• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

LSAT Hacks

The Explanations That Should Have Come With The LSAT

  • Start Here
    • About
  • LSAT Explanations
  • LSAT Courses
  • Tutoring
    • Tutoring
    • Mastery seminars
    • Course
    • Books
  • Blog
  • Login
LSAT Explanations » LSAT Preptest 32 » Logical Reasoning 1 » Question 15

LSAT 32, Logical Reasoning I, Q15, LSATHacks

LSAT 32 Explanations

LR Question 15 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature due…

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

CONCLUSION: Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature due to global warming eventually result in declines in fish and seabird populations.

REASONING: A rise of two degrees prevents vertical mixing of water. This starves phytoplankton. That starves zooplankton. The loss of zooplankton starves the rest of the food chain.

ANALYSIS: This is a good argument. The statement about zooplankton is evidence that zooplankton will die. It ultimately supports the idea that the rest of the food chain will die if temperatures increase.

___________

  1. It isn’t a hypothesis. It is a fact.
  2. More than this. Phytoplankton are a crucial link in the food chain. If phytoplankton die then zooplankton die. Then everything else dies.
  3. CORRECT. Zooplankton are one of the links between warm waters and dead birds. 
  4. The argument didn’t actually say we should stop global warming. It just described what would happen if we didn’t stop it.
  5. The argument only claimed that global warming would hurt fish and seabirds. It didn’t talk about land ecosystems. 

Previous Question
Table Of Contents
Next Question




Free Logical Reasoning lesson

Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

I created LSATHacks, and scored a 177 on the LSAT.

Check out LSATHacks All Access

It's your one stop shop for LSAT prep: 1000s more explanations, and courses for both intro and advanced students. Lifetime access to everything on LSATHacks and anything I add. Plus a consult with me to get you started on the right track.
---------
Socials and Updates: If you have any questions, you can can check out my TikTok videos or email me.

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Deidre says

    May 19, 2020 at 8:53 pm

    I guess that I don’t understand why this question particularly allows you to jump straight to the main conclusion. When I read the question I was looking specifically for what “zooplankton feeding on phytoplankton” had to do with anything. I know where the argument goes logically, but I felt that zooplankton argument went more to support the change in vertical mixing statement than the overall global warming argument. When the question asks what role, I would say “it supports the vertical mixing argument which in turn supports the global warming argument.” How do I not get caught in this trap in the future?

    Reply
    • FounderGraeme Blake says

      June 14, 2020 at 1:24 pm

      In this case, look at the structural words. For example:

      Since BLORPS BLOOZLE, the declines are inevitable.

      You don’t need to know what “blorps bloozle” means, or what role it plays in the sentence. The word “since” indicates that it is evidence. And the end of the sentence is a conclusory statement: a prediction. Predictions, being less certain, tend to be predictions.

      E.g. “Since campuses are shut due to coronavirus, schools will be online only in the fall”.

      Since = structural word
      Campuses are shut = an indisputable true fact about the world
      Schools will be shut in the fall = a predictive conclusion. It could obviously be wrong: something may change, and campuses may open in the fall.

      Conclusions are the least certain part of the argument. The fact that the author argues the decline is “inevitable” is precisely what tells us that it is the conclusion and actually not necessarily inevitable. That depends on the strength of the author’s proofs :)

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Free LSAT Email Course

My best LSAT tips, straight to your inbox


New! LSATHacks All Access: Get every course on LSATHacks + members only explanations

LSATHacks Pro

Get a higher score with LSATHacks

LSAT Course, LSAT Mastery seminars, and 3,000 extra explanations. All for only $760 $349, satisfaction guaranteed. Sign up here: https://lsathacks.com/all-access/

Testimonials

Your emails are tremendously helpful. - Matt

Thanks for the tips! They were very helpful, and even make you feel like you studied a bit. Great insight and would love more! - Haj

Dear Graeme: MUCH MORE PLEASE!! Your explanations are very clear, and you give equal importance to why answers are WRONG, as well as why THE ANSWER is right!! Very well done. Thank you for all your efforts - Tom

These have been awesome. More please!!! - Caillie

The course was immensely helpful and has eased my nerves a lot. - Lovlean

© Copyright 2023 LSAT Hacks. All Rights Reserved. | FAQ/Legal

Disclaimer: Use of this site requires official LSAT preptests; the explanations are of no use without the preptests. If you do not have the accompanying preptests, you can find them here: LSAT preptests
LSAT is copyright of LSAC. LSAC does not review or endorse specific test preparation materials or services and has not reviewed this site.
×
Item Added to your Cart!
There are no products
Continue Shopping