Logical Reasoning

PT132 · S4 · Q4 Paleontologists recently excavated two

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

Paleontologists recently excavated two corresponding sets of dinosaur tracks, one left by a large grazing dinosaur and the other by a smaller predatory dinosaur.

Conclusion (this suggests that)

The predatory dinosaur was chasing the grazing dinosaur and attacked immediately afterwards.

Evidence

There were two sets of tracks, one from a grazing dino and one from a predatory dino, that seemed to make abrupt turns in tandem, suggesting that the predator was following the grazing dino and matching its stride.

Modern predatory mammals match stride of prey right before they strike those prey.

Evaluate

The keywords of "this suggests that" always indicate a conclusion. We can feel good calling that last sentence the Main Conclusion, since all the previous ideas are support for it.

(Usually, the conclusion does not show up in the last claim when we're doing Main Conclusion or Role questions, but because this is earlier in the section, they're not going to great lengths to be sneaky about hiding the conclusion).

They're asking about the second half of the second sentence, which followed the modifier "suggesting that". So this second half of the second sentence is also a Conclusion.

Why should we believe that ?

Because, the two sets of tracks make abrupt turns repeatedly in tandem.

Goal

Since everything leading up to the last sentence is Support for the Main Conclusion in that last sentence, we could call the claim they're asking us about things like Support, Evidence, Premise.

But we could also call it an Intermediate Conclusion, also known as Subsidiary Conclusion / Supported Premise

4.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the statement that the predatory dinosaur was following the grazing dinosaur and had matched its stride?

  1. It helps establish the scientific

    Opposite: not evidence

    The claim that "the predator was following the grazing dino and matching its stride" is definitely evidence for the conclusion that "the predatory dino was chasing the grazing dino and attacked afterwards". We could also reject this answer since it doesn't establish any "scientific importance".

    7% picked this

  2. It is a hypothesis that

    Opposite: rejected

    Our author definitely isn't rejecting this idea; it's part of how she arrives at her conclusion!

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    It provides the basis for

    Why this is right

    This acknowledges, in a complicated way, that this claim was part of the author's support. Since the second to last sentence talks about modern predators (they match stride before striking) in order to then lead into a conclusion about extinct dino predators (this dino predator was matching stride before striking), we can say that the argument employs an analogy. The modern predator example is saying: match stride comes right before attack The claim they're asking us provides the basis that the dino predator was matching stride, so that we can use the analogy to get to the conclusion that the dino predator's footprints were right before they attacked the grazing dino.

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

    82% picked this

  4. It is presented to counteract

    Out of Scope: possible objection

    There aren't any hints of possible objections being discussed in this paragraph. It's just a linear, "here are these tracks, and this is our interpretation" type of argument.

    2% picked this

  5. It is the overall conclusion

    Wrong Role

    The main conclusion is the final sentence. The claim we're being asked about "the predator was following the grazing dino and had matched its stride" combines with "modern predators match stride when chasing, right before they pounce" in order to support the final sentence: the predator was chasing, right before it pounced.

    8% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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