medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A scientist observes that whenever a certain chemical is present in a lake, the fish population declines. She concludes that the chemical is toxic to the fish.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the scientist's conclusion?
- The chemical is a byproduct of an algae species that blooms only when water temperatures climb to levels independently fatal to fish
- Other researchers studying separate species have shown the chemical to be entirely harmless to lake-dwelling birds and to mammals alike
- The chemical also appears, though at markedly lower concentrations, in several nearby lakes whose fish populations remain stable
- The decline in fish was distinctly steeper along the lake's colder northern shore than along its warmer southern shoreline alone
- The chemical breaks down completely within a few short weeks of first entering the water and leaves behind no lasting residue
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