PrepTest 101, Section 2, Question 3
A group of unusual meteorites was found in(91 more words not shown)
The argument derives its conclusion(1 more words not shown)
- Aoffering a counterexample(3 more words not shown)
- Beliminating competing alternative(1 more words not shown)
- Ccontrasting present circumstances(3 more words not shown)
- Dquestioning an(1 more words not shown)
- Eabstracting a general(4 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Where did these meteorites come from? Their structure points the author toward Mercury, Venus, or Mars. My first question is how we know those are the only possibilities. What about a planet outside the solar system? That would challenge the starting claim about where these meteorites could have originated. Let's keep that question separate from what the author does with the three possibilities we're given.
Mercury gets ruled out because the Sun would have captured the material. Venus gets ruled out because the material would not have escaped its gravity. So, if we accept the original list, where does that leave us? Mars. We haven't been shown a particular collision on Mars that produced these meteorites. The author arrives at Mars by giving reasons to reject the other candidates.
What we’re looking for
The question asks how the argument reaches its conclusion. Now we have a prediction: it eliminates competing explanations and favors the one left standing. We can describe that method without independently settling the astronomy. Our question about whether the list was complete is an objection we could raise; it isn't the author's method.
Working the answers
- A
A counterexample would show a case that conflicts with a general theory—for example, a meteorite that a supposed rule says couldn't exist. Here the author is trying to identify the origin of these particular meteorites. The reasons concerning Mercury and Venus eliminate those candidates; they aren't presented as counterexamples to a general theory.
- BCorrect
Mercury and Venus compete with Mars as explanations of where the meteorites originated. The author gives a reason against Mercury and another against Venus, then selects Mars as the probable source. The argument works by removing alternatives, rather than beginning with direct evidence that a particular collision on Mars occurred.
- C
The author discusses where the meteorites came from, but discussing a past event isn't automatically a comparison between past and present circumstances. We don't get one set of conditions then and a contrasting set now. We get three possible sources and reasons to eliminate two.
- D
We questioned whether the list of planets was complete. The author doesn't. This answer has to describe the argument's reasoning, not an objection we might raise while reading it. The author relies on the stated alternatives and works within them.
- E
The conclusion remains about this particular group of meteorites. It doesn't turn the evidence into a general rule such as “meteorites always come from Mars.” Explaining a particular case and deriving a rule for cases generally are different tasks. The author does the former.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.