hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A lake-core proxy tracks temperature accurately in modern water of stable salinity. Salinity varied sharply while the ancient core formed, so that calibration cannot by itself establish ancient temperature. A second proxy insensitive to salinity nonetheless shows the same warming interval. The first proxy is insufficient alone, but the warming inference survives on convergent evidence.
The statement that the calibration cannot by itself establish ancient temperature plays which one of the following roles in the argument?
- It is the final conclusion that neither proxy can support warming because the lake's salinity changed.
- It is a premise establishing that ancient salinity remained stable during core formation.
- It is a concession to the modern calibration that directly supports warming before the second proxy confirms it.
- It is an objection supported by the salinity mismatch that the author accepts, then limits by introducing independent evidence.
- It is a premise used to infer that ancient salinity varied, which subsequently validates the second proxy's calibration, across the range represented by the sediment samples.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?