Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT124 S1 Q20 Explanation

Biologist: Lions and tigers

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

TopicsSufficient Assumption

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

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

Biologist: Lions and tigers are so similar to each other anatomically that their skeletons are virtually indistinguishable. But their behaviors are known to be quite different: tigers hunt only as solitary individuals, whereas lions hunt in packs. Thus, paleontologists cannot reasonably infer solely on animals, such as certain dinosaurs, hunted in packs.

What this question is testing

Sufficient Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption that, if added, guarantees the conclusion follows.

Common trap

Answers that only partly bridge the gap, leaving the conclusion unproven.

Winning move

Identify the new term in the conclusion and pick the choice that links it to the evidence.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
20.

The conclusion is properly drawn if which one of the following

Answer choices

  1. Too Weak7% picked this

    The skeletons of lions and tigers are at least somewhat similar in structure in certain key respects to the skeletons of at

    This comparison draws a common thread between lions, tigers, and some extinct predators, but leaves open the possibility that some skeletal features are unique enough to determine whether those extinct predatory animals hunted in packs.

  2. Too Weak17% picked this

    There have existed at least two species of extinct predatory dinosaurs that were so similar to each other that their

    The similarity between the skeletal anatomy between the two extinct predatory animals may also have a characteristic that would enable paleontologists to determine whether they hunted in packs.

  3. Correct67% picked this

    If skeletal anatomy alone is ever an inadequate basis for inferring a particular species' hunting behavior, then it is never reasonable to infer, based

    Why this is right

    This ensures that what is true of lions and tigers is also true for extinct predatory animals, such as dinosaurs.

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

  4. Reversed Comparison5% picked this

    If any two animal species with virtually indistinguishable skeletal anatomy exhibit quite different hunting behaviors, then it is never reasonable to infer, based solely

    The issue isn’t whether paleontologists could infer that two species have the same skeletal anatomy, but rather whether they could infer the hunting behavior of those extinct predatory animals based solely on their skeletal anatomy.

  5. Weakens5% picked this

    If it is unreasonable to infer, solely on the basis of differences in skeletal anatomy, that extinct animals of two distinct species differed in

    This would suggest that if the skeletal remains were not indistinguishable, then it would be reasonable to infer differences in hunting behavior of two distinct species of extinct animals based on differences in skeletal remains.

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