LSAT 116 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q2

LR Question 2 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: The Fenwicks returned home from a trip to find to broken bottles…

QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen – Exception

CONCLUSION: The bottles were broken by neighborhood children who entered through an unlocked back door. The cat did not break the bottles.

ANALYSIS: The stimulus doesn’t give us many clues as to why the Fenwicks suspect children and not their cat. That means the only way to evaluate each answer choice will be to think: “Does this increase the likelihood that children broke the bottles?” and “Does this decrease the likelihood that the cat broke the bottles?”

___________

1. This leads us to suspect that someone was in the house, and that the door was unlocked, supporting the Fenwicks’ conclusion.
2. This lets us know that children were at least in the Fenwicks’ yard, and near the door the Fenwicks thought they had left unlocked.
3. The cats could not have broken the bottles if they were in the refrigerator. This strengthens their conclusion by eliminating an alternate possibility.
4. This shows that their conclusion is not unprecedented.
5. CORRECT. This does not strengthen their conclusion. We don’t know when the bottles were broken, so extra time away doesn’t mean anything.

Recap: The question begins with “The Fenwicks returned home from a trip to find to broken bottles”. It is a Strengthen question. Learn more about LSAT Strengthen questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.