Logical Reasoning

PT23 · S3 · Q13 In 1988, a significant percentage

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

In 1988, a significant percentage of seals in the Baltic Sea died from viral diseases; off the coast of Scotland, however, the death rate due to viral diseases was approximately half what it was for the Baltic seals.

Conclusion

It's likely that the higher death rate of the Baltic seals was because there were more pollutants in their blood.

Evidence

The Baltic seals who died (at twice the death rate of Scottish seals) had way higher level of pollutants in their blood.

Pollutants are known to impair marine mammals' ability to fight off viral infection.

Evaluate

Since the author is trying to solve a causal mystery, we can use our Curious Fact / Explanation mindset.

Curious Fact ... Why did the Baltic seals have twice as high a death rate for these viral diseases?

Author's Explanation ... They had higher levels of pollutants in their blood. Pollutants impair marine mammals' ability to fight off viral infection, so the pollutants in the Baltic seal population made it easier for the viral infection to kill them.

Goal

Since this is a Strengthen question, we either want to - rule out an Alternate Explanation for why the Baltic seals' death rate was twice as high (they weren't just more enfeebled to begin with / it wasn't a more virulent strain of the virus / they weren't also short of food)

or - increase the plausibility of the author's explanation (make it seem even more plausible that higher rates of pollutants in their blood is what led to the higher death rate)

13.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the most additional support for the argument?

  1. The large majority of Scottish

    Unclear Impact

    Because this idea isn't expressed comparatively, we don't know if this is something different or similar for the Baltic seal population. As we've all now seen from COVID, when a viral infection is afflicting a population, most of the deaths will be among the sicker and more elderly, so we would assume that most of the death of the Baltic seals were also old or unhealthy. More importantly, this answer isn't giving us any sense of what's causing the difference in death rates. If we knew that most of the Scottish deaths were the elderly while most of the Baltic deaths were not, that might help a little in terms of suggesting that there must have been something additional (like pollutants) going on in the Baltic situation in order to explain the higher death rate among a less vulnerable population.

    12% picked this

  2. The strain of virus that

    No Impact

    This seems to say something so obviously true to common sense that it's like it's saying nothing. "The virus overwhelms impaired immune systems much more quickly than it does healthy immune systems". Cool, that's not news. That's not something that's a specific quirk of the virus in the Scottish sea. Every sickness will overwhelm an impaired immune system much more quickly than it would a healthy immune system.

    13% picked this

  3. There were slight fluctuations in

    No Impact

    There are a lot of wrong answers that have been written for Strengthen and Weaken that have this sort of incredibly weak, wishy-washy style: - things fluctuate - differences exist I can't figure out how "slight fluctuations" would make this a stronger, more compelling argument. None of us were assuming that every single Baltic seal's pollutant level was identical, so it feels like we're being told nothing to learn that different seals had different levels.

    3% picked this

  4. The kinds of pollutants found

    Unclear Impact

    This could potentially strengthen (or weaken) depending on whether the pollutants found in the Baltic are more injurious or less injurious to seals. All this answer says is that they're "different", so it's not clearly helping or hurting. If we knew that Baltic pollutants were much more harsh on marine mammals than are Scottish pollutants, that would strengthen. But if we knew that Baltic ones were much more benign, that would weaken.

    14% picked this

  5. Correct

    Among marine mammals other than

    Why this is right

    This increases the plausibility of the Author's Explanation by pointing to something that we would predict, if the author's hypothesis were right. If the author is right, that pollutants were worse in the area of the Baltic seals and that's why they experienced a higher death rate, then those pollutants would presumably be affecting other marine mammals in the area as well, since they all swim in the same ocean, and since we're told that "pollutants are known to impair marine mammals' ability to fight off viral infection". By seeing that other marine mammals in the Baltic are also dying at a higher rate, it seems like whatever is causing the higher death rate is something common to sea creatures in the Baltic sea. Obviously, it could still be some sort of alternate explanation like "the virus is just a more intense strain in the Baltic", but these answers don't have to be perfect. It adds some plausibility to the author's story that pollutants are to blame if other animals who we know are also affected by these pollutants are also experiencing higher death rates. In the language of nerds, this answer provides More Cause, More Effect data points to add plausibility.

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

    58% 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