Logical Reasoning

PT144 · S2 · Q12 In an experiment, two groups

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

In an experiment, two groups of mice—one whose diet included ginkgo extract and one that had a normal diet—were taught to navigate a maze.

Conclusion (however)

The superior ability of the ginkgo mice to navigate the maze on day 2 might not be directly attributable to a memory boost from the ginkgo.

Evidence (studies have found .. and .. )

Ginkgo reduces stress in mice, and lowering very high stress levels is known to improve recall.

Evaluate

This question ends up testing a really small language shift that I did not catch the first time I tried the problem, so I'm writing this explanation as though I am that person, since we can still put ourselves in a position to understand the correct answer without noticing it.

Because we're interpreting the results of an experiment, which featured a Curious Comparison, we can use our causal mindset.

Curious Fact ... why were the ginkgo mice more likely to remember how to navigate the maze on day 2 than were the normal mice?

One Explanation ... ginkgo extract directly boosts memory

Author's Explanation ... ginkgo, as we know, reduces stress, and lowering stress is known to improve memory.

Goal

Since this is Weaken, we'd either want to suggest an Alternate Explanation for why the ginkgo mice were better able to remember the maze (we could return to the notion that ginkgo directly boosted memory, but some 3rd explanation could also weaken)

or

lower the plausibility of the Author's Explanation that the ginkgo mice were better able to remember the maze because the ginkgo had lowered their stress.

12.

Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument?

  1. The doses of ginkgo in

    Strengthens, if anything

    It would have weakened the plausibility of the author's causal storyline if we had said, "Yo — we didn't give these mice enough ginkgo to get that stress-reducing effect you've heard about in other studies". Thus, being told the mice did get a dose that was plenty sufficient for stress reduction just helps the author's plausibility.

    9% picked this

  2. Correct

    Neither the mice who received

    Why this is right

    On a first pass, this probably isn't going to seem appealing (unless we noticed the term shift in the premises), but once we get through a first pass, we need to "open them all up again" and look back to the stimulus for some clue about what we're missing. The author's two premises are like this: - we know ginkgo reduces stress - we know lowering very high stress levels improves memory However, if someone isn't already suffering from very high stress, then we don't know if reducing their stress will actually improve their memory. Since this answer is telling us that none of the mice in the experiment had higher-than-normal stress, then none of the mice had very high stress levels. Thus, this answer is hurting the plausibility of the author's storyline, or we could say it's hurting the logical force of his 2nd premise. His 2nd premise is about things with very high stress levels, and since there weren't any of those things in this experiment, that 2nd premise is totally irrelevant. So that means that the author's argument is now just this: Maybe ginkgo didn't help them by directly helping their memory. After all, ginkgo reduces stress. ? ? ? Without that 2nd premise, connecting stress to memory, we'd be like, "I'm sorry, what is your argument?" By making the author's 2nd premise irrelevant, we have definitely weakened the argument.

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

    78% picked this

  3. Some chemical substances that reduce

    Too Weak

    Correct answers to questions like Strengthen / Weaken / Paradox / Sufficient Assumption almost never use weak language like "some / can / may / might". This answer tells us that there is at least one chemical substance that reduces stress but impair memory. Okay ... is that substance ginkgo? We have no idea. If ginkgo did this, then yes it would hurt the plausibility of the author's storyline, but since we don't know if ginkgo does this, the answer has only the faintest strength of the "mere possibility" that maybe we're talking about ginkgo.

    7% picked this

  4. Scientists have not yet determined

    No impact

    The fact that we haven't solved the causal mechanism behind ginkgo's stress-reduction effects doesn't matter. If we know that ginkgo reduces stress (regardless of how it works its magic), that's all the author cares about for her causal storyline.

    1% picked this

  5. The mice who received the

    No Impact

    This doesn't hurt the author's causal story at all, since she was only believing that ginkgo helped with recall on the 2nd day of attempting the maze. She was never saying that it would help the mice to learn the maze in the first place.

    6% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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