Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT154 S1 Q3 ExplanationNear-Earth objects (NEOs)

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

Near-Earth objects (NEOs) such as asteroids threaten the Earth because they have the potential to collide with it. The goal of NEO research is to develop measures to counteract a possible hit by a sizable NEO. Government funding of this research is not a waste of money. Buying home research for the same reason that people insure their homes.

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
3.

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

Answer choices, explained

  1. Correct88% picked this

    It connects an analogy made in the argument to the

    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.

  2. Wrong Role1% picked this

    It is the overall conclusion of

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

  3. Wrong Role1% picked this

    It defines a key term used in a premise of

    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.

  4. Opposite4% picked this

    It provides a contrast to the situation that is the main focus

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

  5. Out of Scope: support provided6% picked this

    It is a general principle for which the argument attempts to

    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.

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