Logical Reasoning

PT145 · S2 · Q4 The northern cardinal, a nonmigratory

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

The northern cardinal, a nonmigratory songbird, was rare in Nova Scotia in 1980; the province was considered to be beyond that bird’s usual northern range.

Conclusion (so)

The increase in Northern Cardinals in Nova Scotia by 2000 is probably due to warmer winters.

Evidence

The argument is built on the observed change that Northern Cardinals were rare in 1980 but became common by 2000, and we know that winters have gotten warmer from 1980 to 2000.

Evaluate

This argument follows the "Explain Curious Fact" pattern, where the author provides a causal explanation for a change.

Curious Fact: How come there are more northern cardinals in NS? Explanation: It's cuz the winters there are warmer now.

Goal

We usually weaken Explain Curious Fact by suggesting an alternate explanation for the curious fact (what could be a different reason why there are more northern cardinals in NS?), and sometimes undermining the plausibility of the author's explanation (debunking that warmer winters brought them to NS).

4.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

  1. Correct

    Bird feeders, an important source

    Why this is right

    This choice suggests that bird feeders became more common after 1980, providing an alternate explanation for the increase in cardinals by indicating that more abundant food sources (bird feeders) rather than warmer winters could be the reason for their population growth in Nova Scotia.

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

    91% picked this

  2. Because of their red plumage,

    No Impact

    This states that Northern Cardinals are easier to spot than other birds, which doesn’t provide a reason for their population increase or challenge the link to warmer winters. It remains neutral and doesn’t affect the argument's causal claim.

    1% picked this

  3. Some songbird species other than

    Unclear Impact

    This offers weak support by stating that some species became more common elsewhere, which doesn’t address why Northern Cardinals specifically increased in Nova Scotia. The imprecision fails to provide a concrete alternate explanation or directly challenge the argument.

    1% picked this

  4. According to field observations, the

    Irrelevant Comparison

    This discusses population fluctuations between migratory and non-migratory birds, which doesn’t concern non-migratory Northern Cardinals directly nor address their increase in Nova Scotia.

    3% picked this

  5. Birds that prey on songbirds

    Opposite (if anything)

    This mentions that prey on songbirds became more common, suggesting an increased threat rather than a reason for more cardinals, thereby not providing an alternate explanation for their rise.

    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