LSAT 138 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q22

LR Question 22 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Astrologer: Although some scientists have claimed that…

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:

1. The house is 100 degrees (int. conclusion)
2. Because it’s in the sun (premise)
3. 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.

___________

1. No. This describes the statement that science doesn’t have a precise definition of personality.
2. CORRECT. It’s an intermediate conclusion. One premise supports it, and it supports the main conclusion. See the explanation above.
3. The first sentence is the overall conclusion.
4. No. The argument only discredits the position in the first part of the first sentence.
5. Actually, this claim is a general claim that helps prove the specific instance in the first sentence.