Logical Reasoning

PT138 · S4 · Q9 In one study of a particular plant species

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

In one study of a particular plant species, 70 percent of the plants studied were reported as having patterned stems.

Background

One study of a plant species says 70% of them have patterned stems.

Surprising Fact

The second study, which covered the same basic area, showed only 40% had patterned stems.

Evaluation

We need some way to explain the different measurement, so the answer will have to give us a difference between the two studies that would account for 70% vs. 40%.

- time of day / lighting? - how well trained the researchers were? - how picky their criteria were? - how long they worked? etc.

9.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?

  1. The first study was carried

    Unclear Impact Out of Scope: "populous"

    We don't know if the second study was also carried out at the same time, so this answer doesn't offer a difference. Also, "most populous" would mean greatest in number, but since we're talking about percentages, the raw total doesn't matter.

    26% picked this

  2. The first study, but not

    No Impact

    This is a difference, but we don't care what the 2nd study did relating to other species. That doesn't explain why they got 40% instead of 70% of the species covered by both studies.

    4% picked this

  3. The second study included approximately

    Unclear Impact Too Weak

    Just like with (A), we're not really concerned with the raw total of how many plants were tested, since we're just talking about percentages. There's a scenario in which the 2nd study checks 15% more plants, and none of those plants have patterned stems, so it lowers the overall percentage of patterned stems. But this doesn't explain a 70% vs. 40% divide, and we'd have to add some implausible or superfluous notion that for some reason there weren't any patterned stems in this bonus 15% of plants.

    5% picked this

  4. Correct

    The first study used a

    Why this is right

    More things fit under a broad definition than under a narrow definition. So this can explain why a higher percentage of plants qualified as patterned stems. Maybe the 1st study's definition was "if any part of the stem has a pattern, count it", whereas the 2nd study was like "only if the entire stem is patterned should we count it".

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

    62% picked this

  5. The focus of the second

    No Impact

    To make this answer work, we'd have to say that "when checking whether the plant has a patterned stem is a primary focus, you count fewer of them as having a patterned stem than when checking for patterned stem is a secondary focus." There's no common sense link from "secondary focus" to "count more of them as patterned stem".

    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