Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT132 S3 P2 Q9 Explanation

Late Heavy Bombardment

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsAuthor's AttitudeScience

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

A vigorous debate in astronomy centers on an epoch in planetary history that was first identified by analysis of rock samples obtained in lunar missions. Scientists discovered that the major craters on the Moon were created by a vigorous bombardment of debris approximately four billion years ago—the so-called late heavy bombardment (LHB). of Earth since, until the LHB ended, life could not have survived here.

Various theoretical approaches have been developed to account for both the evidence gleaned from samples of Moon rock collected during lunar explorations and the size and distribution of craters on the Moon. Since the sizes of LHB craters suggest they were formed by large bodies, some astronomers believe that the LHB was Earth-Moon system, because the debris from such an event would have been swept up relatively quickly.

New support for the hypothesis that a late bombardment extended throughout the inner solar system has been found in evidence from the textural features and chemical makeup of a meteorite that has been found on Earth. It seems to be a rare example of a Mars rock that made its way to more such rocks and perhaps obtain surface samples from other planets in the inner solar system.

What this question is testing

Author's Attitude

Anticipate

This is an Author's Attitude question about how the author treats arguments based on the Mars rock. The author calls it support for one of the theories — but immediately says scientists need more rocks and ideally samples from other planets before drawing strong conclusions. That's a careful "yes, but" attitude, not skepticism and not full acceptance.

Goal

Looking for an answer that captures caution about generalizing from one piece of evidence. Be wary of:

Skepticism answers — the author isn't doubting the rock's origin or relevance

Full acceptance answers — the author explicitly asks for more evidence

Curiosity / ambivalence answers — those don't capture the author's "more data needed" point

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
9.

The author’s attitude toward arguments that might be based on the evidence of the rock mentioned in the passage as being from Mars (third paragraph) can

Answer choices

  1. Wrong View6% picked this

    ambivalence because the theory of the rock's migration to Earth is at once both appealing

    The author isn't torn between finding the theory appealing and finding it hard to believe — the author treats the Mars-rock claim as plausible, just under-supported. Ambivalence implies mixed feelings about the evidence itself; the author's only reservation is sample size.

  2. Correct79% picked this

    caution because even if the claims concerning the rock's origins can be proven, it is unwise to draw

    Why this is right

    The author endorses the rock as suggestive evidence ("This tiny piece of evidence suggests…") but follows immediately with the warning that "to determine the pervasiveness of the LHB, scientists will need to locate many more such rocks and perhaps obtain surface samples from other planets." That is exactly caution: even if the rock's origin is correct, broad conclusions need more evidence.

    Skill tested: Author's Attitude · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  3. Wrong View6% picked this

    skepticism because it seems unlikely that a rock could somehow make its way from Mars to

    The author calls the rock a "tiny piece of evidence" that "suggests" interesting things, but doesn't express skepticism that a rock could travel from Mars to Earth. The author accepts that scenario as plausible enough to talk about its implications.

  4. Out of Scope5% picked this

    curiosity because many details of the rock's interplanetary travel, its chemical analysis, and its dating analysis have

    The passage doesn't mention unpublished details about the rock's travel or chemistry. The author's expressed concern is about how few such rocks have been found, not about disclosure of analysis details.

  5. Opposite3% picked this

    outright acceptance because the origins of the rock have been

    "Outright acceptance" because origins are "sufficiently corroborated" is the opposite of the author's actual stance — the author explicitly calls for more rocks and surface samples from other planets before drawing conclusions.

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