Logical Reasoning

PT152 · S4 · Q21 If you use a wood stove

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 you use a wood stove to heat your home, you should use a wood-pellet stove rather than a regular wood stove.

Conclusion (should)

If you use a wood stove to heat your home, you should use a wood-pellet stove, not a regular wood stove.

why? because ...

Intermediate Conclusion (So)

Wood-pellet stoves are better for the environment than are regular wood stoves.

why? because ...

Intermediate Conclusion

Heating a home with a wood-pellet stove will not cause more trees to be felled, whereas heating with a regular wood stove would cause more trees to be felled.

why? because ...

Premise (because)

Wood pellets are made from the by-products of manufacturing processes that would otherwise go to landfills.

Evaluate

This argument has two intermediate conclusions! (jerks)

Lucky for us, whenever we see we're doing Main Conclusion, our #1 thought is to prime our brain for a Conclusion that comes earlier than its Support.

We know the two most common places to find the Conclusion on a Main Conclusion question are - first sentence - after a pivot word (like but / yet / however)

By priming our brain for the possibility of a First Sentence Conclusion, we'll pick up on the opinion indicator "should". As long as the rest of the paragraph feels like its supporting that first claim, i.e. sounds like a sales pitch for wood-pellet over regular wood, then we'll know that first sentence was indeed our main conclusion.

The other way to figure out the hierarchy of reasoning here is to use the Support Test. To test whether a claim is a conclusion and to help find its supporting idea(s), say the claim and then ask yourself, why should I believe that?

If there's no explicit supporting answer, then the claim isn't a conclusion.

The second sentence had a "Because claim 1, claim 2" structure, meaning that claim 2 is a conclusion supported by claim 1.

And the last sentence begins with "So", indicating that it is a conclusion supported by the previous sentence.

Goal

Finding the conclusion is the hard part. Now we just have to pick an answer that matches the meaning of the first sentence.

21.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the overall conclusion drawn in the argument?

  1. Wood pellets are made from

    Premise

    This is at the bottom of our hierarchy. No support was provided for this claim. This claim was used as support for one of the Intermediate Conclusions, that heating a home with wood-pellet won't necessitate cutting down more trees.

    1% picked this

  2. Heating a home with a

    Intermediate Conclusion

    This is the reason (i.e. the support) for the first sentence, so the first sentence is the Main Conclusion. Why should we use wood-pellets rather than regular? because, wood-pellet is better for the environment.

    25% picked this

  3. Using a wood-pellet stove to

    Intermediate Conclusion

    This idea is support for the notion that wood-pellet stoves are better for the environment than are regular wood stoves, which in turn is support for the Main Conclusion in the first sentence.

    1% picked this

  4. Using a regular wood stove

    Premise

    This is the second to last sentence. Given that the last sentence draws a conclusion based on this sentence (indicated by "So"), there's no way this second to last sentence could be the Main Conclusion.

    1% picked this

  5. Correct

    People who use wood stoves

    Why this is right

    Here's an answer choice that replicates the meaning of the first sentence. This is an opinion from the author, and it's supported by the rest of the paragraph. We should use wood-pellet, because they're more environmentally friendly, because they don't force us to cut down more trees, because wood-pellets are made from by-products of manufacturing that would otherwise end up in landfills.

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

    73% 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