Logical Reasoning

PT120 · S4 · Q4 The purpose of the physical

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

The purpose of the physical sciences is to predict the order in which events will succeed one another.

Conclusion

Even successful predictions of human behavior do not provide an understanding of it.

Rephrase: Successful predictions of human behavior do not constitute an understanding of that behavior.

Evidence (for)

Understanding a human action requires knowing its goal. Such knowledge of goals either cannot or need not be obtained in the case of nonhuman behavior.

Evaluate

Like most Main Conclusion questions, there is a Pivot (but/yet/however) that signals the beginning of the author's argument.

We know that we're getting "However, conclusion. After all, evidence" rather than "However, evidence. Therefore, conclusion" because the claim after the "However" is prefaced by a support indicator "for", which is part of FABS (for, after all, because, since).

The concluding claim sounds like the author's opinion and is directly supported by the subsequent evidence about understanding human actions requiring knowledge of goals. This matches the typical pattern where the main conclusion is a rebuttal introduced by a pivot word.

Goal

Find the best available meaning match for .

4.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the argument's conclusion?

  1. Correct

    Successful predictions of human behavior

    Why this is right

    Answer choice (A) matches our rephrased conclusion and captures the argument's main point about the distinction between prediction and understanding in human behavior.

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

    86% picked this

  2. One cannot predict an instance

    Opposing Idea

    This contradicts the author's perspective by suggesting a necessity for understanding goals to predict behavior, which was not claimed in the passage.

    7% picked this

  3. In some cases, but not

    Inference-Bait

    This introduces an unstated idea, so it shouldn't be tempting as a match for our conclusion. Its weak language is meant to bait people who think they're doing a Most Supported question, rather than being asked to point to the explicit claim that counts as the Main Conclusion.

    3% picked this

  4. The goal of the physical

    Background

    This restates a background fact about physical sciences, but does not capture the main conclusion, which concerns the nature of understanding human behavior.

    4% picked this

  5. The methods used to predict

    Assumption-Bait

    This was never stated, so it should be unappealing as a match for our explicit conclusion. They are trying to bait us with something ELSE the author would probably believe. If she thinks that understanding human behavior requires knowing its goal, which is a psychological fact not a physical fact, then she would probably agree that predicting human behavior necessitates thinking about psychological states.

    0% 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