Logical Reasoning

PT157 · S2 · Q16 Child psychologist: Psychologists have found that

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

Child psychologist: Psychologists have found that most children under the age of six are egocentric and selfish in their attitudes toward animals.

Conclusion (hence)

Most children should not have pets until they are at least six years old.

Evidence

Ordinarily, it is only between the ages of six and nine that children begin to understand that animals are independent creatures with their own feelings and needs.

Prior to six, most kids are egocentric and selfish in their attitudes toward animals.

Evaluate

We're trying to prove a should not claim, but the evidence didn't provide any rules about what we shouldn't do. So we know this New Concept in the Conclusion will be in the correct answer. Specifically, the correct answer will have to give us some rule that's in the form,

All three claims are using general language (most / ordinarily / most).

Conditional statements are generally about things that must always be true. We don't usually consider something a conditional statement when it merely describes something that "ordinarily" happens or something that happens with "most" people in a group.

But if an author is arguing, Most dogs are X. Therefore, Most dogs are Y. We're allowed to think she's assuming, "If X, then Y", because what we know about Most dogs is X and what she's trying to prove about Most dogs is Y.

Here, our author is trying to argue under 6 → should not have pets

Our premises tell us under 6 → selfish/egocentric attitude to animals under 6 → don't understand animals are ind. creatures

Goal

We want to get from What We Know about kids under 6 to What We're Trying to Prove about kids under 6.

So we'd anticipate answers like or .

And of course we'd be happy with either of those in contrapositive form as well.

16.

The child psychologist's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. Most children who are egocentric

    Out of Scope

    Since this isn't providing a "should-rule" it's going to be functionally useless to us. We can't derive a conclusion about "should not" without either the evidence or the answer providing us with a should-rule. Since the evidence didn't, the correct answer must.

    2% picked this

  2. Children who are old enough

    Negation

    This is saying, "If you DO understand the needs/feelings of pets, then you should be able to have pets". We're looking for, "if you DON'T understand the needs/feelings of pets, then you shouldn't be able to have pets". This answer is just an illegal negation of what we want. It's useless to apply to the argument, because we're trying to prove a claim about kids under 6, and this rule doesn't apply to them (because they don't understand the needs/feelings of animals).

    24% picked this

  3. Most children who are egocentric

    Out of Scope

    Since this isn't providing a "should-rule" it's going to be functionally useless to us. We can't derive a conclusion about "should not" without either the evidence or the answer providing us with a should-rule. Since the evidence didn't, the correct answer must.

    1% picked this

  4. Most children are egocentric and

    Unrelated to Goal

    Since this isn't providing a "should-rule" it's going to be functionally useless to us. We can't derive a conclusion about "should not" without either the evidence or the answer providing us with a should-rule. Since the evidence didn't, the correct answer must.

    9% picked this

  5. Correct

    The only children who should

    Why this is right

    "The only" is a sufficient indicator, so this would look like "if should have pets, then understand the independent needs/feelings of pets". By contrapositive, it's saying "if you don't understand the independent needs/feelings of pets, then you shouldn't have pets". We were told in the Evidence that kids under 6 don't yet understand the independent needs/feelings of pets, so this rule would say, "then kids under 6 shouldn't have pets". That effectively proves the conclusion, that "kids shouldn't have pets until they're at least 6".

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

    64% 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