Logical Reasoning

PT151 · S4 · Q10 Researcher: Overhearing only one side

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

Researcher: Overhearing only one side of a cell-phone conversation diverts listeners' attention from whatever they are doing.

Statements

causal (diverts / leaves / because)

Overhearing one-side Diverts your of a cell-phone ⇢ attention from conversation what you're doing

Hearing only one ⇢ Constantly trying portion of conversation to guess what other person said

Hearing someone → diverts your speak abnormally loudly attention away

Evaluate

We have three related causal statements. They don't really link up to a causal chain, but they all stem from a related cause.

You're hearing your friend / loved one talking (abnormally loudly) on the cell-phone. You can only hear their part of the conversation. You're trying to guess what the other person just said or is saying.

And what does all that cause? It diverts your attention.

Goal

It's hard to know exactly what the answer will say, but it will seemingly reinforce this causal relationship being stressed that, for multiple reasons, eavesdropping on your friend's cell-phone cause is diverting your attention from whatever you are doing.

10.

The researcher's statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

  1. The risk that a driver

    Wrong Causal Relationship

    This is saying that the driver's risk of being in an accident is increased when they are on a phone, but the causal relationship the passage was describing was having your attention compromised by someone else being on the phone, with you trying to eavesdrop. If this said, "the risk of accident is increased when the driver is listening in on someone else's cell-phone call", then it would be worth considering

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    When a driver hears a

    Why this is right

    The causal relationship we got was that when you're listening in on someone's cell phone conversation, your attention is diverted. So we know that a driver's attention would be diverted from driving, if they're eavesdropping on someone's cell phone conversation. If your attention is diverted from what you're doing while you're driving, does that "detract from your driving performance"? Sure! No one is saying you can't still drive / that it's a dealbreaker for your driving. Heaven knows I have eaten lasagna off a plate in my lap as I drove. You can still successfully drive, but I will admit it detracted from my performance. Since this is Most Supported, the language doesn't have to be perfect. If we know that the driver's attention is diverted away from driving, does that support the idea that the driver's performance is less than it would be otherwise? Sure.

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

    85% picked this

  3. Overhearing one side of a

    Out of Scope: traditional telephone

    This is the classic trap answer form of, "The opposite is true about the thing we didn't talk about". LSAC wants to see if students will think, "Since they only mentioned X about Thing A, I guess things that aren't Thing A don't have X true about them". We can't make that inference. If I say "black lives matter", that doesn't mean we can infer that "lives that aren't black don't matter".

    1% picked this

  4. People who overhear one side

    Too Strong: inevitably

    We know that people who overhear one side of a cell-phone have their attention diverted from whatever they are doing. Can we go from "your attention was diverted from what you were doing" to "you inevitably lose track of your thoughts"? No. We could definitely support language like "sometimes you lose track of your thoughts", but we can't support that in 100% of cases you lose track of your thoughts. Someone may be driving to a concert thinking, "Where should I look for parking", then start to get warped into hearing their friend talk to someone on the cell phone. They hear some of the friend and then come back to looking for parking. They didn't "lose track of their thoughts". They just started paying attention to someone else's conversation and then resumed their thought process once the call was over or their curiosity had subsided.

    12% picked this

  5. Conversing on a cell phone

    Unsupported Comparison: more guesses

    The paragraph never talks about other types of conversations. This is the classic trap answer form of, "The opposite is true about the thing we didn't talk about". LSAC wants to see if students will think, "Since they only mentioned X about Thing A, I guess things that aren't Thing A don't have X true about them". "Since they only talked about making guesses about a cell phone conversation, I guess people don't make guesses about other types of conversations". We can't make that inference.

    1% 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