Logical Reasoning

PT132 · S2 · Q8 A leading critic of space

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

A leading critic of space exploration contends that it would be wrong, given current technology, to send a group of explorers to Mars, since the explorers would be unlikely to survive the trip.

Conclusion

Explorers would be likely to survive the trip to Mars.

Evidence

There would be a robust backup system in place at every stage of the journey. And with that backup system in place, a fatal accident is unlikely at any given stage.

Evaluation

This one is a tough nut to crack: if the astronauts are likely to survive every stage, given the backup system, how could we fight the conclusion and argue that they are unlikely to survive the trip?

A conversational example would be something like shoplifting. It's not that hard to run into a 7/11, grab a drink, and run. You'll usually get away with it. But even though each individual act of shoplifting is likely to be successful, a chronic shoplifter is still likely to get caught. That's because the more you engage in a behavior that carries risk (even a small risk), the more likely it is that at some point something bad happens.

The actual math behind it is more complex than anything we have to usually face on LSAT. If you wanted to know the probability of getting heads three times in a row, you take the probability of getting heads each time (50%, or 1/2) and multiply it three times: 1/2 * 1/2 *1/2 = 1/8 = 12.5% probability of getting heads three times in a row.

If each stage in this journey had a 70% likelihood of survival, then surviving three such stages in a row would be 7/10 * 7/10 * 7/10 = 343/1000 = 34.3% chance of surviving all three stages. So even though surviving each stage is likely, one would be unlikely (lower than 50%) to survive all three stages.

Goal

We need an answer that gets at this idea that even if each stage is most likely not going to result in death, it might still be unlikely for astronauts to make it through all the stages safely.

8.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument

  1. Correct

    infers that something is true

    Why this is right

    Is the conclusion saying that something is true of a whole? Yes, although it's tricky to see. The author is saying that explorers are likely to survive the whole trip to Mars. Is the evidence saying that the explorers are likely to survive each part of the trip? Yes, this is where we really see this answer has a chance -- the main premise is that "at any given stage, they're likely to survive". Each stage might have a survival probability over 50%, but that doesn't mean that the whole trip has a survival probability over 50% This answer describes the famous flaw Part vs. Whole.

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

    58% picked this

  2. infers that something cannot occur

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Does the conclusion say that something cannot occur? Not at all. It says that explorers are likely to survive the trip to Mars. We can stop reading the answer at this point.

    17% picked this

  3. draws a conclusion about what

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Does the conclusion say that something must be the case? Not at all. It says that explorers are likely to survive the trip to Mars. We can stop reading the answer at this point.

    4% picked this

  4. infers that something will work

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Does the conclusion say that something will work? Nope. It says that explorers are likely to survive the trip to Mars. We can stop reading the answer at this point.

    15% picked this

  5. rejects a view merely on

    Bad Premise Match

    The author does reject a view: "That exaggerates the risk". But is the evidence saying "the leading critic's argument is flawed in this way"? No. The evidence is introducing the author's own premises about the backup system and the high likelihood of surviving each stage. Our author never attacks the rationale of the leading critic. This answer describes the famous flaw known as Unproven vs. Proven False.

    5% 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