QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument
CONCLUSION: Dogs learn most effectively when they are given a mix of voice commands and hand signals.
REASONING: A study split dogs into two groups: Voice training plus hand signals, and voice training alone. The first group was twice as likely to obey.
ANALYSIS: This question asks about the role of the first sentence. It’s the conclusion. The phrase “after all” is a conclusion indicator: what comes before “after all” is the conclusion, and what comes after is the evidence.
- No, the statement in question is the conclusion. The second sentence is the premise.
- The implicit assumption is that obeying commands better = learning best.
- There was no background info given.
Example of background info: Dog trainers have often wondered how to teach dogs best….bla bla bla
- CORRECT. This is an indirect way of saying “it’s the conclusion”.
- There is no intermediate conclusion in this argument. The first sentence is the main conclusion.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly