LSATHacks
  • Explanations
  • Tutoring
  • Courses
  • Login
  • Cart
  • Explanations
  • Tutoring
  • Courses
  • Login
  • Cart
LSAT Explanations › Preptest 111 › Logical Reasoning › Question 11

LSAT 111 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q11

LSAT Preptest 111 explanations

LR Question 11 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: One approach to the question of which objects discussed…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Strengthen

CONCLUSION: The approach is flawed. [The approach is to say that an object discussed by science is real only if the most powerful explanatory theories in science say the object is real.]

REASONING: Most scientific theories describe things that are only theoretical.

ANALYSIS: This is dense and hard to understand. I’ll use an example:

A scientific theory with powerful explanatory power (it explains things well) might posit (say) that stars exist, and that some subatomic particles exist. We can prove that stars exist in the real world, but we have no non-theoretical proof for many subatomic particles.

According to the principle in the first sentence, we should designate both stars and all subatomic particles as real because a powerful theory says they are real. But the argument implies that it is not appropriate to say that all subatomic particles are real, because our only evidence for some of them is theoretical.

The argument doesn’t show why we should be skeptical of objects that are only theoretical.

___________

  1. This weakens the argument. The argument claims that not all entities described by science are real.
  2. CORRECT. The argument is implying that theoretical objects aren’t exactly real, even if our best theories support their existence. 
  3. This goes too far. An example would be: I have a theory that birds have wings. But I shouldn’t talk about any actual birds unless they make my theory even better at explaining the fact that birds have wings. According to this answer choice it’s no longer enough if my theory fully supports the existence of an object. That object must also support my theory. 
  4. The argument isn’t talking about what scientific theories should do. It’s about what we should consider to be real, based on scientific theories.
  5. Not quite. The argument goes beyond this and implies that theoretical objects should not be considered real, even if they are backed by powerful theories.
Previous Question
↑ Return to PT 111
Next Question

More Resources for Principle Questions

  • Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Principle questions.
  • Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers principle questions.
Quick Jump PT Section Que

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

I scored a 177 on the LSAT. I founded LSATHacks and created the LSAT Mastery Seminars to help students succeed.

I’ve personally written explanations for 5,000+ LSAT questions. If you find these explanations helpful, you'll definitely like our courses.

Join my email list for LSAT study tips and resources.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Free LSAT Email Course

My best LSAT tips, straight to your inbox

Increase Your Score

LSATHacks Courses Aiming For The 170S? See exactly how a top scorer thinks INCREASE YOUR SCORE
“The seminars teach you how to think like a high-scorer so that you can choose the correct answer quickly.” — Jay
“Not only did my score improve but I was able to approach LR with utter confidence” — Kacie L.

Resources

  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Free Email Course
  • LSAT Preptest Converter
  • Experimental Section Checker
  • LSAT Prep Books

About LSATHacks

  • About/Contact
  • Courses
  • Free Trial

Community

  • Discord
  • Social Media
  • Webinars
Disclaimer: Use of these explanations requires official LSAT preptests. LSAT is a registered trademark of LSAC.
LSAC does not review or endorse specific test preparation materials or services and has not reviewed this site.

© Copyright 2026 LSATHacks. All Rights Reserved. | Privacy | Terms