chap10

Getting Familiar

To start, go ahead and try these Analyze Argument Structure questions. Give yourself no more than eight minutes total. We'll revisit these questions later on in the chapter.

PT29, S1, Q11

It is well known that many species adapt to their environment, but it is usually assumed that only the most highly evolved species alter their environment in ways that aid their own survival. However, this characteristic is actually quite common. Certain species of plankton, for example, generate a gas that is converted in the atmosphere into particles of sulfate. These particles cause water vapor to condense, thus forming clouds. Indeed, the formation of clouds over the ocean largely depends on the presence of these particles. More cloud cover means more sunlight is reflected, and so the Earth absorbs less heat. Thus plankton cause the surface of the Earth to be cooler and this benefits the plankton.

Of the following, which one most accurately expresses the main point of the argument?

(A) The Earth would be far warmer than it is now if certain species of plankton became extinct.

(B) By altering their environment in ways that improve their chances of survival, certain species of plankton benefit the Earth as a whole.

(C) Improving their own chances of survival by altering the environment is not limited to the most highly evolved species.

(D) The extent of the cloud cover over the oceans is largely determined by the quantity of plankton in those oceans.

(E) Species such as plankton alter the environment in ways that are less detrimental to the well-being of other species than are the alterations to the environment made by more highly evolved species.

PT36, S3, Q6

Government official: A satisfactory way of eliminating chronic food shortages in our country is not easily achievable. Direct aid from other countries in the form of food shipments tends to undermine our prospects for long-term agricultural self-sufficiency. If external sources of food are delivered effectively by external institutions, local food producers and suppliers are forced out of business. On the other hand, foreign capital funneled to long-term development projects would inject so much cash into our economy that inflation would drive the price of food beyond the reach of most of our citizens.

The claim that foreign capital funneled into the economy would cause inflation plays which one of the following roles in the government official's argument?

(A) It supports the claim that the official's country must someday be agriculturally self-sufficient.

(B) It supports the claim that there is no easy solution to the problem of chronic food shortages in the official's country.

(D) It supports the claim that donations of food from other countries will not end the chronic food shortages in the official's country.

(E) It is supported by the claim that food producers and suppliers in the official's country may be forced out of business by donations of food from other countries.

PT38, S1, Q5

Naima: The proposed new computer system, once we fully implemented it, would operate more smoothly and efficiently than the current system. So we should devote the resources necessary to accomplish the conversion as soon as possible.

Nakai: We should keep the current system as long as we can. The cost in time and money of converting to the new system would be greater than any predicted benefits.

Naima and Nakai disagree with each other over whether

(A) the predicted benefits of the new computer system will be realized

(B) it is essential to have the best computer system available

(D) the current computer system does not work well enough to do what it is supposed to do

(E) the conversion to a new computer system should be delayed

PT30, S2, Q7

Opponent of offshore oil drilling: The projected benefits of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster. The oil already being extracted from these areas currently provides only 4 percent of our country's daily oil requirement, and the new wells would only add one-half of 1 percent.

Proponent of offshore oil drilling: Don't be ridiculous! You might just as well argue that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for more than a few minutes.

The drilling proponent's reply to the drilling opponent proceeds by

(A) offering evidence in support of drilling that is more decisive than is the evidence offered by the drilling opponent

(B) claiming that the statistics cited as evidence by the drilling opponent are factually inaccurate

(D) citing as parallel to the argument made by the drilling opponent an argument in which the conclusion is strikingly unsupported

(E) proposing a conclusion that is more strongly supported by the drilling opponent's evidence than is the conclusion offered by the drilling opponent

PT35, S1, Q11

Linguist: Some people have understood certain studies as showing that bilingual children have a reduced “conceptual map” because bilingualism overstresses the child's linguistic capacities. Vocabulary tests taken by bilingual children appear to show that these children tend to have a smaller vocabulary than do most children of the same age group. But these studies are deeply flawed since the tests were given in only one language. Dual-language tests revealed that the children often expressed a given concept with a word from only one of their two languages.

The linguist's argument proceeds by

(A) offering evidence for the advantages of bilingualism over monolingualism

(B) pointing out an inconsistency in the view that bilingualism overstresses a child's linguistic capacities

(C) offering evidence that undermines the use of any vocabulary test to provide information about a child's conceptual map

(D) providing a different explanation for the apparent advantages of bilingualism from the explanation suggested by the results of certain studies

(E) pointing out a methodological error in the technique used to obtain the purported evidence of a problem with bilingualism

Analyze Argument Structure Questions on the LSAT

The ability to think about an argument in terms of structure is a necessary tool for all test-takers who want to get a top score. Approximately 15 percent of all Logical Reasoning questions will directly test your ability to analyze the structure of an argument.

Fortunately for us, we've been thinking about argument structure from the beginning of the book. Argument structure can simply be thought of as the organization of background information, supporting premises, and opposing points relative to a main conclusion, and we've needed to consider this structure for all Assumption Family questions.

Analyze Argument Structure questions do differ just a bit from Assumption Family questions, and we'll review these differences later. For now, let's use the following example to review the different components that make up the structure of an argument.

The Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) is an exam that tests certain logical instincts and processing abilities. The LSAT is a useful and necessary tool for the law school admissions process. Some critics disagree with the use of the LSAT in admissions decisions. They argue that the exam is culturally biased, and bears no direct relation to the process of being a lawyer. Though the test is imperfect, as all standardized tests are, it is necessary and useful because, without it, admissions officers would have no objective way to compare applicants from different backgrounds. After all, grading standards vary from university to university, and placing value on life or work experience is a highly subjective enterprise.

The Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) is an exam that tests certain logical instincts and processing abilities.	BACKGROUND INFORMATION
	Background information helps the reader become more familiar with the subject matter of the argument. Background information is often necessary for the reader to understand and contextualize the argument being made.
The LSAT is a useful and necessary tool for the law school admissions process.	THE CONCLUSION
	The conclusion is the main point of an argument. It is always a claim of some sort, and therefore it is always subjective. If there are multiple claims made in an argument, the conclusion is always the ultimate, or final, effect of those claims. Another way to think about the conclusion is that it is always last in the chain of logic. Identifying the correct conclusion is the most important step involved in correctly understanding argument structure.
Some critics disagree with the use of the LSAT in admissions decisions.	OPPOSING POINT
	An opposing point is an opinion, or support for an opinion, that runs counter to the main conclusion of the argument.
They argue that the exam is culturally biased, and bears no direct relation to the process of being a lawyer.
Though the test is imperfect…
…without it, admissions officers would have no objective way to compare applicants from different backgrounds.	INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION
	Intermediate conclusions are conclusions that are used to support the main conclusion. Note that this conclusion is NOT the main point of the argument.
After all, grading standards vary from university to university, and placing value on life or work experience is a highly subjective enterprise.	SUPPORTING PREMISE
	Supporting premises present information that supports, in a direct or indirect way, the main conclusion of an argument.

Intermediate Conclusions, Supporting Premises, and Main Conclusions

Differentiating between intermediate conclusions and supporting premises can be messy, and it is generally unnecessary. There is great overlap between those two roles—after all, intermediate conclusions always support the main conclusion. One can think of an intermediate conclusion as any supporting premise that has two characteristics—it is a claim of some sort, and it is supported by other premises in the argument.

It is imperative that you correctly differentiate between intermediate conclusions and the main conclusion of an argument. Remember, the main conclusion will always be last in the chain of logic.

Let's look at a visual representation of the relationship between the supporting evidence, the intermediate conclusion, and the main conclusion of our argument.

On your LSAT exam, you'll see four different question types that will require you to understand the structure of an argument: (1) Identify the Conclusion of an argument, (2) Determine the Function of a component of an argument, (3) Identify the Disagreement between two people in a conversation, and (4) summarize the Procedure used by the author of an argument. Let's discuss each in depth.

Identify the Conclusion Questions

Identify the Conclusion questions ask you to identify the main point, or final conclusion, of an argument. These questions can be made easier if you keep a few key points in mind:

1. Always identify the conclusion first! This may seem like an obvious step, but some test-takers might be tempted to read the argument and then jump directly into the answer choices. Remember to take a moment after you finish the argument to make sure that you've correctly identified its conclusion before you look at the answer choices.

2. Stuck in the middle. We mentioned earlier in the book that the conclusion of the argument can appear at the start of the argument, in the middle, or at the end. Typically, it's much easier to spot a conclusion when it appears at the beginning or at the end of an argument. For this reason, when the LSAT asks you to identify a conclusion, they usually bury it somewhere in the middle of the argument, just to make things a bit more difficult on you. Let's look at two versions of the same argument to illustrate:

PREMISE – PREMISE – CONCLUSION:
My electricity bill was $45 last month. I will be out of town more this month than I was last month. Thus, my electricity bill will be less than $45 this month.

PREMISE – CONCLUSION – PREMISE:
My electricity bill was $45 last month. My electricity bill will be less than $45 this month since I will be out of town more this month than I was last month.

In each case, we have two premises that support a conclusion: My bill will be less than $45 this month. The logical structure is identical, and the conclusion comes last in the logical chain each time (each of the premises leads up to, or supports, the conclusion). What is different is the organizational structure. In the second case, the conclusion is buried in the middle of the passage. For Identify the Conclusion questions, you can expect the second structure more often than the first.

3. The author's conclusion, NOT yours. In the next chapter, we'll examine other question types (Inference questions) that require you to infer from information given in the text—that is, to uncover a truth beyond what is literally stated. When a question asks you to identify the main conclusion of an argument, however, you must NOT infer anything at all. Remember, you're looking for the author's conclusion, not yours. Here's an example:

Legislator: We are joining a nationwide campaign to reduce the number of car accidents. In our state, the majority of serious car accidents occur between the hours of 11 p.m. and 4 a.m. Thus, most serious car accidents are the result of drivers being overly tired while they drive.

Imagine you were asked to choose an answer that best represents the conclusion made in the argument. You might be tempted by an answer choice such as: People shouldn't drive if they are overly tired. It makes sense to draw this conclusion based on the argument and based on our outside knowledge, but this is NOT what the legislator has concluded! The legislator's conclusion is: Most serious car accidents are the result of drivers being overly tired. Don't be tempted to draw your own conclusion!

4. Last in the chain of logic. If you have trouble identifying the final conclusion, it's probably because the argument contains an intermediate conclusion that seems like it could be the final conclusion. Earlier in the book, we learned to use the Therefore Test to help determine which point actually comes last in the chain of logic. Here's the example we used previously:

A new lemonade stand has just opened for business in the town square. The stand will surely fail. A local juice store already sells lemonade in the town square, and consumers in the town have historically been very loyal to local businesses. The new lemonade stand will not be able to attract customers.

This argument seems to have two possible conclusions: 1) the stand will surely fail, and 2) the new lemonade stand will not be able to attract customers. There can only be one final conclusion. Again, we can use “The Therefore Test” to identify the final conclusion:

Case #1: The stand will surely fail. THEREFORE, the new lemonade stand will not be able to attract customers.

Case #2: The new lemonade stand will not be able to attract customers. THEREFORE, the stand will surely fail.

We've proposed two different logical statements by changing the order of the two possible conclusions. The first case doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In the second case, however, the first part of the statement clearly supports, or leads into, the second part of the statement. Because the stand will not be able to attract customers, it will surely fail. Thus, the final conclusion is that “The stand will surely fail.” Don't get fooled by intermediate conclusions!

5. Don't be fooled by rewordings of the conclusion. The LSAT will often attempt to disguise the correct answer by rewording the conclusion in the correct answer choice. You should NOT expect the correct answer to be an exact replica of the conclusion as it is presented in the argument. Consider this example:

Many people who work for non-profit companies claim that they are not motivated at all by personal gain. This just isn't true. The executive director of Bright Lives, a local non-profit, makes over $100,000 per year.

This argument has the form OPPOSING POINT–CONCLUSION–PREMISE. If we were to identify the conclusion in this argument, we would point to: “This just isn't true.” However, we can be sure that the correct answer will be written much differently. After you've identified the conclusion in the argument, you may need to clarify in your own mind what the different pieces actually mean. For example, what does “this” refer to? If you remember back to Chapter 2, we emphasized the importance of unpacking this type of “borrowed language.” “This” is obviously borrowing meaning from earlier in the argument. “This” refers to the claim that “the employees are not motivated at all by personal gain.” So, the conclusion actually says:

[The claim made by many non-profit employees that they are not motivated at all by personal gain] just isn't true.

Furthermore, we can probably expect the correct answer choice to be one that rephrases even more. For example:

Many employees of non-profit companies are motivated by personal gain.

Notice that this rewording takes a double negative (“It ISN'T true that they are NOT motivated by personal gain”) and turns it into a positive (“They ARE motivated by personal gain”). Expect that the correct answer will be disguised by a rewording!

Let's apply these concepts to a question that you looked at to begin the chapter:

PT29, S1, Q11

Of the following, which one most accurately expresses the main point of the argument?

(A) The Earth would be far warmer than it is now if certain species of plankton became extinct.

(B) By altering their environment in ways that improve their chances of survival, certain species of plankton benefit the Earth as a whole.

(C) Improving their own chances of survival by altering the environment is not limited to the most highly evolved species.

(D) The extent of the cloud cover over the oceans is largely determined by the quantity of plankton in those oceans.

Last in the chain of logic. Did you start by identifying the conclusion in the argument before looking at the answer choices? If so, did you identify the last sentence of the argument as the conclusion? Be careful! This is an understandable choice, since it begins with the word “thus,” but what about the statement that “this characteristic is actually quite common”? This statement feels like a claim as well. How do we decide which is the final conclusion? We'll use the Therefore Test:

POSSIBILITY #1: This characteristic [species altering their own environment] is actually quite common. THEREFORE, plankton cause the surface of the earth to be cooler and this benefits the plankton.

POSSIBILITY #2: Plankton cause the surface of the earth to be cooler and this benefits the plankton. THEREFORE, this characteristic [species altering their own environment] is actually quite common.

Possibility #2 gives us the correct ordering. The fact that even lowly life forms such as plankton alter their environment supports the claim that the characteristic (species altering their environment) is actually quite common and not just a characteristic of the most highly evolved species.

So the conclusion of the argument is: However, this characteristic is actually quite common.

Stuck in the middle. Furthermore, notice how the final conclusion is “stuck in the middle” of the argument. This argument has the form: OPPOSING POINT—CONCLUSION—SUPPORTING PREMISES—INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION, a common argument form for Identify the Conclusion questions. When in doubt, look for the conclusion in the middle of the passage.

The author's conclusion, NOT yours. Now that we've identified our conclusion, we'll search for an answer choice that best expresses this conclusion. Notice that some of the incorrect answer choices are tempting because they seem like reasonable conclusions that a reasonable person might make. Take answer (A) as an example:

(A) The Earth would be far warmer than it is now if certain species of plankton became extinct.

Given the information in the passage, answer (A) seems right, doesn't it? Remember, though, that we're looking for the conclusion made by the author, not a conclusion that we might infer ourselves.

Don't be fooled by rewordings. We want an answer choice that basically rewords the conclusion we've identified. Answer (C) does just that. Let's compare the conclusion as stated in the argument with the language used in the correct answer:

CONCLUSION: However, this characteristic is actually quite common.

CORRECT ANSWER (C): Improving their own chances of survival by altering the environment is not limited to the most highly evolved species.

Notice the difference in wording. In order to see that these actually say the same thing, we need to do some translating.

The conclusion contains some tricky language. The “characteristic” referred to is: the tendency for species to alter their environment in order to aid their own survival. Let's rewrite the original conclusion to make this clear:

CONCLUSION REWRITTEN: The tendency for species to alter their environment in order to aid their own survival is actually quite common.

The wording of the correct answer (C) presents its own challenges. The answer uses the negatively phrased “not limited to the most highly evolved species” to stand in for “common.” If the characteristic is “not limited to” certain species, then this characteristic is “common.” Let's rewrite it:

CORRECT ANSWER (C) REWRITTEN: Improving their own chances of survival by altering the environment is common.

Now let's compare our rewritten sentences:

CONCLUSION REWRITTEN: The tendency for species to alter their environment in order to aid their own survival is actually quite common.

CORRECT ANSWER (C) REWRITTEN: Improving their own chances of survival by altering the environment is common.

The initial differences boil down to simple rewordings. While the correct answer uses different words from the conclusion, they mean the same thing. (NOTE: You wouldn't want to spend the time on the exam to write out these rewordings, but you do want to compare and contrast the phrasing used to see if they say the same things using different words.)

Okay, now let's try it out on another one. Give yourself 1:20.

PT29, S4, Q6

Some judges complain about statutes that specify mandatory minimum sentences for criminal offenses. These legal restrictions, they complain, are too mechanical and prevent judges from deciding when a given individual can or cannot be rehabilitated. But that is precisely why mandatory minimum sentences are necessary. History amply demonstrates that when people are free to use their own judgment they invariably believe themselves to act wisely when in fact they are often arbitrary and irrational. There is no reason to think that judges are an exception to this rule.

Which one of the following sentences most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

(A) People believe that they have good judgment but never do.

(B) Mandatory minimum sentences are too mechanical and reduce judicial discretion.

(E) Mandatory minimum sentences are needed to help prevent judicial arbitrariness.

Once again, we want to remember to identify the conclusion in the argument before we evaluate the answer choices. Once again, we have multiple claims we have to choose between:

Claim 1: Mandatory minimum sentences are necessary to prevent judges from deciding…

Claim 2: When free to use their own judgment, people invariably…act in an arbitrary and irrational manner.

Which of these is a consequence of the other? Are judges acting arbitrarily because mandatory minimum sentences are necessary? No, that doesn't make sense. Are mandatory minimum sentences necessary because judges are acting arbitrarily? That makes a lot more sense, and so we want to take Claim number 1 as our conclusion. Notice, once again, that the conclusion comes in the middle of the argument.

Let's evaluate each of the answer choices relative to our conclusion.

Conclusion: Mandatory minimum sentences are necessary to prevent judges from deciding when a given individual can or cannot be rehabilitated.

(A) People believe that they have good judgment but never do.

This is not the final conclusion. Furthermore, the “never” is stronger than what the argument presents.

(B) Mandatory minimum sentences are too mechanical and reduce judicial discretion.

This is given as a potential criticism, but it is not the main point.

This answer is actually the opposite of what the author seems to feel.

(D) Judges are often arbitrary and irrational.

This is a nice representation of the second claim, and, as such, probably the most attractive wrong answer. However, as we've discussed, this is not the author's main, or final, point.

(E) Mandatory minimum sentences are needed to help prevent judicial arbitrariness.

This is the correct answer. It's a very close match to the conclusion in the argument.

As we've discussed earlier, it is common that the test writers try to challenge us by using relative pronouns in the actual conclusion. In the above example, we had “that” in the place of judges deciding when a given individual can or cannot be rehabilitated. On the exam, once we've found an answer we like, we want to make sure to check any “this” or “that” from the conclusion of the argument against that answer to make sure there hasn't been any significant change in what the pronoun represents.

Determine the Function Questions

Determine the Function questions require you to correctly identify the role a specific part of the argument plays. Keep the following in mind as you work to determine the function of an argument component.

1. Identify the conclusion first. Without knowing the conclusion, it's virtually impossible to assign a function to any other part of the argument. Thus, always start by identifying the conclusion.

2. Relate the element in question to the conclusion. Does it support the conclusion, or does it oppose it? Is it the conclusion?

Let's take a look back at a question from the Getting Familiar Section:

PT36, S3, Q6

The claim that foreign capital funneled into the economy would cause inflation plays which one of the following roles in the government official's argument?

(A) It supports the claim that the official's country must someday be agriculturally self-sufficient.

(B) It supports the claim that there is no easy solution to the problem of chronic food shortages in the official's country.

(D) It supports the claim that donations of food from other countries will not end the chronic food shortages in the official's country.

(E) It is supported by the claim that food producers and suppliers in the official's country may be forced out of business by donations of food from other countries.

In order to understand the role played by any part of the argument, we must first identify the author's main point, or conclusion. In this argument, there are multiple claims being made. Let's review them here:

A satisfactory way of eliminating chronic food shortages in our country is not easily achievable.

Direct aid from other countries in the form of food shipments tends to undermine our prospects for long-term agricultural self-sufficiency.

If external sources of food are delivered effectively by external institutions, local food producers and suppliers are forced out of business.

Foreign capital funneled to long-term development projects would inject so much cash into our economy that inflation would drive the price of food beyond the reach of most of our citizens.

Which one of these is the ultimate conclusion? We are typically looking for something that generalizes, and we are always looking for something that comes last in a chain of reasoning. In this case, the first claim has both of those characteristics.

Let's imagine you saw the above argument on the exam and weren't certain about the conclusion. Perhaps you think another claim could be the final claim in the chain of reasoning. How can you verify? Remember, the Therefore Test can be a great tool. Let's use it to compare the first claim with the one mentioned in the question stem.

Which relationship makes more sense?

Scenario #1: Eliminating chronic food shortages in our country is not easily achievable. THEREFORE, foreign capital would drive the price of food beyond the reach of most of our citizens.

Scenario #2: Foreign capital would drive the price of food beyond the reach of most of our citizens. THEREFORE, eliminating chronic food shortages in our country is not easily achievable.

In terms of an order of reasoning, scenario #2 makes a lot more sense, and we can see, therefore, that the part of the argument that's in question is meant to support the conclusion that a satisfactory way of eliminating chronic food shortages in our country is not easily achievable.

Let's evaluate the answer choices:

(A) It supports the claim that the official's country must someday be agriculturally self-sufficient.

This answer correctly identifies the role—“supports”—but incorrectly identifies the actual conclusion. The conclusion in this answer extrapolates well beyond what the argument discusses.

(B) It supports the claim that there is no easy solution to the problem of chronic food shortages in the official's country.

This answer choice matches what we predicted and is correct.

This answer choice brings in an issue—the country must someday be agriculturally self-sufficient—that is not discussed in the argument, and assigns this issue to an incorrect role relative to the part of the argument in question.

(D) It supports the claim that donations of food from other countries will not end the chronic food shortages in the official's country.

This answer represents a misunderstanding of the author's main conclusion. The claim about the donations of food is not the main conclusion of the argument, and it is not what the element in question is meant to support.

(E) It is supported by the claim that food producers and suppliers in the official's country may be forced out of business by donations of food from other countries.

The claim mentioned in the question plays a parallel role to the claim mentioned in this answer—both support the general conclusion. They do not directly support one another.

Here's one more. Remember your process and take 1:20.

PT29, S4, Q15

Ambiguity inspires interpretation. The saying, “We are the measure of all things,” for instance, has been interpreted by some people to imply that humans are centrally important in the universe, while others have interpreted it to mean simply that, since all knowledge is human knowledge, humans must rely on themselves to find the truth.

The claim that ambiguity inspires interpretation figures in the argument in which one of the following ways?

(A) It is used to support the argument's conclusion.

(B) It is an illustration of the claim that we are the measure of all things.

(D) It is a view that other statements in the argument are intended to support.

(E) It sets out a difficulty the argument is intended to solve.

Once again, our first task is to identify the conclusion. In this case, our job is made a bit easier for us because there is only one opinion, or claim, in the argument: ambiguity inspires interpretation. What follows—information about how different people interpret a particular statement—is fact, and therefore cannot be the author's main point.

Fortunately for us, the conclusion also happens to be the part of the argument that is being asked about. Armed with this understanding, we can evaluate each of the answer choices:

(A) It is used to support the argument's conclusion.

We know this answer choice represents an incorrect role.

(B) It is an illustration of the claim that we are the measure of all things.

The statement “We are the measure of all things” is used as part of the support for the conclusion. This answer states a reverse relationship.

This answer would be tempting if we misunderstood what the conclusion of the argument was. Otherwise, it can be easily eliminated. The part in question is the argument's conclusion.

(D) It is a view that other statements in the argument are intended to support.

This is another way of saying that the part of the argument in the question stem is the conclusion, or main point, of the argument. This is the correct answer.

(E) It sets out a difficulty the argument is intended to solve.

It is not a difficulty, and there is nothing the argument is intended to solve.

Identify the Disagreement Questions

Identify the Disagreement questions present you with two perspectives on an argument (in the form of a conversation between two people), and then ask you to find their specific point of disagreement. The two opinions can be directly opposing sides of one argument, or they can be indirectly related to a common argument.

Success on Identify the Disagreement questions depends on your ability to analyze the relationship between two perspectives. Keep the following in mind:

1. Don't infer. There may be hints that the authors have different opinions, or different definitions of a particular phrase, or different ways of seeing evidence, but an answer choice is unlikely to be correct unless it contains elements that are specifically, rather than indirectly, mentioned in the text. This leads to the next point…

2. Identify the overlap! Two people can only disagree about something they each have an opinion about. Most of the time, there is only one point of overlap, and recognizing this overlap will point you towards the right answer.

Take the following simple example to illustrate these two concepts:

Julie: It's really raining hard outside. The school should cancel the football game.

Scott: It's not really raining very much at all. Look! None of the people outside are using umbrellas.

We know that Julie thinks the school should cancel the game because of the rain. It would be very easy to infer that Scott thinks the school should go ahead with the game. After all, he doesn't think it's really raining at all! If we were to make this inference, we might choose an answer such as: Julie and Scott disagree over whether the school should cancel the football game. However, this would be a big mistake on our part. Scott mentions nothing about the game at all, which makes it very difficult to infer his opinion on canceling the game.

Consider the following diagram that is designed to identify the specific point of disagreement:

	Julie	Scott
How much it's raining	Raining hard	Not really raining at all

Cancelling the game	Cancel it!

People outside		Not using umbrellas

While you wouldn't take the time to draw this out on the test, this diagram does a good job of keeping us honest. Of all the topics discussed (listed along the left side), only one is common between them. The only point of overlap is in regard to the degree to which it is raining. Since this is the only point of overlap, it is the only possible point of disagreement. They disagree over how hard it is raining, and our correct answer would represent this.

3. Anticipate the point of disagreement. The two participants in a conversation will likely express their disagreement over 1) the main conclusion, or 2) a supporting premise. In the previous example, Scott takes issue with Julie's supporting premise (the degree to which it is raining). He mentions nothing of her conclusion (cancel the game). If you know that disagreements will most often occur 1) over the conclusion, or 2) over a piece of supporting evidence, you'll have a better shot at identifying the correct answer.

Let's look back at a question you completed earlier in the chapter:

PT38, S1, Q5

Nakai: We should keep the current system as long as we can. The cost in time and money of converting to the new system would be greater than any predicted benefits.

Naima and Nakai disagree with each other over whether

(A) the predicted benefits of the new computer system will be realized

(B) it is essential to have the best computer system available

(D) the current computer system does not work well enough to do what it is supposed to do

(E) the conversion to a new computer system should be delayed

While this question is pretty straightforward, it does illustrate the idea of overlap. The best way to consider the overlapping and non-overlapping parts of Naima and Nakai's arguments is to create a visual representation, as we did before. Again, while you probably wouldn't want to take the time during your actual exam to draw out the following diagram, you would want to keep this representation in your mind's eye:

	Naima	Nakai
Current vs. new system	New will operate more smoothly and efficiently

When to convert	As soon as possible	Wait as long as we can

Cost of conversion		Would outweigh any predicted benefits

In this diagram, we have represented every point made by either of the two conversation participants. While it may have initially seemed as if their arguments were related in many ways, there is actually only one point of intersection, or overlap, between the two: when to convert to the new system. Both participants support their claims with a supporting premise, but these premises do not overlap. Naima uses a comparison of system quality to justify her point, while Nakai cites the cost of making the conversion to justify his point. So in the end, they disagree over the main conclusion.

Thus, the only point of overlap, and therefore the only possible point of disagreement, is when to convert to the new system. Answer (E) is the correct answer.

Notice that some of the other answer choices are tempting because they seem related, and they seem like points of disagreement. Take (B), for example. It seems like Naima would believe that “it is essential to have the best computer system available,” and that Nakai wouldn't necessarily agree with this (especially if it's too expensive). But neither of them ever really addresses this point directly. Don't infer!

Here's another one. It's tough! Remember to find the overlap and don't infer. Give yourself 1:20.

PT33, S3, Q19

Raphaela: Forcing people to help others is morally wrong. Therefore, no government has the right to redistribute resources via taxation. Anyone who wants can help others voluntarily.

Edward: Governments do have that right, insofar as they give people the freedom to leave and hence not to live under their authority.

Raphaela and Edward disagree about the truth of which one of the following?

(A) Any government that does not permit emigration would be morally wrong to redistribute resources via taxation.

(B) Any government that permits emigration has the right to redistribute resources via taxation.

(D) Any government that redistributes resources via taxation forces people to help others.

(E) Any government that forces people to help others should permit emigration.

This question presents us with a higher level of challenge. Each of the five answer choices seems to be related to points made by the conversation participants. We can make our job much easier by identifying the overlap (in our mind if not on paper):

	Raphaela	Edward
Forcing people to help others	Morally wrong; should be done voluntarily

Government rights	Not right to redistribute resources through taxation	Governments do have this right

Emigration		Governments give people the freedom to leave

Notice that there is just one point of intersection: the main conclusion (governments’ rights to redistribute resources through taxation). This shouldn't be surprising. Remember, the overlap will generally occur on 1) the main conclusion, or 2) a supporting premise. Raphaela argues that governments do NOT have this right, while Edward argues that they DO have this right. Each participant uses a supporting premise to support his or her argument, but there is no overlap between these premises.

Thus, there is just one possible point of disagreement.

(A) Any government that does not permit emigration would be morally wrong to redistribute resources via taxation.

This does not address the issue of government rights. Eliminate it.

(B) Any government that permits emigration has the right to redistribute resources via taxation.

This addresses a government's right to redistribute resources (the point of overlap), but it also mentions emigration, which is a topic unique to Edward's argument. Let's put this one on hold for now.

Answer (C) discusses the concept of people helping others (unique to Raphaela's argument) and fails to mention anything about the right of governments. Eliminate it.

(D) Any government that redistributes resources via taxation forces people to help others.

Answer (D) mentions forcing people to help others (unique to Raphaela's argument) and fails to mention anything about the right of governments. Eliminate it.

(E) Any government that forces people to help others should permit emigration.

This mentions forcing people to help others (unique to Raphaela) and emigration (unique to Edward) and fails to mention anything about the right of governments. Eliminate it.

(B) is the correct answer as it addresses the one point of overlap. It does mention emigration (unique to Edward's argument), but this is appropriate. After all, Raphaela argues that NO government has the right to redistribute resources through taxation. Edward argues that governments do have this right, as long as they allow emigration. In other words, the two disagree only if emigration is allowed. Thus, this qualification must be part of the answer.

Procedure Questions

Procedure questions are fairly rare, but they come up frequently enough to warrant a short discussion. Procedure questions ask you to identify the “procedure,” or strategy, used in presenting an argument or responding to an argument. Just as all Analyze Argument Structure questions do, these questions require a strong understanding of how arguments are formed.

Let's review a question you tried at the beginning of the chapter:

PT35, S1, Q11

The linguist's argument proceeds by

(A) offering evidence for the advantages of bilingualism over monolingualism

(B) pointing out an inconsistency in the view that bilingualism overstresses a child's linguistic capacities

(C) offering evidence that undermines the use of any vocabulary test to provide information about a child's conceptual map

(D) providing a different explanation for the apparent advantages of bilingualism from the explanation suggested by the results of certain studies

(E) pointing out a methodological error in the technique used to obtain the purported evidence of a problem with bilingualism

For this problem, our job is to understand the author's method of reasoning, or the manner in which he attempts to prove his point. This problem is asking us to describe something we've become very familiar with: the argument core.

What is the author's conclusion? It comes in the middle of the argument:

But these studies are deeply flawed

Why are these studies deeply flawed?

…since the tests were given in only one language.

Of course, we need to reference other parts of the argument in order to know what the studies are, and we need to reference other parts of the argument to understand why it might be an issue that the tests were only given in one language, and in real time during the exam we want our understanding to be rounded out in this way, but we can also essentialize the core as follows:

tests were given in only one language the studies are deeply flawed

The question asks us to find an answer that represents how the argument plays out. Let's evaluate the answer choices against our core:

(A) offering evidence for the advantages of bilingualism over monolingualism

Close but no cigar. There is comparison of the two, but the author does not present evidence for the advantages of bilingualism. This answer can be eliminated quickly.

(B) pointing out an inconsistency in the view that bilingualism overstresses a child's linguistic capacities

The author is not pointing out an inconsistency in the view, but rather a flaw in the method of testing.

(C) offering evidence that undermines the use of any vocabulary test to provide information about a child's conceptual map

Sure, these answers can all sound alike, but by this point you should be hyper-sensitive to words like “any”—is the author talking about one specific test, or all vocabulary tests? We can eliminate this answer very quickly.

(D) providing a different explanation for the apparent advantages of bilingualism from the explanation suggested by the results of certain studies

The author does not provide a different explanation.

(E) pointing out a methodological error in the technique used to obtain the purported evidence of a problem with bilingualism

This is what the author does. She points out an error in the methods used to gather evidence—the error being that the children were tested in only one language. This is the correct answer.

With this problem, we can see that questions that ask you for the author's method of reasoning are much easier to solve if you have a strong and simple understanding of the core.

Oftentimes, as evidenced by the question above, these questions come with longer arguments, and the test writer tends to make it tougher than normal to identify the core. If you can't see the core completely, that's fine—make sure you focus in on the conclusion of the argument, and use this as a way to eliminate wrong answers and identify the right one.

In our example above, simply knowing that the author's point was that the study was flawed would have made several answer choices—such as (A), (B), and (D)—seem very unlikely to be correct (and in real time you would check each of these against the rest of the argument to confirm that they are indeed incorrect). Plus, knowing the conclusion would have made (E) the clear favorite because it is the only answer that speaks directly to a flaw in the study. It is often true of Method of Reasoning questions that an understanding of the author's conclusion can, in and of itself, help you eliminate several of the answer choices.

The second type of Procedure question asks that we consider how a certain author proceeds in rebutting another argument. Let's look at an example you tried at the start of the chapter:

PT30, S2, Q7

The drilling proponent's reply to the drilling opponent proceeds by

(A) offering evidence in support of drilling that is more decisive than is the evidence offered by the drilling opponent

(B) claiming that the statistics cited as evidence by the drilling opponent are factually inaccurate

(D) citing as parallel to the argument made by the drilling opponent an argument in which the conclusion is strikingly unsupported

(E) proposing a conclusion that is more strongly supported by the drilling opponent's evidence than is the conclusion offered by the drilling opponent

In order to be successful on questions such as the above, it is essential to have a clear and simple understanding of an argument's structure. We can organize the Opponent's argument as follows:

Conclusion: The projected benefits of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster.

Supporting Premises: The oil already being extracted from these areas currently provides only 4 percent of our country's daily oil requirement, and the new wells would only add one-half of 1 percent.

Now let's consider the Proponent's rebuttal relative to the structure of the original argument:

Don't be ridiculous! This doesn't give us very much that is specific.

You might just as well argue that new farms should not be allowed. This is a conclusion that is analogous to the conclusion the opponent reached.

Since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for more than a few minutes. This part is analogous to the premises in the original argument.

So, what do we have in the Proponent's response? We have an argument with the same structure as the original—but one that isn't reasonable. Just because one farm can't feed the country doesn't mean, of course, that no new farms should be allowed. The proponent proceeds by presenting an analogous argument that is obviously flawed.

Answer choice (D) represents this, and is therefore the correct answer.

Let's review the other answer choices quickly:

(A) offering evidence in support of drilling that is more decisive than is the evidence offered by the drilling opponent

The proponent could have done this, but did not. In fact, he did not offer any direct evidence, one way or the other, that related to drilling.

(B) claiming that the statistics cited as evidence by the drilling opponent are factually inaccurate

This is incorrect. The proponent is questioning the use of the stats, not their accuracy.

The proponent does try to point out flaws in the reasoning structure of the opponent's argument, but we have no direct indication that the drilling opponent's argument method is usually legitimate. Perhaps it's always illegitimate!

(E) proposing a conclusion that is more strongly supported by the drilling opponent's evidence than is the conclusion offered by the drilling opponent

The proponent does not present a conclusion that can be related to the evidence presented by the opponent, and therefore this answer cannot represent the correct procedure.

Conclusion

There are four types of questions that require you to analyze the argument structure in one way or another. Here they are again with a list of takeaways for each.

Identify the Conclusion

1. Always identify the conclusion first! This may seem like an obvious step, but some test-takers might be tempted to read the argument and then jump directly into the answer choices. Remember to take a moment after you finish an argument to make sure that you've correctly identified its conclusion before you look at the answer choices.

2. Stuck in the middle. We mentioned earlier in the book that the conclusion of the argument can appear at the start of the argument, in the middle, or at the end. Typically, it's much easier to spot a conclusion when it appears at the beginning of or at the end of an argument. For this reason, when the LSAT asks you to identify a conclusion, they usually bury it somewhere in the middle of the argument, just to make things a bit more difficult on you.

3. The author's conclusion, NOT yours. When a question asks you to find the main conclusion of an argument, you must NOT infer anything at all. Remember, you're looking for the author's conclusion. Don't be tempted to draw your own conclusion.

4. Last in the chain of logic. If you have trouble identifying the final conclusion, it's probably because the argument contains an intermediate conclusion that seems like it could be the final conclusion. Use the Therefore Test to help determine which point actually comes last in the chain of logic.

Determine the Function

2. Keep the sides straight. Your ability to avoid trap answers on Determine the Function questions will often depend on how well you can separate the sides of the argument. Make sure to separate supporting premises from opposing points.

Identify the Disagreement

1. Don't infer. There may be hints that the authors have different opinions, or different definitions of a particular phrase, or different ways of seeing evidence, but an answer choice is unlikely to be correct unless it contains elements that are specifically, rather than indirectly, mentioned in the text. This leads us to…

3. Anticipate the point of disagreement. Generally speaking, the two participants in a conversation will likely express their disagreement through opposing conclusions. However, the participants will sometimes disagree over a piece of supporting evidence instead. If you know that disagreements will most often occur 1) over the conclusion, or 2) over a piece of supporting evidence, you'll have a better shot at identifying the correct answer.

Procedure

1. Know your argument components and how they work to form an argument!

DRILL IT: Analyze Argument Structure Questions

Give yourself no more than 22 minutes to solve the following problems.

1. PT29, S4, Q2

Economist: To the extent that homelessness arises from a lack of available housing, it should not be assumed that the profit motive is at fault. Private investors will, in general, provide housing if the market allows them to make a profit; it is unrealistic to expect investors to take risks with their property unless they get some benefit in return.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the economist's argument by the phrase “To the extent that homelessness arises from a lack of available housing”?

(A) It limits the application of the argument to a part of the problem.

(B) It suggests that the primary cause of homelessness is lack of available housing.

(D) It expresses the conclusion to be argued for.

(E) It suggests a possible solution to the problem of homelessness.

2. PT32, S4, Q1

Yuriko: Our city's campaign to persuade parents to have their children vaccinated ought to be imitated by your city. In the 16 months since the enactment of legislation authorizing the campaign, vaccinations in our city have increased by 30 percent.

Susan: But the major part of that increase occurred in the first 6 months after that legislation was enacted, right after your city's free neighborhood health clinics opened, and before the vaccination campaign really got going.

In responding to Yuriko, Susan does which one of the following?

(A) She denies Yuriko's assumption that Susan's city wants to increase the vaccination rate for children.

(B) She cites facts that tend to weaken the force of the evidence with which Yuriko supports her recommendation.

(D) She advances the claim that a campaign such as Yuriko recommends is not necessary because most parents already choose to have their children vaccinated.

(E) She presents evidence to suggest that vaccination campaigns are usually ineffective.

3. PT18, S4, Q2

Zoo director: The city is in a financial crisis and must reduce its spending. Nevertheless, at least one reduction measure in next year's budget, cutting City Zoo's funding in half, is false economy. The zoo's current budget equals less than 1 percent of the city's deficit, so withdrawing support from the zoo does little to help the city's financial situation. Furthermore, the zoo, which must close if its budget is cut, attracts tourists and tax dollars to the city. Finally, the zoo adds immeasurably to the city's cultural climate and thus makes the city an attractive place for business to locate.

Which one of the following is the main conclusion of the zoo director's argument?

(A) Reducing spending is the only means the city has of responding to the current financial crisis.

(B) It would be false economy for the city to cut the zoo's budget in half.

(D) The zoo will be forced to close if its budget is cut.

(E) The city's educational and cultural climate will be irreparably damaged if the zoo is forced to close.

4. PT16, S2, Q13

Alexander: The chemical waste dump outside our town should be cleaned up immediately. Admittedly, it will be very costly to convert that site into woodland, but we have a pressing obligation to redress the harm we have done to local forests and wildlife.

Teresa: But our town's first priority is the health of its people. So even if putting the dump there was environmentally disastrous, we should not spend our resources on correcting it unless it presents a significant health hazard to people. If it does, then we only need to remove that hazard.

Which one of the following is the point at issue between Alexander and Teresa?

(A) whether the maintenance of a chemical waste dump inflicts significant damage on forests and wildlife

(B) whether it is extremely costly to clean up a chemical waste dump in order to replace it by a woodland

(D) whether the town has an obligation to redress damage to local forests and wildlife if that damage poses no significant health hazard to people

(E) whether destroying forests and wildlife in order to establish a chemical waste dump amounts to an environmental disaster

5. PT33, S1, Q5

A recent national study of the trash discarded in several representative areas confirmed that plastics constitute a smaller proportion of all trash than paper products do, whether the trash is measured by weight or by volume. The damage that a given weight or volume of trash does to the environment is roughly the same whether the trash consists of plastics or paper products. Contrary to popular opinion, therefore, the current use of plastics actually does less harm to the environment nationwide than that of paper products.

The main conclusion of the argument is that

(A) plastics constitute a smaller proportion of the nation's total trash than do paper products

(B) the ratio of weight to volume is the same for plastic trash as it is for paper trash

(C) popular opinion regards the use of paper products as less harmful to the environment than the use of products made from plastic

(D) contrary to popular opinion, a shift away from the use of paper products to the use of plastics would benefit the environment nationwide

(E) at this time more harm is being done to the environment nationwide by the use of paper than by the use of plastics

6. PT16, S3, Q4

Bart: A mathematical problem that defied solution for hundreds of years has finally yielded to a supercomputer. The process by which the supercomputer derived the result is so complex, however, that no one can fully comprehend it. Consequently, the result is unacceptable.

Anne: In scientific research, if the results of a test can be replicated in other tests, the results are acceptable even though the way they were derived might not be fully understood. Therefore, if a mathematical result derived by a supercomputer can be reproduced by other supercomputers following the same procedure, it is acceptable.

The exchange between Bart and Anne most strongly supports the view that they disagree as to

(A) whether a scientific result that has not been replicated can properly be accepted

(B) whether the result that a supercomputer derives for a mathematical problem must be replicated on another supercomputer before it can be accepted

(D) the level of complexity of the process to which Bart refers in his statements

(E) the relative complexity of mathematical problems as compared to scientific problems

7. PT34, S3, Q14

People's political behavior frequently does not match their rhetoric. Although many complain about government intervention in their lives, they tend not to reelect inactive politicians. But a politician's activity consists largely in the passage of laws whose enforcement affects voters’ lives. Thus, voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that people tend not to reelect inactive politicians?

(A) It describes a phenomenon for which the argument's conclusion is offered as an explanation.

(B) It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent.

(C) It is offered as an example of how a politician's activity consists largely in the passage of laws whose enforcement interferes with voters’ lives.

(D) It is a generalization based on the claim that people complain about government intervention in their lives.

(E) It is cited as evidence that people's behavior never matches their political beliefs.

8. PT32, S4, Q20

Dana: It is wrong to think that the same educational methods should be used with all children. Many children have been raised in more communal environments than others and would therefore learn better through group, rather than individual, activities. A child's accustomed style of learning should always dictate what method is used.

Pat: No, not always. The flexibility of being able to work either on one's own or in a group is invaluable in a world where both skills are in demand.

The conversation lends the most support to the claim that Dana and Pat disagree on which one of the following?

(A) All children can learn valuable skills from individual activities.

(B) All children should learn to adapt to various educational methods.

(D) The main purpose of education is to prepare children to meet the demands of the job market as adults.

(E) It is sometimes desirable to tailor educational methods to the way a child learns best.

9. PT33, S1, Q3

Juan: Unlike the ancient Olympic games on which they are based, the modern Olympics include professional as well as amateur athletes. But since amateurs rarely have the financial or material resources available to professionals, it is unlikely that the amateurs will ever offer a serious challenge to professionals in those Olympic events in which amateurs compete against professionals. Hence, the presence of professional athletes violates the spirit of fairness essential to the games.

Michiko: But the idea of the modern Olympics is to showcase the world's finest athletes, regardless of their backgrounds or resources. Hence, professionals should be allowed to compete.

Which one the following most accurately expresses the point at issue between Juan and Michiko?

(A) whether the participation of both amateur and professional athletes is in accord with the ideals of the modern Olympics

(B) whether both amateur and professional athletes competed in the ancient Olympic games upon which the modern Olympics are based

(D) whether any amateur athletes have the financial or material resources that are available to professional athletes

(E) whether governments sponsor professional as well as amateur athletes in the modern Olympics

10. PT37, S2, Q13

Adam: Marking road edges with reflecting posts gives drivers a clear view of the edges, thereby enabling them to drive more safely. Therefore, marking road edges with reflecting posts will decrease the annual number of road accidents.

Aiesha: You seem to forget that drivers exceed the speed limit more frequently and drive close to the road edge more frequently on roads that are marked with reflecting posts than on similar roads without posts, and those are driving behaviors that cause road accidents.

Aiesha responds to Adam's argument by

(A) questioning Adam's assertion that reflecting posts give drivers a clear view of road edges

(B) presenting a possible alternative method for decreasing road accidents

(C) raising a consideration that challenges the argument's assumption that facilitating safe driving will result in safer driving

(D) denying that the drivers’ view of the road is relevant to the number of road accidents

(E) providing additional evidence to undermine the claim that safer driving does not necessarily reduce the number of road accidents

Challenge Questions

11. PT18, S2, Q10

Most people are indignant at the suggestion that they are not reliable authorities about their real wants. Such self-knowledge, however, is not the easiest kind of knowledge to acquire. Indeed, acquiring it often requires hard and even potentially risky work. To avoid such effort, people unconsciously convince themselves that they want what society says they should want.

The main point of the argument is that

(A) acquiring self-knowledge can be risky

(B) knowledge of what one really wants is not as desirable as it is usually thought to be

(D) people usually avoid making difficult decisions

(E) people are not necessarily reliable authorities about what they really want

12. PT32, S4, Q23

Some vegetarians have argued that there are two individually sufficient reasons for not eating meat—one based on health considerations, and the other based on the aversion to living at the expense of other conscious creatures. But suppose that eating meat were essential to good health for humans. Then it would be less clear that an aversion to living at the expense of other conscious creatures is enough of a reason to stop eating meat.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the supposition that eating meat is essential to good health?

(A) It is used to disprove the vegetarian position that we should not eat meat.

(B) It is used to show that the two types of reasons cited in favor of vegetarianism are independent.

(D) It is used to weaken the claim that the consciousness of animals is a sufficient reason for not eating meat.

(E) It is used to show that there is no sufficient reason for not eating meat.

13. PT32, S4, Q12

Surrealist: Many artists mistakenly think that models need be taken only from outside the psyche. Although human sensibility can confer beauty upon even the most vulgar external objects, using the power of artistic representation solely to preserve and reinforce objects that would exist even without artists is an ironic waste.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the surrealist's argument?

(A) An artist's work should not merely represent objects from outside the psyche.

(B) Artistic representation is used solely to preserve and reinforce objects.

(D) Great art can confer beauty even upon very vulgar external objects.

(E) True works of art rarely represent objects from outside the psyche.

14. PT34, S2, Q22

Sociologist: Some people argue that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism. Critics of such a view argue that more people were executed for theft in preindustrial England than were executed in England after industrialization. But such a criticism overlooks the fact that industrialization and capitalism are two very different social phenomena, and that the latter predated the former by several centuries.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the passage by the point that capitalism and industrialization are distinct?

(A) It is cited as some evidence against the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

(B) It is cited as a direct contradiction of the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

(C) It is an attempt to conclusively prove the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

(D) It is cited as a fact supporting the critics of the view that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

(E) It is an attempt to undermine the criticism cited against the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

15. PT36, S1, Q7

It is widely believed that eating chocolate can cause acne. Indeed, many people who are susceptible to acne report that, in their own experience, eating large amounts of chocolate is invariably followed by an outbreak of that skin condition. However, it is likely that common wisdom has mistaken an effect for a cause. Several recent scientific studies indicate that hormonal changes associated with stress can cause acne and there is good evidence that people who are fond of chocolate tend to eat more chocolate when they are under stress.

The argument employs which one of the following argumentative strategies?

(A) It cites counter-evidence that calls into question the accuracy of the evidence advanced in support of the position being challenged.

(B) It provides additional evidence that points to an alternative interpretation of the evidence offered in support of the position being challenged.

(C) It invokes the superior authority of science over common opinion in order to dismiss out of hand the relevance of evidence based on everyday experience.

(D) It demonstrates that the position being challenged is inconsistent with certain well-established facts.

(E) It provides counterexamples to show that, contrary to the assumption on which the commonly held position rests, causes do not always precede their effects.

SOLUTIONS: Analyze Argument Structure Questions

1. PT29, S4, Q2

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the economist's argument by the phrase “To the extent that homelessness arises from a lack of available housing”?

(A) It limits the application of the argument to a part of the problem.

(B) It suggests that the primary cause of homelessness is lack of available housing.

(D) It expresses the conclusion to be argued for.

(E) It suggests a possible solution to the problem of homelessness.

Answer choice (A) is correct.

The first sentence is the conclusion of the argument. The following sentences provide support for that conclusion. What's interesting about this particular problem is that we are asked to define the role of one phrase within the conclusion. So what does that phrase actually do? By saying “To the extent that,” the author is qualifying, or setting boundaries on, the conclusion. Let's look for a choice that reflects this.

(A) is the one! The key word “limits” is another of saying “To a certain extent.” To part of which problem? The whole problem of homelessness.

(B) is certainly incorrect—this particular phrase does not say anything about the primacy of the cause.

(C) is not quite right. While the phrase certainly relates to the conclusion in an intimate way, it is not a fact (it's not even a complete grammatical sentence) and thus cannot be called “evidence.”

(D) is very close. It is part of the conclusion, but certainly does not represent the conclusion itself, for the main conclusion is about private motive not being at fault.

(E) is not even close.

2. PT32, S4, Q1

In responding to Yuriko, Susan does which one of the following?

(A) She denies Yuriko's assumption that Susan's city wants to increase the vaccination rate for children.

(B) She cites facts that tend to weaken the force of the evidence with which Yuriko supports her recommendation.

(D) She advances the claim that a campaign such as Yuriko recommends is not necessary because most parents already choose to have their children vaccinated.

(E) She presents evidence to suggest that vaccination campaigns are usually ineffective.

Answer choice (B) is correct.

As if we haven't mentioned it enough, focusing on structure is essential to speed, efficiency, and effectiveness on Logical Reasoning problems. First, we must understand Yuriko's argument. If we recognize her argument structure as causal—that she is saying that Susan's city should imitate the campaign because the campaign caused the increase in vaccinations—then answering the question becomes easier.

Susan begins “But” and we can anticipate that she is going to disagree either with Yuriko's conclusion itself, or with the causal nature (the support) of Yuriko's argument. She attacks the latter by citing a possible alternative cause for the increase in vaccines. This is vintage LSAT. We can think of it this way:

Yuriko: The campaign caused an increase in vaccines, so you should do a campaign.

Susan: But free health clinics opened right before the campaign. (So maybe the campaign was not responsible for the increase.)

(A) is an appealing choice. Yuriko does assume this, but Susan does not deny this assumption.

(B) is a good match. Susan does cite facts, and those facts suggest that Yuriko's evidence is not as strong as she thinks it is.

(C) is a poor match. We do not know whether 6 months is a short time, and furthermore, Susan's evidence does not actually do this—rather, it seems to suggest that the campaign may not have been effective at all.

(D) is interesting because the first half is not such a bad match—Susan does seem to suggest that the campaign is not necessary. However, the second half is not supported by the argument at all, as there is no mention of how many parents already get vaccinations.

(E) goes beyond the proper scope with “usually ineffective.” Susan's argument only pertains to this specific campaign.

3. PT18, S4, Q2

Which one of the following is the main conclusion of the zoo director's argument?

(A) Reducing spending is the only means the city has of responding to the current financial crisis.

(B) It would be false economy for the city to cut the zoo's budget in half.

(D) The zoo will be forced to close if its budget is cut.

(E) The city's educational and cultural climate will be irreparably damaged if the zoo is forced to close.

Answer choice (B) is correct.

This argument is a great example of the “conclusion in the middle” structure that we've emphasized. It goes a bit further, in fact, adding premise—premise—premise to the tail end! The key word “nevertheless” is a telltale signal that the argument is turning away from the first statement and into “conclusion” territory.

(A) is the trap answer for folks who believe the first sentence is the conclusion. But notice how the rest of the argument simply takes it as known fact that the city must reduce its budget. In order to be a true conclusion, a claim must have support in the argument. All of the support in this argument, however, is designed to add logical weight to the second sentence, which is the true conclusion.

(B) is definitely the conclusion, supported by the final three sentences of the argument. A quick “therefore” test would settle any lingering doubts about this one.

(D) functions the same as answer (C).

(E) goes beyond the scope of the argument and therefore cannot be the main conclusion.

4. PT16, S2, Q13

Which one of the following is the point at issue between Alexander and Teresa?

(A) whether the maintenance of a chemical waste dump inflicts significant damage on forests and wildlife

(B) whether it is extremely costly to clean up a chemical waste dump in order to replace it by a woodland

(D) whether the town has an obligation to redress damage to local forests and wildlife if that damage poses no significant health hazard to people

(E) whether destroying forests and wildlife in order to establish a chemical waste dump amounts to an environmental disaster

Answer choice (D) is correct.

Notice that it's left unclear whether Teresa actually agrees or disagrees with cleaning up the waste dump. She only states that if it were to be done, it should be done based on particular reasons, and within certain parameters.

So what is the point of disagreement? Is it Alexander's second sentence, that it would be very costly to convert to woodland? No. Teresa doesn't comment on that.

What about Alexander's final point, that we have a pressing obligation to redress the harm we have done to local forests and wildlife? Yes, Teresa does disagree with this, albeit in a somewhat indirect fashion. She says that the only thing that ought to trigger action is the impact it has on people, and that the only result to be considered is the consequence to people.

Let's evaluate the answers:

(A) is something Alexander would agree with, but Teresa may or may not. We don't actually know.

(B) is something Alexander would agree with, while Teresa may or may not.

(D) would be quite acceptable to Alexander—his position is that the town has an obligation to redress the harm done to the environment. Teresa would definitely disagree, so this must be the right answer.

(E) is interesting in that Alexander definitely thinks harm has been done, but he never mentions the word “disaster.” Furthermore, Teresa does not reveal her own opinion about this matter, so we can eliminate the choice for that reason. Her argument simply says “even if” it is a disaster—we don't know whether she believes it is.

5. PT33, S1, Q5

The main conclusion of the argument is that

(A) plastics constitute a smaller proportion of the nation's total trash than do paper products

(B) the ratio of weight to volume is the same for plastic trash as it is for paper trash

(B) popular opinion regards the use of paper products as less harmful to the environment than the use of products made from plastic

(B) contrary to popular opinion, a shift away from the use of paper products to the use of plastics would benefit the environment nationwide

(E) at this time more harm is being done to the environment nationwide by the use of paper than by the use of plastics

Answer choice (E) is correct.

This problem is rather straightforward if you have trained yourself effectively in identifying pivots that lead to conclusions. Remember that “therefore” does not always indicate the main conclusion, but most of the time, as in this case, it does.

The first two sentences are facts that we must take to be true, and the final sentence is a claim that synthesizes these two facts, thus it is last in the chain of logic and must be the conclusion. Though this conclusion may look like another fact, it makes a subtle but important leap in logic. Can you identify a big assumption that the conclusion makes?

(A) is a fact, and therefore not the conclusion.

(B) is unsupported by the argument.

(D) would be a bad answer for an Inference question, as a “beneficial shift” is not at all supported by the argument.

(E) is the conclusion! It has simply been reworded from “plastics…less” to “paper…more.” This kind of rewording is quite common.

6. PT16, S3, Q4

The exchange between Bart and Anne most strongly supports the view that they disagree as to

(A) whether a scientific result that has not been replicated can properly be accepted

(B) whether the result that a supercomputer derives for a mathematical problem must be replicated on another supercomputer before it can be accepted

(B) the criterion to be used for accepting a mathematical result derived by a supercomputer

(B) the level of complexity of the process to which Bart refers in his statements

(E) the relative complexity of mathematical problems as compared to scientific problems

Answer choice (C) is correct.

Bart says the result is unacceptable because the manner in which it was derived cannot be comprehended by humans. Anne says the result is acceptable if it can be reproduced by other supercomputers, and doesn't require that humans fully understand it.

(A) is a tempting choice. But do we actually know what Bart's opinion is about a process being verified via replication? No. And, while we know Anne believes that replication can make results acceptable, do we know whether she believes that replication is required for acceptance? No.

(B) is another tempting choice. Read carefully. Does Anne think that the result must be replicated in order to be accepted? Not quite. We simply know that Anne believes replication allows results to be accepted. This is a bit of conditional logic. While Anne says that replication would be sufficient for this result to be accepted, she does not say that it is necessary.

(C) is better. Bart believes that, since the method used for this result is incomprehensible, the result is unacceptable. Anne, on the other hand, believes that if this result can be replicated, it is acceptable. Bart focuses on understanding as his criterion, while Anne focuses on replication.

(D) is out because Anne does not offer an opinion on the complexity.

(E) is out because science vs. math is not mentioned by either Bart or Anne.

7. PT34, S3, Q14

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that people tend not to reelect inactive politicians?

(A) It describes a phenomenon for which the argument's conclusion is offered as an explanation.

(B) It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent.

(C) It is offered as an example of how a politician's activity consists largely in the passage of laws whose enforcement interferes with voters’ lives.

(D) It is a generalization based on the claim that people complain about government intervention in their lives.

(E) It is cited as evidence that people's behavior never matches their political beliefs.

Answer choice (B) is correct.

This problem presents a good lesson in flexibility. Though the LSAT is filled with predictable patterns, it does pitch us a curveball every now and again. The first and last sentences both seem to state the conclusion, and the “But” does not really represent the same kind of logical pivot we've come to expect from it—here it's merely used to define “activity.” The sentence could begin with the word “and,” a non-pivot word, and retain its meaning.

So let's try assembling the facts to see how they lead to the conclusion.

1. Many people complain about government intervention in their lives.
2. They tend not to reelect inactive politicians.
3. Active politicians pass laws that affect people's lives.

Therefore, voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent (political behavior does not match rhetoric). “Often” and “resent” are rather strong, but the flow of logic generally works. If people do not reelect inactive politicians, we might infer that they reelect active ones, and complaining about something is roughly equivalent to resenting it.

So how does the claim in question relate to the conclusion? It supports it! In the end, this argument is actually rather straightforward, though it may not have seemed so at the beginning.

(A) is not quite right. The conclusion does not tell us why people do not reelect inactive politicians.

(B) is spot on.

(D) is incorrect because the claim in question is not based on the claim about peoples’ complaints simply because the two follow one another in a sentence—rather, they are both claims upon which the conclusion is based.

(E) is too extreme.

8. PT32, S4, Q20

Pat: No, not always. The flexibility of being able to work either on one's own or in a group is invaluable in a world where both skills are in demand.

The conversation lends the most support to the claim that Dana and Pat disagree on which one of the following?

(A) All children can learn valuable skills from individual activities.

(B) All children should learn to adapt to various educational methods.

(D) The main purpose of education is to prepare children to meet the demands of the job market as adults.

(E) It is sometimes desirable to tailor educational methods to the way a child learns best.

Answer choice (B) is correct.

Dana makes the point that a child's accustomed style of learning should always dictate the method (of education) used, and Pat responds by saying, “No, not always.” Pat does not feel that the child's accustomed style of learning should always dictate the method of education used. Why? Because she feels that the ability to work in different ways—on one's own or in a group—is an invaluable tool in today's world.

Answer choice (B) is the only one about which we know strong feelings on both sides. We know for sure that Dana disagrees with this statement, because she thinks the child's accustomed style should always dictate the educational method. We have a strong sense Pat agrees with this statement. We know she doesn't think accustomed learned style should always dictate the educational method, and we know she feels this way because she thinks it's important for children to learn to work in a variety of ways.

(A) is not directly discussed by either person.

(D) goes well beyond the scope of either statement.

(E) is tempting, but not necessarily something they would disagree about. It is something Dana would likely agree with, but not an answer Pat would definitely disagree with.

9. PT33, S1, Q3

Michiko: But the idea of the modern Olympics is to showcase the world's finest athletes, regardless of their backgrounds or resources. Hence, professionals should be allowed to compete.

Which one the following most accurately expresses the point at issue between Juan and Michiko?

(A) whether the participation of both amateur and professional athletes is in accord with the ideals of the modern Olympics

(B) whether both amateur and professional athletes competed in the ancient Olympic games upon which the modern Olympics are based

(D) whether any amateur athletes have the financial or material resources that are available to professional athletes

(E) whether governments sponsor professional as well as amateur athletes in the modern Olympics

Answer choice (A) is correct.

Juan thinks that the presence of professional athletes violates the spirit of the Olympics, because amateurs do not have the financial resources to compete with them. Michiko thinks professionals should be allowed to compete because the Olympics are supposed to showcase the world's finest athletes.

(A) is the correct answer. Do not be fooled by the presence of “amateur.” Juan would say “no” on the basis of fairness, Michiko would say “yes” on the basis of having the finest athletes.

(B) is supported by Juan, but Michiko does not state an opinion.

(C) is not actually supported by either person. Michiko says the games should showcase the world's finest, but does not actually state whether they do.

Juan might disagree with (D) because he does not say that amateurs never have financial resources equal to pros, he just says they rarely do.

(E) is not supported by either person.

10. PT37, S2, Q13

Aiesha responds to Adam's argument by

(A) questioning Adam's assertion that reflecting posts give drivers a clear view of road edges

(B) presenting a possible alternative method for decreasing road accidents

(C) raising a consideration that challenges the argument's assumption that facilitating safe driving will result in safer driving

(D) denying that the drivers’ view of the road is relevant to the number of road accidents

(E) providing additional evidence to undermine the claim that safer driving does not necessarily reduce the number of road accidents

Answer choice (C) is correct.

Notice that Adam's argument is causal! Essentially, Adam says that marking road edges will allow drivers to drive safely and thus decrease accidents (cause accidents to decrease). Aiesha says that drivers actually drive unsafely on roads with marked edges (ballpark: marked edges cause unsafe driving). How does this relate to Adam's argument? We might say that it contradicts Adam's evidence—that marked edges allow drivers to drive safely. With this contradictive aspect in mind, we should go to the choices.

(A) is not quite right. She doesn't argue with the fact that the marked edges give a better view.

(B) is totally incorrect—she does not present an alternative method.

(C) seems good at first glance—“challenge” is a good description. We just have to match the pieces to be sure. Is “Facilitating safety leads to safety” equivalent to “marking edges decreases accidents?” Definitely. This is our answer.

(D) is kind of like (A). This is not quite right. In fact, Aiesha seems to believe the opposite—view of the road is relevant, it just increases, rather than decreases, accidents in this case.

(E) is a tempting choice. Read it carefully. Is that the claim that Aiesha is undermining? Not quite. First of all, she does not even think that the marked edges will, in fact, result in “safer driving,” and we can eliminate the choice for this reason. Secondly, if we did not spot that error, we know that Aiesha's statements support rather than undermine the idea that something (marking edges) does not necessarily lead to fewer accidents.

Challenge Questions

11. PT18, S2, Q10

The main point of the argument is that

(A) acquiring self-knowledge can be risky

(B) knowledge of what one really wants is not as desirable as it is usually thought to be

(D) people usually avoid making difficult decisions

(E) people are not necessarily reliable authorities about what they really want

Answer choice (E) is correct.

This is a tough problem if we are too entrenched in the details and fail to pay sufficient attention to structure. When an argument begins with “Most people/experts/critics” or “Some critics/scientists/economists,” it is often true that we will see a pivot into the main conclusion (but/however, these people are wrong/misguided) and then support for that conclusion; the OPPOSING POINT – CONCLUSION – PREMISE structure is one that is very common.

Here, then, we may identify the conclusion as “self-knowledge about wants is not the easiest knowledge to acquire.” However, this does not appear in any of the choices. Sometimes, on tricky questions like this one, the correct choice is phrased in reference to the opposing point: “[the opposing point] is not true” or something similar. For example, here we could also ballpark the conclusion as “people are not reliable authorities about their wants.”

(A) is an appealing choice, especially if we are looking for a choice that is a simple rewording of the argument's second sentence. However, the “risky” part of this choice is not a good match. The notion of risk and hard work is brought up to support the idea that acquiring this self-knowledge is not easy. Since the function of “risky work” here is to support, then it cannot be the main conclusion.

(B) is also close, but the desirability of the knowledge is not mentioned.

(C) is merely a play on words utilizing concepts from the argument. Whether people can or cannot want is not mentioned in the argument.

(D) is totally out of scope. “Difficult decisions” do not appear in the argument at all.

(E) is very similar to our second phrasing of the conclusion above, and it is correct.

12. PT32, S4, Q23

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the supposition that eating meat is essential to good health?

(A) It is used to disprove the vegetarian position that we should not eat meat.

(B) It is used to show that the two types of reasons cited in favor of vegetarianism are independent.

(D) It is used to weaken the claim that the consciousness of animals is a sufficient reason for not eating meat.

(E) It is used to show that there is no sufficient reason for not eating meat.

Answer choice (D) is correct.

This argument follows a recognizable pattern. When we see “Some vegetarians have two ideas,” we should anticipate a pivot followed by a counter of some sort to one or both of the vegetarians’ ideas. “But” is the pivot, and begins the sentence that the question asks us about. What follows is the conclusion based on that pivot.

It helps if we recognize that a “supposition” is indicated by the word “suppose.” Suppose means “if,” so the argument basically says, “If it were true that blablabla, then it would be less clear that [vegetarian idea #2] is enough to stop eating meat.”

So how is that sentence used in the argument? In a nutshell, it supports the final conclusion, which is to say it helps to hurt vegetarian idea #2.

(A) is a tempting answer, but goes too far. Nothing was concretely disproven.

(B) is actually the reverse of what is true. The author uses the phrase to show that #2 is NOT sufficient, or enough by itself.

(D) is what we said above: “helps to hurt vegetarian idea #2.” The wording of this answer is an extremely roundabout way of saying that the example is meant to show that reason #2 is not sufficient by itself.

(E) is too extreme. One sufficient reason is made less clear, and that's all.

13. PT32, S4, Q12

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the surrealist's argument?

(A) An artist's work should not merely represent objects from outside the psyche.

(B) Artistic representation is used solely to preserve and reinforce objects.

(D) Great art can confer beauty even upon very vulgar external objects.

(E) True works of art rarely represent objects from outside the psyche.

Answer choice (A) is correct.

The phrase “Many artists” is our signal that the author almost certainly disagrees with whatever these artists believe. A sharp test-taker will recognize and utilize this structure to avoid getting bogged down in the messy details. We might anticipate the conclusion to be “these artists are wrong,” or, “models need not be taken only from outside the psyche,” or even “models should be taken from inside the psyche.”

In trying to understand the remainder of the argument, one good approach is to ignore for a moment the qualifying phrase “Although…” and focus on the heart of that second sentence: “using…is an ironic waste.” The derisive language clearly matches our anticipation that the author would disagree with the artists, and this helps us to understand that when the author says “using artistic representation…,” he is referring to what the artists believe. Thus, “taking models from outside the psyche” is equivalent to “representing objects that would exist without artists.” Thus, by using our knowledge of structure and actively anticipating that structure, we are able to understand a near-incomprehensible phrase simply by matching the pieces together. As you can see, this is a powerful and effective way of analyzing tough LSAT arguments.

(A) is a great choice, because the author believes that artists are mistaken to think otherwise.

(B) is unsupported. Representation can be used to do this, but is not only used so.

(C) is an appealing choice. However, it fails to answer the question “representation of what?” The author does not believe that all representation is bad, but that representing only objects outside the psyche is bad.

(D) is out of scope. The argument states that sensibility can do this, but never mentions “great art.”

(E) may be an appealing choice for some, but goes astray with “true works” and “rarely”—two concepts that do not appear in the argument.

14. PT34, S2, Q22

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the passage by the point that capitalism and industrialization are distinct?

(A) It is cited as some evidence against the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

(B) It is cited as a direct contradiction of the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

(C) It is an attempt to conclusively prove the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

(D) It is cited as a fact supporting the critics of the view that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

(E) It is an attempt to undermine the criticism cited against the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

Answer choice (E) is correct.

This is a fun problem because the argument (finally!) sets up a common pattern and throws in a little twist. The argument begins with “Some people,” so we anticipate that the author will pivot the argument and disagree with those people. Things take an unexpected turn, however, when we run into “Critics.” At this point, we must be curious as to which side the author will finally settle on. We find out at the very beginning of the next sentence, which begins with that all-important pivot word “But,” leading into a criticism of the criticism! What we are left with is nothing more than the implied conclusion that the author disagrees with the critics.

Notice how the structure of this tricky argument can be easily seen by focusing on three tiny but important pieces: some people, critics, but.

Now, what is the role of the point mentioned in the question? It's the criticism of the critics!

(A) is incorrect. If anything, the point in question supports that claim by criticizing the critics of that claim.

(B) is wrong for the same reasons. When we know the sides of the argument (structure), we can eliminate choices like this without getting tangled up in heady interpretations.

(C) is on the right side of the argument, but goes too far. The point is designed merely to weaken the criticism of that claim—a far cry from proving that claim.

(D) is tempting, but it too is on the opposite side of the argument. It is not meant to be support for the critics, but rather a counter to the critics.

(E) is the answer. It is the only one that accurately represents the role—the point in question is meant to counter the critics.

15. PT36, S1, Q7

The argument employs which one of the following argumentative strategies?

(A) It cites counter-evidence that calls into question the accuracy of the evidence advanced in support of the position being challenged.

(B) It provides additional evidence that points to an alternative interpretation of the evidence offered in support of the position being challenged.

(C) It invokes the superior authority of science over common opinion in order to dismiss out of hand the relevance of evidence based on everyday experience.

(D) It demonstrates that the position being challenged is inconsistent with certain well-established facts.

(E) It provides counterexamples to show that, contrary to the assumption on which the commonly held position rests, causes do not always precede their effects.

Answer choice (B) is correct.

This is clearly a very challenging question, and we want to begin by understanding the core as carefully as we can.

The author's main point, “it is likely that common wisdom has mistaken an effect for a cause,” is not terribly difficult to find, but it takes some diligence to understand what it means specifically. The cause in question is discussed in the first sentence: eating chocolate can cause acne (notice the close relationship between “common wisdom” and “widely believed”). The author is stating that eating chocolate is an effect that has been mistaken for a cause.

How does the author try to prove this? By saying that studies show both eating chocolate and getting acne may be caused by something else: stress. We can think of the reasoning in the core as follows:

Studies show that stress can cause chocolate eating and acne

Likely that common wisdom has mistaken chocolate to be a cause of acne when it is actually an effect of something else.

This type of issue should be very familiar to you by this point! Many LSAT arguments include mistaken causal claims. However, it's important to note here that our job is NOT to evaluate the validity of this particular argument's reasoning. Rather, it's simply to understand the argument's structure. We want to spend time being careful thinking about the structure laid out above, and we don't want to distract ourselves by worrying about whether the author's argument is a valid one.

We need to keep our focus in order to successfully evaluate what turn out to be some very challenging answer choices:

(A) It cites counter-evidence that calls into question the accuracy of the evidence advanced in support of the position being challenged.

This answer is certainly tempting, but the counter-evidence presented does not call into question the accuracy of the other evidence—more specifically, it does not call into question whether people actually get acne after eating chocolate, nor does it call into question the fact that they report this to be the case. Rather, the counter-evidence is used to call into question the causal connection between chocolate and acne—that is, it calls into the question the interpretation of that evidence.

(B) It provides additional evidence that points to an alternative interpretation of the evidence offered in support of the position being challenged.

Though it is worded in a somewhat challenging fashion, this is the answer we ought to expect, and this is the correct answer. The additional evidence gives us another reason, or an alternative interpretation, for the fact that eating chocolate and getting acne are correlated—they have a common cause: stress. Thus, the argument does exactly what this answer choice claims.

(C) It invokes the superior authority of science over common opinion in order to dismiss out of hand the relevance of evidence based on everyday experience.

This could be a tempting answer, but in order for an answer like this to be correct on the LSAT, the argument would have to literally state something that is very close to “scientific authority is superior to common opinion.” Without a statement like that actually in the argument, this answer requires too much speculation on our part. Furthermore, the author does not dismiss the relevance of the other evidence. Rather, she gives an alternative explanation for it.

(D) It demonstrates that the position being challenged is inconsistent with certain well-established facts.

Another very attractive answer! However, the very big shift from “well-established facts” in the answer choice to “recent scientific studies” (i.e., not well-established) and “good evidence” (i.e., not facts) in the argument should make it clear that this answer is not representative of the given argument.

(E) It provides counterexamples to show that, contrary to the assumption on which the commonly held position rests, causes do not always precede their effects.

This answer choice is about a general idea that causes always come before their effects. The original argument did not depend on the idea that causes always happen before their effects, and the counterexample was not given to show that causes don't always happen before their effects.