LSAT 65, Logical Reasoning I, Q9, LSATHacks

LR Question 9 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Some paleontologists have suggested that Apatosaurus a…

QUESTION TYPE: Identify The Conclusion

CONCLUSION: It’s unlikely that Apatosaurus could gallop.

REASONING: We calculated that galloping would have broken Apatosaurus’ legs.

ANALYSIS: This is a reasonable argument. It shows that since galloping would have disastrous consequences, Apatosaurus probably couldn’t gallop.

Some words help you find conclusions. Notice that the stimulus says ‘however’. That usually shows that the author disagrees with a previous statement. What follows ‘however’ tends to be the conclusion.

___________

1. This is evidence that supports the conclusion that Apatosaurus couldn’t gallop.
2. This tells us how we know that galloping would have broken Apatosaurus’ legs.
3. CORRECT. See the second sentence. The author said ‘however’, which almost always indicates a conclusion.
4. The author didn’t actually say this. It’s an implicit premise that allows them to draw their conclusion. The conclusion is that Apatosaurus is unlikely to have been able to gallop.
5. This is a necessary assumption, not the conclusion. If Apatosaurus’ bones were much stronger than modern bones, then maybe Apatosaurus could have galloped without breaking its legs.

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.

I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle

If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.

---------
Updates:

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.