Logical Reasoning

PT152 · S4 · Q4 Warner: Until recently, most competitive swimmers

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

Warner: Until recently, most competitive swimmers were high school or university students.

Warner's Evidence

Until recently, most competitive swimmers were high school or university students. Now, more and more competitive swimmers are continuing well beyond their university years.

Warner's Conclusion (Clearly)

Better training regimens have allowed today’s competitive swimmers to stay fitter longer than swimmers of the past.

Young's Conclusion

Not necessarily [disagreeing with Warner's conclusion].

Young's Evidence

No one has the time to both be a competitive swimmer and hold an outside job. But unlike in the past, today’s competitive swimmers can make a living at their sport.

Evaluate

The question stem tells us that Warner is making an argument, so we should look for evidence and a conclusion. Their first two statements are statements of facts, and "clearly" is a conclusion indicator. It might take a minute to get used to the fact that words like "clearly" are used as conclusion indicators on the LSAT, but what it indicates is that Warner believes this claim is clear and obvious, even if you, I, and Young see some potential flaws in Warner's reasoning.

Warner's argument offers an explanation for a curious fact. Why are more and more competitive swimmers continuing to compete well beyond their university years? Warner believes that it's due to better training. But there could certainly be other causes, and Warner has done nothing to rule out those alternatives.

Young's first statement, "not necessarily," indicates that they are disagreeing with Warner. But what exactly does Young disagree with? There are basically three options: Young might disagree with Warner's conclusion, Warners evidence, or the reasoning that Warner uses to connect the evidence to the conclusion. "Not necessarily" looks like a direct response to Warner's conclusion. And Young's other statements about swimmers making a living indicate that Young is suggesting an alternative explanation: swimmers can continue to compete after university not because of better training, but because the can make a living at the sport.

Goal

Look for an answer which states that Young offers an alternative explanation that contradicts Warner's explanation. Watch out for answers that describe situations which aren't actually happening in their conversation.

4.

Young responds to Warner's argument by

  1. attempting to demonstrate that the

    Self-Contradiction

    Young doesn't claim that Warner's evidence undermines Warner's conclusion. Young offers their own evidence which undermines Warner's conclusion.

    1% picked this

  2. presenting a counterexample in order

    Bad Evidence Match

    This answer doesn't accurately describe Young's statements. The evidence that Young offers isn't a counterexample. A counterexample would be evidence suggesting that there are not more and more competitive swimmers continuing well beyond their university years. Young never says that.

    4% picked this

  3. arguing that a condition that

    Necessary vs. Sufficient

    This describes a conditional logic flaw that is not what Young is suggesting and is not present in Warner's argument. Warner takes better training to be a sufficient explanation for competitive swimmers continuing to swim after university. But Young never argues that better training is necessary, not sufficient.

    2% picked this

  4. maintaining that the evidence presented

    Circular Reasoning

    Young offers evidence that supports a different conclusion from Warner's. Young never argues that Warner's evidence presupposes the truth of that conclusion. Warner's evidence only describes a situation. The evidence itself doesn't presuppose any particular explanation for the situation. Warner's conclusion is what suggests that one particular explanation, better training, is correct.

    0% picked this

  5. Correct

    offering an alternative to Warner’s

    Why this is right

    This is exactly what Young does, suggesting that the ability to make a living from swimming, not better training, explains the phenomenon of more and more swimmers competing well beyond their university years.

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

    94% 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