Logical Reasoning

PT156 · S2 · Q22 Researcher: Experiences that are accompanied

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

Researcher: Experiences that are accompanied by increased secretions of adrenaline—a hormone produced in situations involving fear—tend to be remembered more clearly than experiences not so accompanied.

Conclusion (thus)

Non-frightening experiences are at least as memorable as frightening experiences.

Evidence

There's a correlation between higher levels of adrenaline and remembering events more clearly.

Adrenaline is produced in situations involving fear.

Evaluate

In this argument, there is a comparative relationship between types of experiences and their memorability, rather than a causal conclusion. The key idea is the correlation between adrenaline and memory. We know that experiences attached to adrenaline are more likely to be remembered.

Given that producing more adrenaline is associated with better memory and fear produces adrenaline, how could we argue that non-frightening experiences are at least as memorable as frightening experiences?

One way could be to suggest that other emotions or states, like excitement or pleasure, also raise adrenaline levels. If true, even non-frightening experiences could be memorable due to the same adrenaline boost.

We could also weaken by saying that there's something ELSE about frightening experiences, like trauma/repression, that makes it less likely that something will be remembered, counteracting the memory boost afforded by adrenaline.

Goal

Let's find an answer that posits other sources or situations that trigger adrenaline, thereby challenging the assumption that frightening experiences have the inside track to being memorable due to adrenaline, or an answer that tells us there's some component of frightening experiences that actually undermines the ability to remember them.

22.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the researcher's argument?

  1. Some experiences are so intense

    Unclear Impact / Too Weak

    Because this speaks of "some" (at least one) experiences, it's extremely unlikely to be the correct answer. The conclusion is a squishy claim, saying one type of experience tends to be more memorable, so we can't really weaken that with one measly data point. The other big problem here is that we have no idea if the experiences this answer is talking about are frightening or non-frightening, so there's no way to know how it would impact the conclusion.

    19% picked this

  2. An individual will tend to

    Unclear Impact

    The conclusion is about which type of experience is more likely to be remembered., not about which details from those experiences are more likely to be remembered. And "The satisfaction of desires" could apply to frightening on non-frightening experiences. In a frightening experience, you desire to get the heck away from that spooky sound! So it's not clear how this relates to frightening vs. non-frightening.

    12% picked this

  3. Correct

    Highly pleasurable experiences are, like

    Why this is right

    Answer choice C suggests additional sources of adrenaline that aren't fear-based, such as heightened excitement or joy. This supports the idea that non-frightening experiences could also be memorable, thereby weakening the conclusion that frightening experiences are especially memorable.

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

    63% picked this

  4. Frightening experiences make up only

    No Impact

    Statements about the frequency or rarity of experiences do not directly address the core argument regarding whether they are more memorable. The author isn't saying they're more numerous than other experiences, so their relative frequency doesn't matter. It's rare to be taller than 7 feet, but still true to say that people taller than 7 feet are more likely to play basketball than are people under 7 feet. We measure that by thinking, "what percentage of 7 footers play bball vs. what percentage of under 7 footers play bball?"

    1% picked this

  5. If an individual perceives a

    Opposite Impact

    We were hoping to learn that nonfrightening experiences ALSO have an adrenaline component, in order to weaken the argument. This is saying the opposite of that.

    4% picked this

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