LSAT 5 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q12

LR Question 12 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Impact craters caused by meteorites smashing into Earth…

QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption

CONCLUSION: The relatively greater abundance of meteorites in geographically stable zones must be because those zones have lower rates of destructive geophysical processes (the craters are less likely to get eroded, etc.)

REASONING: There is no reason given, apart from the fact that meteorite craters are less likely to be found elsewhere.

ANALYSIS: There isn’t really a reason give for this conclusion, but that doesn’t make it a terrible argument. Geographical stability is a very plausible reason why craters have remained.

To make the argument good, we just need to know our initial sample is random. For example, it would help if we knew that a large enough amount of meteors hit the earth, or that they were scattered randomly. Then only geological stability could explain the presence of meteors only in those zones.

___________

1. That’s kind of cool. But it doesn’t tell us why there are more meteors in geographically stable zones.
2. Interesting. But this doesn’t explain why geographically stables regions have more meteors.
3. Yikes. But why are there more of them in geographically stable areas?
4. CORRECT. This tells us that we should expect to find craters fairly randomly. The fact that they tend to be in geographically stable zones tells us that the geography of those zones must protect craters.
5. This would weaken the argument. Perhaps geologists simply haven’t found craters elsewhere.

Recap: The question begins with “Impact craters caused by meteorites smashing into Earth”. It is a Sufficient Assumption question. Learn more about LSAT Sufficient questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.