PrepTest 116, Section 3, Question 2
The Fenwicks returned home from a trip to(73 more words not shown)
Each of the following, if(8 more words not shown)
- AA neighbor thought(13 more words not shown)
- BWhen the Fenwicks(18 more words not shown)
- CThe two bottles(20 more words not shown)
- DThere have been(13 more words not shown)
- EThe Fenwicks returned(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What about the cat?
The Fenwicks find broken bottles, no sign of forced entry, and nothing missing. Before blaming the neighborhood children, I'd want to know why the animal that had the run of the house couldn't have knocked the bottles over. Maybe something startled it. That seems like an explanation worth considering.
The Fenwicks instead imagine an unlocked door, children entering the kitchen, and a failed raid. That could have happened, but a story that fits the mess isn't enough to establish who made it. We need evidence that helps distinguish the children from the cat.
What we’re looking for
This is a strengthen EXCEPT question, so four choices should help the Fenwicks' story. They might put the children at the house, show that someone used the door, or make the cat explanation less plausible. We want the remaining choice: a fact that gives us no useful reason to favor the children.
Working the answers
- A
A closing back door fits the proposed route into or out of the house. The neighbor isn't certain, and seeing a door move wouldn't prove children moved it. Still, it is some evidence that the door was used while the Fenwicks were away. That helps their account, so A isn't the exception.
- B
Now we have evidence that children were at the house during the relevant period. Footprints on the porch don't prove the children entered the kitchen or broke anything. But they connect the suspected group with the place and time, making the story more plausible. A strengthener doesn't have to settle the entire case.
- C
The bottles weren't sitting out where a wandering cat could easily knock them over. The bottles had to come out of the refrigerator before they could break on the floor. That makes the simple cat explanation less plausible and fits children raiding the kitchen. We don't need to insist that no cat could ever open any refrigerator; the point is that this location makes ordinary feline mischief a worse explanation for these particular bottles.
- D
Recent burglaries in which neighborhood children were suspected give the Fenwicks' hypothesis some context. Suspicion is not proof that those children committed the other burglaries, much less this incident. But a recent pattern of suspected activity by the same group still offers support that a completely unrelated fact would not.
- ECorrect
Coming home late doesn't help us decide who broke the bottles. The cat was in the house, and children might have entered while the family was absent, whether the family returned on schedule or later. We aren't told that either possibility depends on the planned return time. E supplies no reason to favor the children's involvement.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.