Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S1 · Q3 Near-Earth objects (NEOs)

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

Near-Earth objects (NEOs) such as asteroids threaten the Earth because they have the potential to collide with it.

Conclusion (not a waste = opinion)

Government funding of NEO research is not a waste of money.

Evidence

Buying home insurance makes good fiscal sense, and governments fund NEO research for the same reason that people insure their homes (it's designed to develop measures to counteract a possible hit by a sizable NEO).

Evaluate

Whenever we're trying to find the conclusion on Role and Main Conclusion, we remind ourselves that 90% of the arguments on those two question types are "upside-down" arguments: we hear the Conclusion before we hear the Evidence.

So we have to listen keenly for Opinion indicators or Rebuttals. The first two sentences of this argument provide some background context so that we know what NEO research is all about. Then the 3rd sentence gives us the author's opinion: government funding of NEO research is "worth it / not a waste".

Goal

We're being asked about the 2nd to last claim, which was one of the two premises. (99% of the time that two claims are joined by and, they are both premises). It also happens to be invoking an analogy between buying home insurance and funding NEO research.

So let's look for something like .

3.

The statement that buying home insurance makes good fiscal sense plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

  1. Correct

    It connects an analogy made

    Why this is right

    This wording is not instantly lovable, but it's not broken, so it ultimately wins the prize. The author is arguing that it's good fiscal sense to invest in NEO research just as it's good fiscal sense to buy home insurance. (better to spend money now to avert having to spend even more money later). The idea that this "connects" the analogy back to the argument's conclusion actually seems more appropriate as a description for the final claim, not the 2nd to last claim. But this seems to be the best available answer.

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

    87% picked this

  2. It is the overall conclusion

    Wrong Role

    The conclusion is the 3rd sentence. We're looking for something like "premise".

    1% picked this

  3. It defines a key term

    Wrong Role

    The only key term in the argument is NEO, and that is defined in the first sentence. "Buying home insurance makes good fiscal sense" is not defining any term.

    1% picked this

  4. It provides a contrast to

    Opposite

    Bringing up home insurance is not meant to provide a contrast; it's meant to provide an analogous similarity.

    5% picked this

  5. It is a general principle

    Out of Scope: support provided

    We could probably live with calling "it makes good fiscal sense to buy home insurance" a general principle. But the argument never tries to provide support for this. "Why does it make good fiscal sense to buy home insurance?" We probably know the answer to that (it's worth spending small amounts of money each month to protect yourself against a catastrophic financial hit if your house were ever destroyed), but the argument doesn't provide any justification for why home insurance makes sense.

    7% 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