Logical Reasoning

PT128 · S3 · Q5 Those who participate in risky

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

Those who participate in risky sports often do so to confront their fears.

Conclusion (so)

Confronting your fears probably increases your self-confidence.

Evidence

People who participate in risky sports often do so to confront their fears. Rock climbers are more likely than others to have once suffered from a fear of heights.

People who participate in risky sports also have more self-confidence than others.

Evaluate

The author is concluding a causal connection (X increases Y) between two things (confronting fear / higher self-confidence) based on the fact that both of those things are correlated with people who do risky sports.

The author's conclusion is trying to offer an explanation a curious comparison between risk-takers and the rest of the population, when it comes to self-confidence.

Curious Fact ... Why is it that people who do risky sports tend to have higher than average self-confidence?

Author's Explanation ... It's because they participate in risky sports to confront their fears, and confronting your fears increases your self-confidence.

Goal

As always, we can weaken an Explain Curious Fact argument two different ways:

(more common) 1. Suggest an Alternate Explanation for why people who do risky sports have higher than average self-confidence.

2. Hurt the plausibility of the Author's Explanation that people engage in a risky sport, in doing so confront their fears, and in doing so increase their self-confidence.

We know that the two classic Alternate Explanations are Reverse Causality and 3rd Factor, .

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the reasoning above?

Often those who suffer from
No Impact
The author wasn't assuming that people who suffer from fear of heights almost always have a correct self-assessment of that fear, so it doesn't hurt her argument to say that people often don't have a correct self-assessment. This answer isn't related to either of two goals: 1. suggest an alternate explanation for why "people who play risky sports have high self-confidence" 2. hurt the plausibility of the storyline that "many people play a risky sport, in doing so confront a fear, and because of that get a boost to their self-confidence".
10% picked this
Correct
In general, people who currently
Why this is right
This performs the 1st of our two possible goals: 1. suggest an alternate explanation for why "people who play risky sports have high self-confidence" 2. hurt the plausibility of the storyline that "many people play a risky sport, in doing so confront a fear, and because of that get a boost to their self-confidence". We get to say, "Hey, author the reason you're seeing that people who participate in risky sports have high self-confidence isn't because first they started doing risky activities, then confronting their fears caused a boost to their self-confidence. It's because first they had high-confidence, and then that led them to take on a risky activity that confronts their fear." In other words, this answer provides the alternate explanation of Reverse Causality, for the correlation between "risky sport participant" and "high self-confidence".
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
84% picked this
Most people who refrain from
No Impact
We don't really have any interest in people who don't play risky sports. We already know that they have less self-confidence on average than those who do play risky sports. We don't care for what reason it is that they're not engaging in risky sports. We need an answer to perform one of these two functions, both of which are about people who do play risky sports. 1. suggest an alternate explanation for why "people who play risky sports have high self-confidence" 2. hurt the plausibility of the storyline that "many people play a risky sport, in doing so confront a fear, and because of that get a boost to their self-confidence".
2% picked this
Participating in risky sports is
No Impact
An answer this weak, "there's at least one other example", would usually not be correct on any problem that wants the most impactful answer (Strengthen, Weaken, Paradox, Suff Assump). Saying that there are other ways to confront fears besides risky sports performs neither of our two goals: 1. suggest an alternate explanation for why "people who play risky sports have high self-confidence" 2. hurt the plausibility of the storyline that "many people play a risky sport, in doing so confront a fear, and because of that get a boost to their self-confidence".
3% picked this
Most of those who do
No Impact
We don't really have any interest in people who don't play risky sports. We don't care for what reason it is that they're not engaging in risky sports. We need an answer to perform one of these two functions, both of which are about people who do play risky sports. 1. suggest an alternate explanation for why "people who play risky sports have high self-confidence" 2. hurt the plausibility of the storyline that "many people play a risky sport, in doing so confront a fear, and because of that get a boost to their self-confidence".
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