Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT145 S2 Q4 Explanation

The northern cardinal, a nonmigratory

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

TopicsWeaken

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

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

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. By 2000, however, field observations indicated that northern cardinals were quite common there. The average winter temperature rose slightly responsible for the northern cardinal’s proliferation in Nova Scotia.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

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

The question
4.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens

Answer choices

  1. Correct91% picked this

    Bird feeders, an important source of nutrition to wintering birds, became far more common in

    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.

  2. No Impact1% picked this

    Because of their red plumage, northern cardinals are easier to spot than most other

    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.

  3. Unclear Impact1% picked this

    Some songbird species other than the northern cardinal also became more common between

    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.

  4. Irrelevant Comparison3% picked this

    According to field observations, the populations of migratory birds fluctuated less during the period from 1980 to 2000 than

    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.

  5. Opposite (if anything)4% picked this

    Birds that prey on songbirds became more common in Nova Scotia between

    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.

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