicit rule for which one of those ideas we will "re-frame" in order to reconcile the paradox. Although the vast majority of the time we learn something that helps us understand how the 2nd idea could coexist with the 1st, there will be occasional correct answers such as this that help us understand how the 1st idea could coexist with the 2nd.

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

    72% picked this

  3. While displacement pulses have only

    Deepens Paradox, if anything

    This doesn't offer us a way to resolve the paradox. Since displacement pulses have always existed, they were definitely present in the "recent powerful earthquakes" that hit these cities. Since the high-rises weren't damaged too much, yet our computer models say they should be hit especially bad by displacement pulses, we're still living in the same state of confusion.

    4% picked this

  4. The displacement pulses made by

    Deepens Paradox, if anything

    Since these cities were hit by "powerful earthquakes", this answer is telling us that the displacement pulse hitting those high-rises would have been much more powerful than in a weaker quake. And given that the computer models say that high-rise buildings are especially vulnerable to these pulses, we're still (or even more) confused about why the high-rises didn't seem to be damaged by these recent earthquakes.

    15% picked this

  5. Computer models have been very

    Deepens Paradox, if anything

    This essentially does the opposite of (B). It makes us feel more trust in the accuracy of the model's prediction, and thus more confusion about why high-rises weren't damaged in these powerful earthquakes.

    1% 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