Logical Reasoning

PT153 · S3 · Q8 Astronomer: Conditions in our solar system

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

Astronomer: Conditions in our solar system have probably favored the emergence of life more than conditions in most other solar systems of similar age.

Conclusion (probably)

Conditions in our solar system have probably favored the emergence of life more than conditions in most other solar systems of similar age.

Evidence

Any form of life will depend on the presence of adequate amounts of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, and our sun has an unusually high abundance of these heavy elements, given its age.

Evaluate

Whenever we do Role and Main Conclusion, we prime our brains with the reminder that 90% of the time, the main conclusion is earlier than (at least some of) the supporting idea(s).

Hence, we read these paragraphs thinking, , as well as,

The word "and" in the second sentence suggests that both claims in the second sentence are premises. 99% of the time we see "and", it's joining two premises.

If we see, "Claim 1 and thus Claim 2", that's different. There, Claim 2 is definitely some sort of conclusion or effect of Claim 1.

But when we just see "Claim 1 and Claim 2", we assume they are both premises. The last two ideas combine to show why our solar system has an advantage when it comes to favoring the emergence of life.

Goal

Here, we're being asked about the 2nd of the 3 claims, which was one of our two premises.

So let's look for something like, "it's support / partial support / evidence" for the conclusion in the 1st sentence.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the astronomer's argument by the claim that any conceivable form of life depends on chemical elements heavier than hydrogen and helium?

Correct
It is a statement for
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.
48% picked this
It is a statement for
No Intermediate Conclusion
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".
29% picked this
It is a statement for
No Intermediate Conclusion
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."
21% picked this
It is the conclusion of
Wrong Role
The first sentence is the Main Conclusion, as it gets supported by the two premises (joined by an "and") in the second sentence.
1% picked this
It is one of two
Not a Conclusion
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."
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