LSAT PrepTest 43 Section 3 Question 7 Explanation | Logical Reasoning

I didn't write the following blog post. It was already on the blog when I took over the URL. The following blog post may contain mistakes. -Steve

***


Here's a Logical Reasoning question from the June 2004 LSAT.

As usual, let's make a short chain of phrases to show how the argument progresses:

Cave dwellers had same injuries as rodeo riders --> probably did the same things as rodeo riders.

So, the argument's basically saying that similar injuries mean that the injuries were probably caused in the same way. So, let's pre-phrase an answer (the principle). Something like "similar injures probably came in similar ways" should work. We see right away that choice D fits our pre-phrase well since it makes the same point about similar injuries (effects) having been sustained (causes) in the same way. Let's quickly scan through the other choices:

A) Beyond the scope of the argument. The argument just draws a probable conclusion based on the skeletons. It doesn't say or imply that they're the primary source of clues. So, that can't be a principle that justifies the argument's point.

B) Also beyond the argument's scope. Tackling animals is mentioned but nowhere does the argument state or imply that food gathering is the most important thing.

C) Outside the scope, again. The argument is using indirect evidence...since the injuries are of a certain sort, they probably came from riding and tackling animals. It's just an inference. There's no direct evidence. So, this argument isn't talking about what should be done in the presence of direct evidence. It's never addressed.

D) Correct.

E) Again, outside the scope of the passage. It says nothing about frequency of injuries; it focuses on the nature and causes of injuries. So, no principle regarding injury frequency justifies the argument.

Remember:

1) Make a chain of phrases (by underlining, once you feel comfortable just doing that) and pre-phrase answers to save time.

2) Eliminate answers that are beyond the scope of the argument. After all, an answer choice can't be the principle needed to justify the argument if it has nothing to do with the argument! Sounds obvious, but look how many answer choices this very simple strategy eliminated above.