Parent 1: Ten years ago

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

TopicsMethod

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

Free to start

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

Parent 1: Ten years ago, children in communities like ours did not date until they were thirteen to fifteen years old. Now our nine to eleven year olds are dating. Obviously, children in communities like ours are becoming romantically interested in members age today than they did ten years ago.

Parent 2: I disagree. Our nine to eleven year olds do not want to date, but they feel intense peer up by dating.

What this question is testing

Method

Your task

Describe how the argument proceeds — the technique it uses to reach its conclusion.

Common trap

Answers that describe a method the argument doesn't actually use.

Winning move

Track the role each statement plays, then match that to the choice describing the same moves.

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

The question

Parent 2, in responding to Parent 1, does which one of

Answer choices

Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this
draws a conclusion about a new phenomenon by comparing it to a phenomenon that is
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%
Bad Premise Match Weak Conclusion Match9% picked this
refutes a generalization about nine to eleven-year-old children by means of an exceptional case overlooked
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%
Opposite1% picked this
assumes that nine to eleven-year-old children are as interested in dating as thirteen
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%
Correct89% picked this
provides an alternative explanation for the changes in children’s dating described
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%
Bad Premise Match1% picked this
criticizes Parent 1 as a proponent of a claim rather than criticizing
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%

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