Logical Reasoning

PT124 · S2 · Q9 Phoebe: There have been many

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

Phoebe: There have been many reported sightings of strange glowing lights, but a number of these sightings have a straightforward, natural explanation.

Phoebe

A bunch of these sightings of strange glowing lights, ones clustered around the epicenter of three earthquakes, were probably earthquake lights, a form of ball lightning caused by stresses in the ground.

Quincy

I think that association between the lights and the quakes might just be a coincidence. The theory that ground stresses from earthquakes can cause lightning is super speculative.

Evaluate

Quincy seems to push back at Phoebe's conclusion (that these were glowing lights near earthquakes were ball lightning) by saying that Phoebe's evidence is sketchy.

She is declaring that as though that is an established science fact.

Quincy is saying,

Goal

Let's look for something like .

9.

In responding to Phoebe, Quincy

  1. takes a correlation to be

    Opposite

    Quincy is arguing, "I think this correlation is probably not a causal relation. It's just coincidence."

    7% picked this

  2. challenges the accuracy of the

    Out of Scope: challenges sightings

    Quincy isn't every challenging the idea that people sighted weird glowing lights. Quincy is only challenging Phoebe's explanation for what was causing those lights.

    11% picked this

  3. Correct

    criticizes Phoebe’s explanation as unsubstantiated

    Why this is right

    This is not lovable, but it's our best match for "Quincy said that Phoebe's evidence is sketchy." An "extremely speculative" theory is one that doesn't have any / much credible evidence yet. Thus it is unsubstantiated.

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

    77% picked this

  4. offers an explanation of the

    Out of Scope: alternate explanation

    We might have picked this thinking, Quincy is saying the real explanation is that it's just a coincidence. But "it's a coincidence" isn't an explanation for why there were glowing lights. It's an explanation for why glowing lights happened near the time / location of three earthquakes.

    4% picked this

  5. accuses Phoebe of introducing irrelevant

    Out of Scope: irrelevant

    Quincy isn't suggesting that Phoebe's evidence is irrelevant, because it refers to "ground stresses" which is relevant to earthquakes and "lightning" which is relevant to sighting of strange slowing lights. He's just saying we don't have any real scientific grasp of whether earthquakes ever cause any kind of lightning.

    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