medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
To maintain a healthy aquarium, one must ensure that nitrate levels do not exceed a certain threshold. High nitrates are correlated with algae blooms that deplete oxygen. Claim [1]: Some hobbyists use chemical resins to absorb these nitrates instantly. Claim [2]: But these resins only address the symptom, not the underlying cause of high nitrates, which is typically overfeeding. Therefore, the use of resins is an insufficient strategy for long-term aquarium health.
What is the logical role of Claim [2] in the argument?
- It is an intermediate conclusion logically forced by the mere fact stated in Claim [1].
- It is a premise that gives the reason the author's main conclusion relies on.
- It is a counter-argument the author intends to dismantle.
- It is the conclusion the passage is built to reach.
- It accurately distinguishes symptom from cause, but it is offered to recommend feeding fish less often.
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