Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT153 S3 Q8 ExplanationAstronomer: Conditions in our solar system

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsRole

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Astronomer: Conditions in our solar system have probably favored the emergence of life more than conditions in most other solar systems of similar age. Any conceivable form of life depends on the presence of adequate amounts of chemical elements heavier than hydrogen and abundance of these heavier elements for its age.

What this question is testing

Role

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
8.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the astronomerʼs argument by the claim that any conceivable form of life depends on chemical elements

Answer choices, explained

  1. Correct48% picked this

    It is a statement for which no evidence is provided and that is part of the evidence offered

    Why this is right

    This says it's a premise — "it's part of the evidence offered for the argument's only conclusion". We agree. It says part of the evidence, because claim 3 is also part of the evidence. It says only conclusion to clarify that this was two premises working together to support a conclusion, not some argument that flows like this: Premise ? Intermediate Conclusion ? Main Conclusion We agree that "no evidence is provided". If we were to ask, "Why should we believe that any conceivable form of life depends on the presence of adequate amounts of heavier elements?", we would be unable to point at any claim that sounds like support. Supporting that claim would be saying stuff like, "Life depends on water as a solute, and water is comprised in part by oxygen, which is heavier than hydrogen and helium."

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

  2. No Intermediate Conclusion29% picked this

    It is a statement for which no evidence is provided and that is offered as support for another statement that in turn is offered

    According to this answer, our claim supported an intermediate conclusion. This answer is saying, the argument went like this: Our Claim ? Intermediate Conclusion ? Main Conclusion But there was no intermediate conclusion here. There are two premises and neither one of them has support provided. The author doesn't explain why we should believe that "any conceivable life form would need heavier elements", and the author doesn't explain why we should believe that "our sun has an unusual amount of heavy elements".

  3. No Intermediate Conclusion21% picked this

    It is a statement for which some evidence is provided and that itself is offered as support for the conclusion of

    According to this answer, our claim is an intermediate conclusion. This answer is saying, the argument went like this: Premise ? Our Claim ? Main Conclusion But there was no intermediate conclusion here. There are two premises and neither one of them has support provided. The author doesn't explain why we should believe that "any conceivable life form would need heavier elements". Supporting that claim would be saying stuff like, "Life depends on water as a solute, and water is comprised in part by oxygen, which is heavier than hydrogen and helium."

  4. Wrong Role2% picked this

    It is the conclusion of the argument as a whole and is supported by another statement for

    The first sentence is the Main Conclusion, as it gets supported by the two premises (joined by an "and") in the second sentence.

  5. Not a Conclusion1% picked this

    It is one of two conclusions in the argument, neither of which is offered as

    We can't call our claim a conclusion, because no support was provided for it. Did the author provide any reasons why we should believe that "any conceivable form of life would depend on heavy elements"? No. Supporting that claim would be saying stuff like, "Life depends on water as a solute, and water is comprised in part by oxygen, which is heavier than hydrogen and helium."

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