Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT155 S2 Q9 Explanation

Rodents are small, gnawing mammals

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

TopicsMost Supported

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

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

Rodents are small, gnawing mammals characterized by their chisel-like incisor teeth. Although most North American mammal species are not rodent species, most of North America are rodents.

What this question is testing

Most Supported

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
9.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the

Answer choices

  1. Too Strong: most species6% picked this

    Most species of North American mammals have chisel-like

    We know that rodents have chisel-like incisor teeth, but we're also told that most species of NA mammals aren't rodents. If we knew that most species were rodents, we could infer this answer.

  2. Correct70% picked this

    In North America, rodent species tend to have more individual members than other species

    Why this is right

    This is giving us the mathematical inference we predicted: if most species are not rodent, but most individuals are rodent, then there must be more rodents per rodent species than there are non-rodents per non-rodent species. If most of the vehicles at a drive-in were trucks, but most of the people at the drive-in arrived in a car, then you could infer that there tended to be more passengers per car than there were per truck.

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

  3. Unknown Group3% picked this

    Most species of mammals that have chisel-like incisor teeth can be found

    We don't have any information about 51% or more of "mammals with chisel-like incisor teeth". We know about most "NA mammal species" and most "NA individual mammals", and those are the only most groups we know about.

  4. Too Specific: the single #1 highest19% picked this

    Of the mammal species in North America, the one with the most individual members is

    In each of our two math metaphors so far (male/female tables at restaurant ... or people who came to the drive-in via truck vs. car), we only know something about the overall average. We can't get as specific as one specific table, one specific vehicle. It could be that the table with the most people at it was a male-table, but all the other male-tables only had two dudes, whereas the female-tables were averaging like 5 per table. It could be that the vehicle with the most passengers at the drive-in was an unsafe pickup truck carrying 15 people in the flatbed, but all the other trucks just had 2 passengers, whereas the cars were averaging like 5 people per vehicle. In other words, there can definitely be an outlier among males / trucks / non-rodents. Our inference is only about the overall total vs. number of groups, so our inference has to be expressed as an average of individuals per group.

  5. Unknown Group2% picked this

    Most nonrodent mammal species can be found in

    We don't have any information about 51% or more of "nonrodent mammals". We know about most "NA mammal species" and most "NA individual mammals", and those are the only most groups we know about. You can't ever derive a fact about "most X" if you were never told a fact about "most X".

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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