Logical Reasoning

PT131 · S1 · Q14 It would not be surprising

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

It would not be surprising to discover that the trade routes between China and the West were opened many centuries, even millennia, earlier than 200 B.C., contrary to what is currently believed.

Conclusion (opinion = not surprising)

It would not be surprising if the trade routes between China and the West were open way earlier than is currently thought (~2200 years ago).

Evidence (after all, and)

These trade routes were attractive because of their easily traversable terrain. This trait would have likely made it an attractive option for migrations that began one million years ago.

Evaluation

The conclusion is the first sentence, as is very common on Role and Main Conclusion questions. The "after all" tells us that what follows will be Support for that first sentence. The final sentence makes two claims, joined by an "and". 99% of the time "and" is connecting to supporting ideas.

Goal

The claim they're asking about is one of our two premises, for the conclusion that is found in the first sentence.

14.

That a migration from Africa and the Middle East to China occurred at least one million years ago figures in the above reasoning in which one of the following ways?

  1. It is cited as conclusive

    Too Strong: “conclusive”

    Too strong to call this conclusive evidence, when the conclusion’s wording is only as strong as “it wouldn’t be surprising”. Conclusive evidence means that it 100% proves the conclusion. If you have conclusive evidence, then the conclusion follows logically / is properly drawn / is properly inferred.

    6% picked this

  2. It is an intermediate conclusion

    Not Subsidiary Conclusion

    It is not a subsidiary conclusion, because no support is provided for it. Why should we believe that a migration from Africa / Middle East to China occurred a million years ago? The argument doesn’t provide any support for that idea, so it’s impossible to regard that claim as a conclusion.

    9% picked this

  3. Correct

    It is offered as evidence

    Why this is right

    It’s a premise (i.e. evidence/support) and the conclusion is the first sentence. This is a bit of a weird meaning match, but when we say that something "would not be surprising", we mean "it would very much match expectations", and thus it's a pretty fair match for saying "it something that could easily be true". Suppose we know that Tina attends law school at Yale. We might say, "It would not be surprising if Tina had a really high LSAT score. It would match my expectations if I found out that Tina had a high LSAT score. It could easily be true that Tina had a high LSAT score."

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

    83% picked this

  4. It is offered as evidence

    Unmentioned / Out of Scope: “preceded”

    The author never tries to differentiate a China ? Africa route from a China ? Middle East one. When our author brings up Africa and the Middle East, they are lumped together into the same timeframe.

    1% picked this

  5. It is the main conclusion

    Not The Conclusion

    The conclusion is the first sentence, not this claim. Any time two claims are joined by “and”, neither one of them is going to be the conclusion.

    2% 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