Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT16 S3 Q13 Explanation

There are just two ways a moon

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

TopicsStrengthen

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

There are just two ways a moon could have been formed from the planet around which it travels: either part of the planet’s outer shell spun off into orbit around the planet or else a large object such as a comet or meteoroid, struck the planet so violently that it dislodged a primarily of materials different from those of the Earth’s outer shell.

What this question is testing

Strengthen

Your task

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

Common trap

Answers that are consistent with the argument but add no real support, or that strengthen a claim the argument doesn't make.

Winning move

Locate the gap between evidence and conclusion, then pick the choice that closes 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
13.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following, if also true, would most help to justify drawing the conclusion that Earth’s moon was not formed

Answer choices

  1. No Impact7% picked this

    The moons of some planets in Earth’s solar system were not formed primarily from the

    This is about other moons, but we only care about the story of Earth's moon.

  2. Correct67% picked this

    Earth’s moon consists primarily of elements that differ from those inside

    Why this is right

    This is ruling out "Way #2". We had already ruled out Way 1, that the moon was formed from an outer shell, by saying the Moon's materials don't match the outer shell of Earth. This helps us rule out Way 2, that the moon was formed when something big slammed into Earth and ejected a mass of material from inside the planet. If the Moon doesn't seem to be made out of stuff that matches the inside of Earth, then it doesn't seem to have been made via Way 2. Thus, since we've ruled out "outer shell" and "ejected internal mass", we're supporting the idea that the Earth's moon was not made out of a piece of the Earth.

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

  3. Opposite7% picked this

    Earth’s gravity cannot have trapped a meteoroid and pulled it into its orbit

    If Earth's gravity could trap a meteoroid and turn it into its moon, that would satisfy our purposes nicely! That would help us argue, "the moon didn't form out of a piece of Earth; the moon is just a meteoroid that was flying by and got trapped in our orbit.

  4. Weakens, if Anything18% picked this

    The craters on the surface of Earth’s moon show that it has been struck by many

    The fact that the moon has been struck by many thousands of large meteoroids increases the probability that Earth might have been struck by many thousands of large meteoroids, which increases the probability of Way #2 of how the moon formed. If a large meteoroid slammed into Earth and ejected a mass of material that then became the moon, it would support the conclusion that "the moon is made out of a piece of the Earth".

  5. Weakens, if Anything1% picked this

    Comets and large meteoroids normally move at very

    Mainly, I wanted to avoid the irony of writing "No Impact" for an answer that is helping us assess whether comets or meteoroids have impacted the surface of Earth. This answer really does nothing, but if anything it's suggesting that since comets and meteoroids move at really high speeds, a collision with Earth would be more likely to be the violent type of collision that could eject material. Since this answer drifts toward making Way #2 seem more plausible, it's going against our purposes.

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