Logical Reasoning

PT151 · S4 · Q25 If ecology and the physical sciences

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

If ecology and the physical sciences were evaluated by the same criteria, ecology would fail to be a successful science because it cannot be captured by a set of simple laws.

Conclusion (Therefore / clearly)

Ecology is not being evaluated by means of the criteria used to evaluate the physical sciences.

Evidence

If ecology and the physical sciences were evaluated by same criteria, ecology would fail to be successful (it can't be captured by a set of simple laws).

But ecology is a successful science.

Evaluate

In a very generic sense, this argument just uses contrapositive logic:

Premise 1: If A were true, then B would be true. Premise 2: But B isn't true. Conclusion: So A isn't true.

If Ecology and physical sciences → Ecology not successful were evaluated same science

But, Ecology is successful science.

Therefore, Ecology and PS not evaluated same.

Goal

Before getting too fine-grained, we can head to the answers looking for a simply contrapositive argument. If we see more than one argument matching our desired structure, then we'll look for more nuanced similarities.

Premise1: If A were true, B would be true. Premise2: But B isn't true. Conclusion: So A isn't true.

25.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?

  1. If sales taxes are increased,

    Bad Premise/Conclusion Match

    The easiest way to quickly scan for correspondence with our desired template is to see if we have a conditional, and if so, does the conclusion sound like the opposite of that conditional's trigger. Premise 1: If A were true, B would be true. Premise 2: But B isn't true. Conclusion: So A isn't true. The trigger of this conditional is "If sales taxes are increased", so the conclusion should be "So sales taxes will not be increased".

    3% picked this

  2. If this gallery could borrow

    Bad Premise Match

    This answer passes the quick scan test: Premise 1: If A were true, B would be true. Premise 2: But B isn't true. Conclusion: So A isn't true. The trigger of this conditional is "If this gallery could borrow M's early works", so the conclusion should be "this gallery cannot borrow M's early works", and that's pretty functionally equivalent to what the taxes are increased", so the conclusion should be "So sales taxes will not be increased". Premise1: If A were true, B would be true. Premise2: But B isn't true. Conclusion: So A isn't true. The outcome of this conditional was " ... , the gallery could have the largest exhibition of Matisse ever". So the other premise would have to say "but the gallery won't have the largest exhibition of M ever". Instead, it just says "there is no demand for larger exhibitions". That supports the idea that the museum won't end up having the largest exhibition, but it's not equivalent to saying the museum won't end up having the largest exhibition.

    9% picked this

  3. If cars of the future

    Bad Premise/Conclusion Match

    The easiest way to quickly scan for correspondence with our desired template is to see if we have a conditional, and if so, does the conclusion sound like the opposite of that conditional's trigger. Premise 1: If A were true, B would be true. Premise 2: But B isn't true. Conclusion: So A isn't true. The trigger of this conditional is "If future cars are made of lighter and stronger materials", so the conclusion should be "Therefore, future cars will not be made of lighter and stronger materials".

    6% picked this

  4. If physicists attempted research in

    Bad Premise/Conclusion Match

    The easiest way to quickly scan for correspondence with our desired template is to see if we have a conditional, and if so, does the conclusion sound like the opposite of that conditional's trigger. Premise 1: If A were true, B would be true. Premise 2: But B isn't true. Conclusion: So A isn't true. The trigger of this conditional is "If physicists attempted research in the social sciences", so the conclusion should be "Therefore, physicists will not attempt research in the social sciences."

    16% picked this

  5. Correct

    If any economic theory were

    Why this is right

    This gives us a conditional, then a second premise that says the outcome is not the case, then a conclusion that says the trigger is not the case. Premise 1: If A were true, B would be true. If any econ theory were ? possible to make adequate description accurate forecasts Premise 2: But B isn't true. But accurate forecasts cannot be made. Conclusion: So A isn't true. So, no econ theory is adequate description.

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

    66% 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