LSAT 157 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q16

LR Question 16 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Child psychologist: Psychologists have found that most children…

QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption

CONCLUSION: Most children should not have pets until they are at least six years old.

REASONING: Most children under six are egocentric and selfish toward animals. Between six and nine, they begin to understand that animals are independent creatures.

ANALYSIS: In a Sufficient Assumption question, you want to map out the author’s chain of reasoning and find the missing link. Here, the chain is pretty simple:

1. Kids under 6 cannot understand that animals are independent creatures.
2. Kids under 6 should not have pets.

Right now, neither of these really looks like the conclusion, because neither is supported by the other. We need something that makes point 1 support the conclusion, point 2. It will tell us that someone who cannot understand that animals are independent should not have a pet.

___________

1. This does not complete our chain of reasoning. It doesn’t matter that they rely on others to care for pets.
2. This is the inverse of what we want. It says “kids who understand that animals are independent should be allowed to have pets”. We want “kids who don’t understand that animals are independent should not have pets”.
3. It doesn’t matter to us whether they do have pets. We need to show that they shouldn’t.
4. We don’t care if it’s most kids, or some kids, or all kids. We want to make a judgment about whether they should have pets or not.
5. CORRECT. This makes a judgment that people who cannot understand that animals are independent should not have pets. It perfectly fills in our missing link.

Recap: The question begins with “Child psychologist: Psychologists have found that most children”. It is a Sufficient Assumption question. Learn more about LSAT Sufficient questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.