Logical Reasoning

PT139 · S4 · Q1 Scientists generally believe that

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

Scientists generally believe that no deep-sea creature can detect red light, but they need to reassess that view.

Conclusion

They need to reassess that view.

rephrase: Some deep-sea creatures can detect red light.

Evidence

Researchers recently discovered a sea creature with bioluminescent red lights on its tentacles, which probably function as lures to attract prey (since they're shaped like prey fish's food).

Evaluate

Whenever we do a Main Conclusion question, we remind ourselves of a few things:

1. the conclusion is only going to be the final claim like 10% of the time (it's too obvious a place to put it, so on a Main Conclusion question they usually avoid it)

2. there might be Intermediate Conclusions, to trick us.

3. the conclusion is usually going to be the First Sentence or connected with some Rebuttal / Pivot.

In this case, it's both of those patterns. The first sentence opens with an Attribution to another point of view: "Scientists generally believe X".

That cues us to expect a Rebuttal, which is usually signified by Pivot language (but, yet, however).

Sure enough, the 2nd half of the 1st sentence is that rebuttal. The rest of the paragraph tries to support the idea that some deep-sea creatures can detect red light (the prey species of Erenna).

Goal

Many, if not most, conclusions on Main Conclusion questions use pronouns or other referential language. We want to take the time to substitute Specific language in for any Referential language, like "they need to reassess that view".

We want the closest meaning match for, .

Or a cleaned up version, .

1.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the overall conclusion drawn in the argument?

  1. Red lights on the tentacles

    Intermediate Conclusion Last-Claim Trap

    It's fair to call this a conclusion, because this idea is an opinion ("probably") and is supported (by the fact that the red lights resemble the shape of the food that some small fish usually look for), but this is not the main conclusion. The idea that these red-light tentacles are luring in small-fish is support for the author's main conclusion, that some deep-sea creatures can detect red light. Pun intended, they're luring us into picking this because it is a conclusion and because it's the final claim of the paragraph. (Remember, the conclusion can be the final claim on Main Conclusion, it just rarely happens so we want to be suspicious of ourselves when we're picking the final claim as the conclusion).

    2% picked this

  2. Red lights on the tentacles

    Premise

    This looks nothing like the first sentence, so we shouldn't be bothering to read this carefully. If we do, we'll see it's basically stating one of the premises.

    1% picked this

  3. A foot-long deep-sea creature of

    Premise

    This looks nothing like the first sentence, so we shouldn't be bothering to read this carefully. If we do, we'll see it's stating one of the premises. The fact that this claim is presented as something researchers recently discovered guarantees that it's not our conclusion.

    0% picked this

  4. Scientists generally believe that deep-sea

    Opposing Position

    This resembles the first sentence's language, but it's presenting the scientists' position. The main conclusion is the author's rebuttal: y'all need to reassess this view.

    1% picked this

  5. Correct

    Scientists need to reconsider the

    Why this is right

    This is the best match for our Main Conclusion, "they need to reassess that view": Scientists need to reassess (reconsider) the view (belief) that no deep-sea creature can detect red light.

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

    96% 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