hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Many paleontologists previously believed that the extinction of Megafauna was caused exclusively by human hunting. This theory was supported by the chronological overlap between human migration and species decline. Claim [1]: However, new core samples from the Arctic reveal a significant shift in vegetation during the same period. Claim [2]: This environmental shift would have deprived large herbivores of their primary food source. Therefore, climate change must be considered a primary driver of the extinction event.
What is the logical role of Claim [2] in the argument?
- It supplies the causal link that turns the vegetation data into support for the closing claim about climate.
- It states an objection the author later moves to rebut.
- It is the conclusion the entire passage is built to establish.
- It is an intermediate conclusion that rests on its own separately stated sub-premises.
- It correctly describes how vegetation loss harms herbivores, but it is introduced to explain why the original hunting theory arose.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- 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?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- 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