Logical Reasoning

PT149 · S4 · Q6 Astrophysicist: Gamma ray bursts

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

Astrophysicist: Gamma ray bursts (GRBs)—explosions of powerful radiation from deep space—have traditionally been classified as either "short" or "long," terms that reflect the explosion's relative duration.

Conclusion

The descriptive labels "short" and "long" have now outlived their usefulness.

Evidence

These labels reflect the duration of a GRB's explosion.

But we sighted a weird GRB whose duration was long (so it would be labeled "long") but in every other respect it had the properties of one we'd typically label "short".

Evaluate

Is this one bad data point enough to get rid of these labels? Maybe our measurement of this GRB was just off, and so it didn't fit nicely into our traditional labels because our data on it was skewed. Shouldn't we wait for more data points that defy this classification system before we get rid of it?

Since we can make objections such as the above, we could Strengthen the argument with ideas that counter those objections, like .

We might also object, So we could strengthen the argument by saying,

Goal

It's hard to know where the correct answer will go with this one. Let's just cue up our mantra of

6.

The conclusion of the astrophysicist's argument is most strongly supported if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. No other GRBs with unusual

    Weakens

    This was one of our objections -- "what if this is a total outlier? Let's not ditch a system because of one stray data point".

    5% picked this

  2. The classification of GRBs can

    Too Weak

    Answer choices with the strength of "can, may, might, some, sometimes" are almost always wrong on Strengthen, Weaken, and Paradox, because they have such little impact. If anything, this answer would probably weaken, because it sounds like we could just go ahead an call this unusual GRB a "long" one (classify it on duration alone, and don't worry about how all its other properties matched up with short GRBs).

    10% picked this

  3. Correct

    Properties other than duration are

    Why this is right

    This helps us to complete the sentence, "We should get rid of this labeling system, because ..." Because according to this labeling system we would classify this as "long" (it had a long explosion duration), but according to this answer choice, the other properties, the ones that correspond more with "short" are more important. So this answer, combined with our facts, makes it seem like our current labeling system would slap the wrong label on this recent unusual GRB.

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

    77% picked this

  4. GRBs cannot be classified according

    Weakens, if Anything

    By denying the possibility of an alternative classification system, we're certainly not helping this argument. If anything, it's making it seem more like we'd be stuck with our current labeling system.

    3% picked this

  5. Descriptive labels are easily replaced

    Unclear Impact

    This answer seems somewhat tempting, because it makes it seem like we could easily change our labeling system. But it's dodging the real issue of how we would categorize this weird GRB we just sighted. Changing the names from "long" and "short" to "type 1" and "type 2" wouldn't really solve the classification problem with this GRB. Would we call it a type 1 or 2? It has the duration of a typical type 1 but all the other properties match type 2. This is not really solving the problem, just re-naming the same problem. Also, the Conclusion isn't actually saying "we should get rid of these labels and create new ones to replace them". It's only saying "we should get rid of these labels". It may be that the author just thinks we should stop grouping them all as "short" / "long" but not be proposing that we come up with a different classification system to replace them. When it comes to the main issue of, "should we stop labeling them short/long?", (C) makes a stronger case for why these old labels are bad. Saying "they could be easily replaced" doesn't make a strong case for the idea that the old labels are bad.

    5% 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