Logical Reasoning

PT126 · S4 · Q26 Astronomer: I have asserted that

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

Astronomer: I have asserted that our solar system does not contain enough meteoroids and other cosmic debris to have caused the extensive cratering on the far side of the moon.

Conclusion

My opponents should admit that I'm correct (that our solar system doesn't have enough random debris to cause the extensive cratering on the far side of the Moon).

Evidence

My opponents have failed to refute me. Their evidence is inconclusive.

Evaluation

Okay, just because they failed to refute you doesn't mean you're right. Maybe you think that Trump conspired with Putin over the 2016 election. I can't conclusively prove that you're wrong. But that doesn't prove that you're right.

This type of reasoning is a famous flaw called Unproven vs. Proven False.

Goal

Look for an answer saying,

26.

The reasoning in the astronomer's argument is flawed because this argument

  1. criticizes the astronomer’s opponents rather

    Bad Evidence Match

    The author never criticizes the opponents. He says that "their arguments have failed, proving that I'm correct." This answer refers to the famous flaw Ad Hominem.

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    infers the truth of the

    Why this is right

    Is the author's conclusion saying her thesis is true? Yes, "they should admit my thesis is correct". Is the only piece of evidence saying, "my thesis hasn't been proven false"? Yes.

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

    92% picked this

  3. ignores the possibility that alternative

    Opposite

    The author's thesis is actually agreeing that there must be some alternative explanation for the cratering, because there isn't enough debris in our solar system for THAT to be the explanation.

    5% picked this

  4. presumes that the astronomer’s thesis

    Bad Evidence Match

    There's nothing in the argument that suggests that our author thinks her thesis should never be rationally discussed or critiqued. She's just saying, the people who HAVE rationally discussed my thesis or ATTEMPTED to critique it haven't been able to disprove it. She's not saying they never should have tried in the first place.

    1% picked this

  5. fails to precisely define the

    Not a Flaw

    A precise definition of meteoroid has nothing to do with the reasoning problem in this argument. If we switched the argument to this, it would be the same flaw: My thesis is that the cratering on the Moon could not have been caused by cheeseballs. My opponents have not been able to prove my thesis is wrong; thus they must admit it is correct. We don't need LSAT authors to name their sources or provide precise definitions or measurements.

    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