LSAT Explanation PT 37, S4, Q10: Lydia: Red squirrels are known to

LSAT Question Stem

Lydia's argument proceeds by 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Method of Reasoning question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is E. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first summarize and analyze the argument in the passage. Lydia presents an argument about red squirrels consuming sap from sugar maple trees. She states that since the sap is essentially water with a small concentration of sugar, the squirrels must be after either water or sugar. She then reasons that water is easily available from other sources, so the squirrels wouldn't go through the trouble of making holes in trees just for water. Therefore, she concludes that they are probably after the sugar. Galina counters this by suggesting that the concentration of sugar in the sap is too low for the squirrels to get any significant amount of sugar.

The structure of Lydia's argument is as follows:

1. Premise: Red squirrels consume sap from sugar maple trees (observed phenomenon).

2. Premise: Sap is essentially water with a small concentration of sugar.

3. Premise: Water is easily available from other sources.

4. Conclusion: Red squirrels are probably after the sugar in the sap.

The question type of this problem is Method of Reasoning (MOR), and it asks us to identify how Lydia's argument proceeds.

Now, let's discuss each answer choice:

a) Dismissing potentially disconfirming data: This choice would be correct if Lydia had ignored or brushed off evidence that contradicted her conclusion. However, Lydia doesn't dismiss any data that could disprove her conclusion. Instead, she provides premises to support her conclusion. So, this choice is incorrect.

b) Citing a general rule of which the conclusion is a specific instance: Lydia's argument doesn't involve a general rule that applies to a broader context. Her conclusion is based on specific premises about red squirrels and sugar maple sap. Therefore, this choice is incorrect.

c) Presenting an observed action as part of a larger pattern of behavior: Lydia's argument is focused on one specific behavior (red squirrels consuming sap from sugar maple trees) and doesn't present it as part of a larger pattern. So, this choice is incorrect.

d) Drawing an analogy between well-understood phenomena and an unexplained phenomenon: Lydia doesn't use an analogy between different phenomena to support her conclusion. Her argument is based on premises about the specific case of red squirrels and sugar maple sap. Therefore, this choice is incorrect.

e) Rejecting a possible alternative explanation for an observed phenomenon: This choice is correct. Lydia's argument rejects the alternative explanation that squirrels are after water (since it's easily available from other sources) for the observed phenomenon of squirrels consuming sap from sugar maple trees. By eliminating the possibility that squirrels are after water, Lydia strengthens her conclusion that they are probably after the sugar.

The correct answer is E.