Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT156 S2 Q22 ExplanationResearcher: Experiences that are accompanied

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

TopicsWeaken

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

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. Thus, the details of frightening experiences tend do the details of nonfrightening experiences.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
22.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the

Answer choices, explained

  1. Unclear Impact / Too Weak20% picked this

    Some experiences are so intense that an individual's normal tendency to retain the details of

    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.

  2. Unclear Impact13% picked this

    An individual will tend to remember most clearly those details of a situation that are relevant to

    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.

  3. Correct61% picked this

    Highly pleasurable experiences are, like frightening experiences, accompanied by increased levels

    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.

  4. No Impact2% picked this

    Frightening experiences make up only a small fraction of experiences

    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?"

  5. Opposite Impact4% picked this

    If an individual perceives a dangerous situation as nonfrightening, then the experience of that situation will not be

    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.

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