Logical Reasoning

PT143 · S1 · Q4 Scientist: In testing whether a baby's

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

Scientist: In testing whether a baby's babbling is a linguistic task or just random sounds, researchers videotaped the mouths of babies as they babbled.

Conclusion

Babbling turns out to be a linguistic task.

Evidence

To test whether babbling was linguistic or random, they filmed the mouth of babbling babies.

Babbling babies open their mouths wider on the right.

Past studies show that nonlinguistic vocal sounds involve opening mouths wider on the left.

Evaluate

Our job is to describe the argument in general terms: what type of evidence / how did the parts relate to each other / how did the path to the conclusion work?

This argument relies on a study. In the study they were considering two hypotheses. They got a piece of data that went against one of the hypotheses (based on what had been learned from previous studies). So the author concludes the remaining hypothesis must be the correct one.

Goal

If it matches, it's right. So we need to look for mismatching language to eliminate stuff.

Most answers on Method involve two parts: [doing] the Conclusion [by] presenting Evidence [inferring] the Conclusion [on the basis of] Evidence

So we need to match the Evidence half to the premises and the Conclusion half to the conclusion.

Which one of the following most accurately describes how the scientist's argument proceeds?

It describes an argument for
Out of Scope: rebutting a claim
Although the science experiment considers whether babbling is linguistic or nonlinguistic (and ultimately rules out nonlinguistic en route to concluding linguistic), it's not trying to shoot down anyone's conclusion. There was no argument made in favor of the idea that babbling is nonlinguistic, so there is no entity for the author to be rebutting.
2% picked this
It questions the adequacy of
Out of Scope: questions adequacy
Was there a generally accepted principle? Dubiously. We could probably call "past studies have established that during nonlinguistic vocalizations people generally open the left side of the mouth wider" a generally accepted (established) principle. But the author uses this principle. She leans on it. She doesn't question its adequacy.
1% picked this
It raises a question, describes
Too Strong: necessary
The argument does raise an implicit question and does describe a potential test, but it never says anything as strong as "this test was required in order to answer the question".
11% picked this
It describes an explanation for
Out of Scope: assertions
There isn't any entity in this paragraph that's "asserting that an explanation is unlikely to be correct". Supposedly, according to this answer, our author is fighting that person, but that person is nowhere to be found.
6% picked this
Correct
It presents two possible interpretations
Why this is right
It presents two possible interpretations (linguistic sounds vs. nonlinguistic random sounds) of a phenomenon (babbling), and provides evidence (babbling babies are right-mouthed, while previous studies showed that nonlinguistic sounds are left-mouthed) that argues against nonlinguistic and in favor of linguistic.
Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
80% 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