Logical Reasoning

PT132 · S4 · Q10 Science journalist: Europa, a moon

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

Science journalist: Europa, a moon of Jupiter, is covered with ice.

Conclusion

It's likely that at least primitive life has evolved on Europa.

Evidence

Life can evolve only in the presence of liquid water, and there seems to be liquid water on Europa.

Evaluate

This argument essentially works like this: Prem 1: In order to have X, you must have Y. Prem 2: Bob has Y. Conc: Bob likely has X.

We can see how silly this argument is by using a real world example: P1: In order to have an AMEX Black card, you must have a bank account. P2: Bob has a bank account. Conc: Bob probably has an AMEX Black card.

Just because you meet one requirement for an AMEX Black card doesn't mean you're suddenly likely to have one.

Your bank account might need to have a minimum balance of $100,000. You might need to have a credit score of at least 750.

Similarly, just because Europa has water doesn't mean it's more than half of the way to having life.

Maybe you also need proteins, amino acids, an ozone layer to filter out destructive layers of UV radiation, etc.

Goal

Look for an answer saying, "Just because Europa meets one of the requirements for life doesn't mean we get to immediately assume there's probably life there. There might be other requirements for life that we know Europa doesn't possess.

10.

The science journalist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. takes for granted that if

    Bad Conclusion Match Not a Flaw

    The author takes for granted that if a condition would be necessary for the evolution of life as we know it, then any place that satisfies that condition is likely to have at least primitive life. The first part matches Evidence (water is required for life as we know it), and the second part is supposed to match Conclusion (Europa probably has life). This answer accuses the author of concluding "Every planet without water cannot possibly have life as we know it". Not only does that not even resemble our actual conclusion, it's not at all flawed to say that. If a condition would be necessary for X, then X could not exist anywhere that this condition does not hold.

    10% picked this

  2. Correct

    fails to address adequately the

    Why this is right

    Can we hurt this argument by saying, "Yo, author --- there are things in addition to liquid water that are required for life to evolve"? Absolutely. Supposed someone said, "Harvard Law requires that you have at least a 2.0 GPA in order to be admitted. Maria has higher than a 2.0 GPA. Thus, Maria is likely to be admitted to Harvard." We'd say, "she also needs at least a 150 on her LSAT. Does she have that? She also needs to write a good personal statement. Did she do that?" When an author treats a necessary condition as though it's sufficient (or in this case, as though it's likely to be sufficient), they're failing to consider that there might be other requirements as well, which might not be met.

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

    79% picked this

  3. takes for granted that life

    Not an Assumption

    This answer is saying the author refuses to believe that there could ever be life on Europa that evolved somewhere else (for example, maybe there are some spores of bacteria on a meteorite that crashes into Europa, and the bacteria manage to survive). Our author wasn't talking about anything resembling that sort of scenario, where life comes to Europa from somewhere else. So we have no way to say our author assumes it's impossible for that to happen. This answer is objecting to an argument that would have sounded like this: "We found life on Europa. So, apparently, life can evolve on Europa."

    2% picked this

  4. overlooks the possibility that there

    Doesn't Overlook

    The author doesn't overlook that possibility. By saying "Life as we know it could only evolve in the presence of water", the author is allowing for the possibility that some form of life we don't know might be able to evolve w/o water. Even if we miss that phrase, we wouldn't pick this, because it's not an objection to this author to say that "Yo, author --- there might be some weird forms of life that evolve without water being present." He'd be like, "Okay. What does that have to do my claim that there is life on Europa, where water is present?"

    5% picked this

  5. takes for granted that no

    Too Strong: nothing else could account

    The author's language isn't as extreme as this answer suggests. He says that the data transmitted strongly suggests that there is liquid water, which means he has allowed for the possibility that there isn't actually liquid water and that the ice is there for some other reason.

    3% 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