QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument
CONCLUSION: It is unjustified to say that science has proven there is no correlation between astrological signs and personality types.
REASONING: Science doesn’t have a good definition of personality types, so it can’t disprove a correlation between personality types and anything else.
ANALYSIS: This question hinges on a technical understanding of argument structure. Intermediate conclusions are statements supported by evidence and used to support the main conclusion.
Here’s an argument that uses an intermediate conclusion:
- The house is 100 degrees (int. conclusion)
- Because it’s in the sun (premise)
- Therefore the house is uncomfortably warm (main conclusion)
Statement two is a premise. It supports statement one, which is an intermediate conclusion. Statement 1 supports the main conclusion.
A claim ➞ leads to intermediate conclusion ➞ which supports a final conclusion
In this question, a general claim about the scientific understanding of personality is used to support a particular claim that science can’t disprove astrology. General claims are different from particular claims.
- No. This describes the statement that science doesn’t have a precise definition of personality.
- CORRECT. It’s an intermediate conclusion. One premise supports it, and it supports the main conclusion. See the explanation above.
- The first sentence is the overall conclusion.
- No. The argument only discredits the position in the first part of the first sentence.
- Actually, this claim is a general claim that helps prove the specific instance in the first sentence.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly