QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument
CONCLUSION: The predator was chasing the grazing dinosaur, and the predator attacked shortly afterwards.
REASONING: The predator was probably matching the stride of the grazing dinosaur. Modern predators match strides just before they attack.
ANALYSIS: This is an argument by analogy. I’ll summarize it in parts:
- Predator dinosaur was matching stride.
- Modern predators do this just before attacking.
- Conclusion: Predator dinosaur was about to attack.
The question is asking about the first part. That statement is evidence that helps show the predator was about to attack.
- This is false. The statement is evidence for the conclusion. The matching stride is why we conclude the predator was about to attack.
- This didn’t happen. If you picked this, you fundamentally misunderstood the argument. Reread it, and see the analysis section above.
- CORRECT. The analogy is the lions. This evidence from modern predators shows that the predator was about to attack, since the predator was also matching stride.
- The author doesn’t mention any possible objections.
- The final sentence is the conclusion. It starts with “this suggests” which typically indicates the author’s opinion.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly