medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The public school district claims that its new reading curriculum is responsible for the recent 10% rise in literacy scores. However, the district also reduced class sizes by 20% in the same year. Claim [1]: Smaller class sizes allow for more individualized attention, which is a known driver of academic achievement. Claim [2]: This confounding factor makes it impossible to isolate the effect of the new curriculum. Therefore, the district's claim of responsibility for the rise in scores is unsupported.
What is the logical role of Claim [2] in the argument?
- It is the position the author is defending.
- It is a premise that supplies the raw data about class-size reductions.
- It is an intermediate conclusion, drawn from the confounding factor, that supports the main conclusion.
- It is the main conclusion of the argument.
- It accurately flags the confound, but it is offered to argue that the district should reduce class sizes further.
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