Logical Reasoning

PT140 · S2 · Q11 A science class stored

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

A science class stored one selection of various fruits at 30 degrees Celsius, a similar selection in similar conditions at 20 degrees, and another similar selection in similar conditions at 10 degrees.

Conclusion

The cooler the temperature we store the fruit at, the longer it'll stay fresh.

Evidence

One group of various fruits was stored at 30 degrees, one at 20, one at 10.

In the end, the freshest to least fresh were 10 degrees, 20 degrees, 30 degrees

Evaluate

Since there were similar fruits in each selection, we can't really fight this by saying,

But we could potentially object by saying there was some other difference between the 10 / 20 / 30 degree groups that is the real explanation for why the cooler the temp, the fresher the fruit.

However, what LSAC really wants us to take issue with is the crazy strength of the conclusion: the more X, the more Y

That's one of the strongest formulations on LSAT, since it means that X and Y covary infinitely in both directions.

So this conclusion is committed to the idea that 0 degrees would be fresher than 10 degrees, and that -100 degrees would be fresher than 0 degrees.

That seems corny. If your just flat-out freeze fruit, then you're not quite keeping it "fresh" longer.

Goal

Look for an answer complaining that the conclusion is so strongly worded that it commits the author to believing that frozen fruit would be fresher than cool fruit, or an answer saying the author has failed to consider some other possible explanation for the freshness/temperature gradient observed in the experiment.

11.

The class's reasoning is flawed in that the class

  1. generalized too readily from the

    Wrong Flaw

    "Generalizing too readily (too hastily)" is codename for the famous Sampling flaw. This conclusion specifies that we're still talking about these varieties of fruit, so the author hasn't extrapolated from a sample of certain fruits to a conclusion about fruits more generally. The author is certainly making a sampling move by thinking, "what was true in this experiment for these fruits would be true more broadly for these fruits".

    7% picked this

  2. ignored the effects of other

    Not an Objection

    There can be more than one causal influence for a certain thing, while still allowing us to use a "the more X, the more Y' formulation. For example, your law school application ... would you say it's true that, "The higher your LSAT score, the more competitive your application is"? Of course. In agreeing to that claim, are you ignoring the effects of other factors on your app, such as GPA or personal statement? No. Because you could also agree that, "The higher your GPA, the more competitive your application is". Similarly, just because the author is stressing the way that coolness affects freshness doesn't mean that he's ignoring that other things can also affect freshness/spoilage.

    18% picked this

  3. Correct

    too readily extrapolated from a

    Why this is right

    The science class's experiment suggests that within the range of 10 degrees to 30 degrees, the cooler the temperature, the fresher the fruit. But it doesn't suggest that 0 degrees (frozen) is fresher than 10 degrees, or that -60 degrees is fresher than -50 degrees. This answer is just complaining about how over-strongly the conclusion is worded. It shouldn't posit a relationship that extends infinitely in both directions.

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

    70% picked this

  4. assumed without proof that its

    Not a Reasoning Flaw

    Yes, the author does assume her premises are valid. If the thermometer were not reliable, then that would undermine the integrity of the science class's experiment. But this would just be trying to deny the validity / trustworthiness of an empirical measurement in the premise. This wouldn't relate to our task, which is to explain why "even if the evidence is true, it doesn't justify the move to the claim in the conclusion".

    1% picked this

  5. neglected to offer any explanation

    Not an Objection

    We're trying to judge whether authors' conclusions are true claims. For a claim to be true, you don't need to be able to explain it. "Water molecules are H20" - true claim. I can't explain to you why they have two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Someone could say, "Peggy Jenkins won that election. After all, she received more votes than her opponent. " and they would be saying something true, even if they can't offer any causal explanation for why she won. So the author can correctly conclude that "the cooler the temp, the fresher the fruit", even if she can't explain the causal mechanism that connects cooler temperatures and fresher fruit.

    4% 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