Logical Reasoning

PT18 · S2 · Q1 Parent 1: Ten years ago

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

Start practicing free

Parent 1: Ten years ago, children in communities like ours did not date until they were thirteen to fifteen years old.

Evaluate

Parent 2 is offering a different causal explanation for why there's an uptick in 9-11 year olds dating. We often refer to these as "Curious Facts".

Why, over the last ten years, has it started happening that 9-11 year olds are dating?

Parent 1 had a hypothesis -- children in communities like this are becoming romantically interested in members of the opposite sex at an earlier age than before.

Parent 2 had an alternative hypothesis -- no, they're no romantically interested in other people. They just feel peer pressure to act "grown up", such as by dating.

Goal

Look for any answer that matches, but it'll probably describe Parent 2's response as something like,

1.

Parent 2, in responding to Parent 1, does which one of the following?

  1. draws a conclusion about a

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Parent 2's conclusion is about the same phenomenon, not a new one. They're both addressing the same phenomenon of 9-11 year old's suddenly dating each other.

    1% picked this

  2. refutes a generalization about nine

    Bad Premise Match Weak Conclusion Match

    The author is refuting a generalization about "children in communities like ours", which includes 9-11 year olds. That's not a good match, but maybe we'd keep reading. However, the evidence had nothing to do with one exceptional case. Parent 2's evidence is itself another generalization ("our 9-11 year olds feel peer pressure"), not a specific, exceptional case.

    9% picked this

  3. assumes that nine to eleven-year-old

    Opposite

    Neither one of them has to make such an extreme assumption as "9-11 year olds are just as interested as 13-15 year olds". But Parent 2 is actively arguing against the idea that 9-11 year olds are as interested as 13-15 year olds. He is saying that 9-11 year olds aren't quite interested in dating; they're just looking for a way to seem grown up.

    1% picked this

  4. Correct

    provides an alternative explanation for

    Why this is right

    The changes in children's dating: 10 years ago, kids didn't date until 13-15. Now they're doing it as young as 9-11. Person 1's explanation: 9-11 year olds these days are more romantically interested in opposite sex partners than 9-11 year olds were ten years ago Person 2's alternative explanation: Maybe the uptick in 9-11 year olds dating is just because of peer pressure to seem like an adult.

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

    89% picked this

  5. criticizes Parent 1 as a

    Bad Premise Match

    Parent 2 doesn't say anything like, "You're someone who wants to believe this claim, so it must be wrong". Parent 2 is addressing the claim itself, saying "I disagree, it could be this other explanation."

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

Save and practice this skill
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