Currently, no satellite orbiting Earth

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsRole

Keep going in LSAT Lab

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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Currently, no satellite orbiting Earth is at significant risk of colliding with other satellites or satellite fragments, but the risk of such a collision is likely to increase dramatically in the future. After all, once such a collision occurs, it will probably produce thousands of satellite fragments, each large enough to shatter the space around Earth to become quite heavily cluttered with dangerous debris.

What this question is testing

Role

Argument

The claim in question — that the risk will increase dramatically — is followed by "After all," which signals supporting evidence is coming. So everything after that ("once a collision occurs, fragments shatter more satellites...") is the support, and the claim itself is the conclusion.

Method

This is a textbook conclusion-then-support structure. "After all" is one of the cleanest signals on the LSAT — what follows it supports what came before it.

Goal

An answer that identifies the claim as the main conclusion of the argument.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question

14.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that the risk of a satellite orbiting Earth colliding with other

Answer choices

Premise5% picked this
It is an unsupported claim that is used to provide support for
The claim isn't a premise supporting the conclusion — it is the conclusion. The cascade-of-fragments material is what supports it (signaled by "After all").
5%
Premise9% picked this
It is an unsupported claim that is used to support another claim that in turn
The claim is the main conclusion, not an unsupported intermediate step. There's no further conclusion that this claim supports — it's the endpoint of the argument.
9%
Intermediate Conclusion9% picked this
It is a claim for which the argument provides some support, and which in turn is used to
This describes an intermediate conclusion — supported by some part of the argument and supporting the main conclusion. But the claim in question isn't supporting any further claim. The argument ends with the cascade explanation; the risk-increase claim is the main endpoint.
9%
Correct76% picked this
It is a claim that serves as the
Why this is right
This is the role exactly. The claim that risk will increase dramatically is the main conclusion. "After all..." signals the support that follows, and that support (cascading collisions producing more fragments) is what backs up the conclusion. The claim is what the argument is designed to establish.
Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
76%
Background2% picked this
It is a claim that provides nonessential background information for the
The claim isn't background — it's the central point being argued. The author commits to the claim and supports it with the cascade reasoning. It plays a major logical role.
2%

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